User talk:Koopinator/Archive 2020

The hoaxer

If at ANI you want to lay out a few more examples of the hoaxer's lying about sources, that may be good. I will try to find some later if I get time, but I may not. But more examples would drive the point home I think.

Thanks for your diligence on this. I've never dealt with hoax content to this extent, but I have come across fringe theory pushing content; by looking at who added it, I have been able to find other fringe content of theirs hiding elsewhere on Wikipedia and remove it too. Even though others years ago had dealt with the fringe users, and prevented much of their junk from getting added or had removed much of it, nobody had sought out and destroyed all of it, and it remained for years. I don't blame anyone for that, since we're all busy on and off wiki, but that is why I do appreciate your diligence.

If any more hoax or fringe cases like this pop up, please let me know. And if you like, I can let you know if I find any hoax cases or more fringe cases like I mentioned above. This is allowed under bullet point 5 of WP:APPNOTE.

Regards, -Crossroads- (talk) 16:12, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your marking of Them Belfast Gypsies

Hello,

I think you have made an error in marking the page Them Belfast Gypsies as one that should probably be deleted due to not reflecting the sources and not passing WP:NMUSIC. You allege that the sources are in Persian but all are in English.

AndrewOne (talk) 19:47, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@AndrewOne: Yes it was an error, thanks for spotting. Mistakes like this happen when i have to investigate a lot of possible hoaxes at once. Koopinator (talk) 19:52, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CLXV, January 2020

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on Jim Mattis

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:56, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

February 2020

Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Bernie Sanders. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Bishonen | talk 13:30, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your question

Yes I have to revert everything by an editor who is evading the block.-SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 14:46, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: IssueICLXVI, February 2020

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D looks at a failed German counterattack in the Battle of Normandy

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:04, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Still cleaning up after the hoaxer

I wanted to make sure you saw this AfD because of your familiarity with his content:

link

Crossroads ^-talk- 06:24, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

March Madness 2020

G'day all, March Madness 2020 is about to get underway, and there is bling aplenty for those who want to get stuck into the backlog by way of tagging, assessing, updating, adding or improving resources and creating articles. If you haven't already signed up to participate, why not? The more the merrier! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:19, 29 February 2020 (UTC) for the coord team[reply]

"Dacom (disambugation)" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Dacom (disambugation). Since you had some involvement with the Dacom (disambugation) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 05:26, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Central Asia

I've already seen in the last months that you have made some questionable additions to Wikipedia articles dealing with Central Asia. In the case of me improving them you should not revert the improvements. What is the purpose of that? Derim Hunt (talk) 11:28, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Derim Hunt: With all due respect, i don't believe that the edits you made to Abd-al Karim were improvements. You may see Abd-al Karim as an illegitimate emir for whatever reason. But none of the sources used in Karim's article say that. The sources state that he was proclaimed emir by a declaration stamped with the thumbprints of men from various different tribes, and that he ruled in the Southern Province. Reflecting that, i wrote "Abd-al Karim was an Emir of Afghanistan whose rule was limited to the Southern Province." Wikipedia is based on reliable sources - if there are no reliable sources that say he wasn't actually emir, then we report that he was emir. And besides that, for what reason do you not see Abd-al Karim as a real emir? He had an army and controlled territory. Sure, he never took control of all of Afghanistan, but neither has the current president of Afghanistan. And it wasn't be the first time that a ruler of Afghanistan tried to assert his rule violently. Or is it because Abd-al Karim had no recognition internationally? In that case, we should also consider Habibullāh Kalakāni illegitimate, he was also unrecognized. I would also note that i had Menkheperre Ini - a different local monarch, in mind when i wrote Abd-al Karim's article. Koopinator (talk) 13:00, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First of all: Except for Kalakani's alleged autobiography (which is not a real autobiography) you do not cite any sources. Only literature, mostly based on accounts by non-natives – in most cases hundreds or thousands miles away. Abd-al Karim was a rebel leader during a short-lived rebellion in a territory which is about 5 % of Afghanistan's territory. There is no reason to call him an emir of Afghanistan. His followers called him an emir. That can be included – but in most territories of Afghanistan anyone will have heard of him. The problem of finding literature in which it is not explicitly stated that he was not an emir is that his "rule" was too insignificant and too short that most authors not even mention him. I will improve the article now so that it is then Wikipedia-worthy. Derim Hunt (talk) 11:43, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Derim Hunt:

"First of all: Except for Kalakani's alleged autobiography which is not a real autobiography you do not cite any sources."

I cite 12 sources in the article.

"Only literature, mostly based on accounts by non-natives – in most cases hundreds or thousands miles away."

A lot of these are scientific papers and history books. These are reliable sources for Wikipedia's purposes. If you know of any native sources, you're allowed to add them. Non-english sources are allowed, too.

"Abd-al Karim was a rebel leader during a short-lived rebellion in a territory which is about 5 % of Afghanistan's territory. There is no reason to call him an emir of Afghanistan."

What part of Emir says that you need to have X amount of territory or X amount of reign length to be an Emir? See List of shortest-reigning monarchs and Taifa of Alpuente. Also, by your logic, should we take Nasrullah Khan, Inayatullah Khan and Abdul Rahim Hatif off of the List of heads of state of Afghanistan? Speaking of that, I have had this type of argument before on that page. I ended up moving Jehandad Khan and Abd-al Karim to a new "local monarchs" section as a compromise after someone insisted they be removed from the list.

"in most territories of Afghanistan anyone (no-one?) will have heard of him. "

The fact that very few Afghans have heard of Abd-al Karim doesn't mean anything, let alone that he wasn't emir. I remember once reading that 99.9% of Americans couldn't name the American Minister of Defence.

"The problem of finding literature in which it is not explicitly stated that he was not an emir is that his "rule" was too insignificant and too short that most authors not even mention him."

I found 12 sources to write the article using English sources alone, and if you're Afghan or if you're familiar with native Afghans, then you should be able to find more. Try typing some related Pashto-language terms into Google Books or Google News.

"I will improve the article now so that it is then Wikipedia-worthy."

What might be an improvement to you might not be to someone else.

I think the problem here is that you have a linear view of history, with one monarch succeeding another - where it's not possible to have 2 monarchs at once ruling different parts of the country. As a result, local monarchs such as Abd-al Karim or Menkheperre Ini have to be "illegitimate" or "fake". Koopinator (talk) 11:45, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As I can see by your remarks you do not know the difference between a source and literature. I guess, you are not a professional historian. Am I right? I don't understand your energy to exaggerate a local rebel leader some kind of king. The article deceives reader who are not familiar with Afghanistan during the 1920ies into thinking that Abd-al Karim was more than a rebel leader. Also informations like "Predecessor Amanullah Khan" and "Successor Amanullah Khan" is just wrong, because Amanullah was in charge of 95 % of the country the whole time. You should refrain from reverting my improvements. Derim Hunt (talk) 15:19, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Derim Hunt:

"As I can see by your remarks you do not know the difference between a source and literature."

Do you? According to Merriam Webster literature means "writings in prose or verse" (such as a history book). With the exception of the first web source from members.iinet.net.au, every source in the article fits this description. And we're using different definitions of source here - I'm using it in the sense of "one that supplies information" which is almost always what "source" means on Wikipedia, while you're using it in the sense of "a firsthand document or primary reference work", or, in other words, a primary source. Besides Kalakani's autobiography, the article is based on secondary sources and tertiary sources. All of these are allowed on Wikipedia.

"I guess, you are not a professional historian. Am I right?"

No, i am not. But that doesn't matter - thing is, if there is no source saying he wasn't emir, then we don't say he wasn't emir. It's that simple. And if you are a professional historian, then consider this - if i, an untrained history enthusiast, can find 12 sources (or literature if you insist) talking about Abd-al Karim, then shouldn't you be able to find even more?

"I don't understand your energy to exaggerate a local rebel leader some kind of king."

Well, i don't understand your energy to take this emir's title away from him, either.

"The article deceives reader who are not familiar with Afghanistan during the 1920ies into thinking that Abd-al Karim was more than a rebel leader."

Aren't all monarchs leaders? Anyway, you need a source or literature to corroborate your view of Abd-al Karim as nothing more than a rebel leader.

"Also informations like "Predecessor Amanullah Khan" and "Successor Amanullah Khan" is just wrong, because Amanullah was in charge of 95 % of the country the whole time."

And what about the other 5%? Clearly, some change of rulership happened, even if only in one province. My version of the article makes it clear that he "was an Emir of Afghanistan whose rule was limited to the Southern Province".

You should refrain from reverting my improvements.

I wouldn't have reverted you if you had responded to my arguments. I waited over 24 hours and when you said nothing, i assumed you had no counterargument.

Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. If there are no sources (or literature) that say he wasn't emir, then that viewpoint is not included in the article. Period. Koopinator (talk) 15:32, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I already thought that you are not a professional historian. You take something you think you have read in a book and ignore any scientific consensus on the issue.

I'm sorry that haven't replied to you within a 24 hour time-frame. But editing Wikipedia is not my job. Writing a PhD dissertation about Central Asia during the 1920s and 1930s is.

Why do you think that Abd el-Karim was emir of Afghanistan? He was considered an emir in the rebel region by his adherents. But nothing more.

For example Senzil Nawid wrote: "Abd ai-Karim was now generally accepted as amir in the Southern Province (...)." She does not state that he was the emir of the whole country.

To sum it all up, it is correct how it is now and you should refrain from reverting it. Thank you for your volunteer work here in the Wikipedia. Derim Hunt (talk) 14:02, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Derim Hunt: I've noticed how you changed Karim's infobox to say "Emir" instead of "Emir of Afghanistan". Do you agree that Karim was an Emir, even if not an Emir of Afghanistan? I think we're close to a compromise here. Do you think we could call him an "Afghan Emir", "Rebel Emir", "Afghan rebel Emir" or "Emir in Afghanistan"? Koopinator (talk) 13:17, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"For example Senzil Nawid wrote: "Abd ai-Karim was now generally accepted as amir in the Southern Province (...)." She does not state that he was the emir of the whole country."

Neither did i, my version said Abd-al Karim was an Emir of Afghanistan whose rule was limited to the Southern Province. I had also put a very large "Southern Province only" near his title in the infobox. Koopinator (talk) 13:55, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as a matter of fact he was a self-proclaimed emir of Afghan nationality. So if you want, you can call him an "Afghan emir". Derim Hunt (talk) 20:49, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, that's great. I'm glad we could finally find a resolution here.Koopinator (talk) 20:02, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CLXVII, March 2020

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Recent external reviews

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 01:51, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WW1 template box

Yello. Just dropping in to comment on your edits at the Theaters of WW1 campaignbox. From what I gleaned you think the Kurd rebellions were part of WW1, similar to the Easter Rising or the Central Asian revolt of 1916. I agree with you and that is true. But then it would not be part of the contemporaneous wars section, which refers to wars that occurred in the timeframe of WW1 (1914-1918) but are not part of it. For example, the Caco Wars in Haiti occurred partly during the war but weren't part of it. Thus, the Kurdish rebellions fall under the Mideast theater, where you can find stuff like the Persian Campaign and whatnot. Hope that clears things up.

And your channel is pretty lit and informative by the way, keep it up. :) 2601:85:C101:BA30:39EB:29A4:9175:7668 (talk) 22:23, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CLXVIII, April 2020

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 looks at the logistics behind the Crusades and the USAF's early Cold War nuclear deterrant

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 05:21, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Jacob Hornberger (April 15)

Your recent article submission has been rejected. If you have further questions, you can ask at the Articles for creation help desk or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help. The reason left by Sulfurboy was: This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. The comment the reviewer left was: Any coverage is from failed campaigns. This does not pass WP:NPOL

Sulfurboy (talk) 14:03, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Koopinator! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Sulfurboy (talk) 14:03, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Jacob Hornberger (April 15)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Sulfurboy was:  The comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Jacob Hornberger and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Jacob Hornberger, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Sulfurboy (talk) 14:04, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sheikh Said Rebellion

I removed the phrase because the next phrase also says Kurds are involved and and it is fairly well explained in the article that it is a Kurdish uprising. Also Kurdish nationalism I didn't see in the source. 147 ff is long way to read but I didn't see nationalism until the end of the chapter. Also if you want "opposing to the restriction of the Kurdish language in education" or the use of the word Kurdistan at all to be termed nationalism...you can do so if you find a source, but I'd not include it. And I moved the source because at another place it was more effective. I also removed a red wikilink for Ismet Inönü (he had a blue wikilink just above). I'll move the source again and remove the red wikilink. The phrase you can then source with an other citation you find.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 17:07, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Paradise Chronicle: I'm not against removal, but unexplained removal of content is very bad form on this site. I'd suggest you give reasons in edit summaries instead of user talk pages, (or use the article talk page and use "Removed, See talk" in summary for more complex things) for the convenience of other editors. Koopinator (talk) 17:32, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Koopinator: ok, this is a good statement. I think this will help me to become a better editor. Thank you for this. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 21:54, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A goat for you!

If this really is the legendary mapping youtuber i know and love, have a goat

BlookyNapsta (talk) 14:21, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@BlookyNapsta: Thank you! Yes, this really is my Wikipedia account. You can find a link to it on my Youtube channel's about page. Koopinator (talk) 14:27, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tysm! I'm one of your kind-of old fans, watching since early 2019 If you dont mind, i'd like to suggest a video on the Mali crisis, since I think it'd fit your usual small rebel crisis type of video content. (talk) 15:32, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@BlookyNapsta: Something like this? Koopinator (talk) 15:36, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Koopinator: Pretty much, I'd like to see your take on it! (talk) 15:39, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CLXIX, May 2020

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D and Hawkeye7 look at fortifications, the German Army, and post-Cold War conflict

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 15:03, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CLXX, June 2020

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D looks at the naval siege of Japan in 1945

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 04:22, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mbunda Kingdom

Hi Koopinator

If you look at early versions of all the articles on the Mbunda, you will see that "1400" refers to a supposed early version of the kingdom in the DRC, before the kingdom migrated south into and across Angola to finally reach southern Angola. People migrate, kingdoms are established and eventually cease to exist — they do not migrate in their entirety as a sovereign entity (not to confused with loss and gain of territory that can create the impression of a moving sovereign entity). Before that, the author (blockd indefinitely) had even added material claiming that the Mbunda migrated all the way from southern Egypt/ Sudan. Check out this version of the article Bunda people. If you compare to what the article loks like today, you will see that Bunda people of the DRC and Mbunda people are two completely distinct people. The material found at the source that you used was commissioned by the political organisation The Mbunda Kingdom Research and Advisory Council for which the author of the old version of the articles worked as chair and spokesperson. All the research was based on oral tradition — yes, oral tradition — from which a history was made up going back centuries. To add to the confusion, here there is a reference to "the 12th and 13th Mbunda monarchs". Not to mention that the supposed area and dates of the original location of the kingdom — according to the early version of the article — clash with the area and dates of the Kongo Kingdom and that the route southwards clashes with the territories of other kingdons in the hinterland, such as the Loango, Lunda etc. It even makes references to placenames that are part of the history of the Kongo Kingdom, such as Kwilu, as you can see here.

So, in the absence of more reliable information, the date of 1700 was taken from the original work where it relates to the presence of the Mbundas in a plausible location at a probable time, such as mentioned here. As you will see, most of the places are not found anywhere (such as Mithimoyi) or are at odds with the narrative of a migration from the western DRC — such as "confluence of Luena and Lyambayi (Zambezi) rivers" — see the map — which means a trek from the west of the DRC to the east of Angola, and then finally to central south Angola, after which there is documented evidence of the migration east into Zambia. Hope this helps. Let me know. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 13:35, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: 2024 United States presidential election (June 23)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Pi was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:2024 United States presidential election and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:2024 United States presidential election, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Pi (Talk to me!) 06:29, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CLXXI, July 2020

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D on Hadrian's Wall and Hawkeye7 on the British military Op-ed: Nick-D on diversity and military history

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 11:45, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Scientology status by country

Hi Koopinator! I've found this info about South Africa: Pretorius Please fill in it in #187E37 on your map. --Andantov (talk) 07:41, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CLXXII, August 2020

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Recent external reviews Op-ed: Nick-D on 1945

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 14:29, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nominations open

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:05, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue Issue CLXXIII, September 2020

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Recent external reviews Review Essay: Nick-D on the Historical Aircraft Restoration Society

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:52, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Milhist coordinator election voting has commenced

G'day everyone, voting for the 2020 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2020. Thanks from the outgoing coord team, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:18, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A little request

Saw your video on the Second Libyan War, I can see its difference from that of the template. Could you possibly do some reforms on the template based on what you've researched on your video? Thanks. BlookyNapsta (talk) 09:01, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not right now, i'm working on the Yemeni Civil War and i hope to release it today. Koopinator (talk) 11:15, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I believe i'm done now. Koopinator (talk) 12:45, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can you made a article about 1940

Please make it That random man (talk) 17:53, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CLXXIV, October 2020

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D on Franklin Roosevelt in World War II and Hog Farm on the Battle of Chancellorsville

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:21, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CLXXV, November 2020

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D & Hawkeye7 look at two aspects of 20th Century warfare Op-ed: TomStar81 on the Unknown Soldiers

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 15:51, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:49, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reversion

I have no problem with your reversion at Dutch withdrawal from the European Union provided that you actually add that citation. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:53, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations for the 2020 Military history WikiProject Newcomer and Historian of the Year awards now open

G'day all, the nominations for the 2020 Military history WikiProject newcomer and Historian of the Year are open, all editors are encouraged to nominate candidates for the awards before until 23:59 (GMT) on 15 December 2020, after which voting will occur for 14 days. There is not much time left to nominate worthy recipients, so get to it! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:45, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CLXXVI, December 2020

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D looks at the war in Ukraine

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 22:49, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Voting for "Military Historian of the Year" and "Military history newcomer of the year" closing

G'day all, voting for the WikiProject Military history "Military Historian of the Year" and "Military history newcomer of the year" is about to close, so if you haven't already, click on the links and have your say before 23:59 (GMT) on 30 December! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:34, 28 December 2020 (UTC) for the coord team[reply]