This is an archive of past discussions with User:Peacemaker67. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
GA Cup competitors and observers: Get ready, we're about to move into the finals of the inaugural GA Cup! Not nearly as important as another competition taking place this weekend, but significant none the less. No deflated footballs here, though!
Thursday saw the end of Round 4. Out of the 8 contestants in the semi-finals, 5 have moved to the finals. The semi-finals continued to be very competitive. The highest scorer overall was Ritchie333 from Pool B, with an impressive 488 points and a total of 36 articles reviewed, the most of any competitor; close behind was Jaguar (last round's wildcard), with 477 points and 29 reviews. At times, the competition between them was a real horse-race, and exciting for the judges to witness. Both Ritchie333 and Jaguar have moved onto the finals. In Pool A, Good888 with 294 points, and Wizardman with 179 also won slots in the final. 3family6 with 285 points, won the wildcard slot. We also had one withdrawal, due to outside-of-Wikipedia priorities. Congrats to all!
Although there were just 8 competitors, more reviews were conducted this round than in any other round—148, which demonstrates the commitment and enthusiasm of our participants. The most successful competitors, like in all previous rounds, reviewed articles that languished in the queue at GAC for at least five months (worth 18 points). The Boat Race articles were popular review choices again, with almost 20% of the articles reviewed this month.
In other news, we received another report from GA statistics page maintainer User:AmericanLemming. See here [1] for his take on the effect the GA Cup has had on Good Article reviews. He believes that we've made a real difference. AmericanLemming says: "As you can see, ...the GA Cup has done wonders when it comes to getting the oldest nominations reviewed much sooner thanks to the system whereby you get the most points for reviewing the oldest articles." Everyone involved with this competition, especially the competitors, should be very proud of what we've been able to accomplish!
The Final will start on February 1 at 0:00:01 UTC and end on February 26 at 23:59:59 UTC with a winner being crowned. Information about the Final can be found here.
To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletters, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant still competing, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Balkan Campaign (World War II), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Macedonia. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
My internet has been jumping on and off the past couple of days; it's finally working normally again. Will review the article in a bit. Sorry for the long delay. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 20:03, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Uroš Drenović you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ian Rose -- Ian Rose (talk) 13:01, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Sir, you have removed WWI decorations and awards I had added to the Arthur Phleps page. I gave a proper source, the Austro-Hungarian equivalent of the London Gazette, in addition, most of those decorations are clearly visible and can be identified on the photo. Please inform me, why you still removed my additions. I think, his WWI service carries importance too. (Moved unsigned thread started by Africai to the bottom)
G'day Africai, the awards you added are not cited to a reliable third party source independent of the subject. As I understand it, you have looked at the photograph yourself, and worked out which awards are which, then added them. That isn't how we cite awards (or anything else) on WP, and certainly not on a Featured Article. In order to add these awards, we would need a reliable source for each one, not your personal interpretation/observations of a photograph (unless, of course, you are an acknowledged expert ion the field who has published works on the subject. I'm happy for you to list them in a thread on the talk page, but only when each one can be reliably sourced can they be added. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 02:40, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Sir, I had given a proper third party source, the Offiziersschematismus der kuk bewaffneten Macht, edition 1918, a publication comparable to the London Gazette plus page number. The decorations are there. What else do you want? If you give me your eMail address, I will happily send a scan. (unsigned by Africai).
I was under the impression from your edits that you had viewed the photograph and identified the awards from that. If the source lists Phleps as having received those awards, then I apologise. Does it state when he received each one? Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 02:57, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Not that it really matters anymore, but I don't reject peoples suggestions and thank them! I start by thanking them for taking some time to leave some advice, and then, individually respond to each suggestion. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 00:21, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Jonas, we all have our own way of reviewing and responding to reviews. I consider some approaches to be more effective in attracting reviewers and constructive improvements to articles than other approaches, and I've learned that by watching the best reviewers and article writers Milhist has. Not everyone wants me to review their articles, and I'm just fine with that. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 00:45, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask about your opinions and start a discussion, but since you claim to have an unbiased view on the Yugoslav wars subject, would you mind if I ask you a few questions about the Croatian War of Independence?Tmina32 (talk) 21:55, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, I have an account, just forgot to log in. What do you think was the cause and goal of extreme nationalism meetings of Serbs in SR Croatia in 1989. and 1990? There are interesting movies/video compilations of authentic footage from the time, like "Komšije" and "Komšije 2" if you are interested in finding out more about that.Tmina32 (talk) 21:54, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
66th Division
Just to let you know I've now redone the Spring Offensive section as well, and gone over your remaining prose notes - I think I've caught all the ones that weren't removed during the rewrite. Spring Offensive is fairly heavily based on the 50th Division history (1938) but supplemented where possible from other sources - unfortunately these tend not to touch heavily on the 66th. I have a few books in the post which may flesh out a couple more details but I don't anticipate substantial future changes.
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Philip J. Cohen you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jonas Vinther -- Jonas Vinther (talk) 16:41, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Greetings, all! 4 months ago the GA Cup began and now as it comes to a close, it's time to start thinking about the next competition! Below is a link to a Google Form with several questions. We want to here from you what you thought about the GA Cup. Just over half of the questions are required while the others are optional. If you don't want to answer one of the optional questions, feel free to skip it.
Your responses will only be visible to the three judges.
Thank-you to all particpants for making the first GA Cup a success and we hope to see you all come out again for the next competition!
To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletter, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant still competing, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.
I apologize sincerely for not carrying out the review which I have now promised to do twice; too many interesting and decisive things have been happening around me these past couples of days. However, I've managed to cut some time off my night schedule that will allow me to be on Wikipedia for a few hours. Hope you don't mind waiting a bit more. Best, Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 18:12, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Friend, I'm having trouble placing a "second opinion" template at the articles talk page, despite the instructions at WP:GAI. I'm sure you know how to do it, so could you be so kind? Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 21:12, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Maybe I just don't see it, but even that pagehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holocaust_in_the_Independent_State_of_Croatia says that more than 300.000 Serbs died, and 40.000 Jews. But I can't see separate page for the Serbs, or special mention of the Serbs at the beginning of the article, which sounds ridicilous. Count the zeros.
My questions are, therefore: If the Holocaust in ISC can't mention Serbs at the beginning, largely ignoring a big antiserb side of the regime, legislation, executive etz, then where on wikipedia can I read about serbian victims of ISC in WWII? Just on Jasenovac page? Hm...
Somehow, on the page above, all ethnicities are not created equall, and the administrator approves that. OK, maybe the Holocaust is really just the jewish thing, but somehow, even this page became a thing about how Serbs were the nationalists in 1989. Croatia. That is, those Serbs that survived ISC regime 1941-1945.
I don't see a fair representation of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bata Životinja (talk • contribs) 01:19, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Having a big problem with calling it persecution, while Srebrenica is genocide. Serbs in WWII were primarily victims of ISC regime, which had racist laws against the Serbs, and concentration camps with methods such as srbosjek - knife called serbcutter. Neither of those happened in Srebrenica. But the label is Bosnian Genocide. There's actually a page with that name on wikipedia. While this one is Persecution of Serbs. Again, it's not right Bata Životinja — Preceding undated comment added 15:32, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Good morning, I noticed you had made three category reverts. Are you by any means able to expand these articles in order to show that 'Serbian Orthodox Christians' is a defining characteristic for these three people? Marcocapelle (talk) 05:52, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
G'day, the three reversions related to Draža Mihailović, Mihailo Ivanović may have been an overcorrection, but Milan Nedić is also mentioned in the DM link as well as here and here. There is a close relationship between Serbian nationalists such as Mihailović and Nedić and their policies, and the Church. I have reverted my action on Ivanović. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 09:44, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia Maps
G'day Peacemaker!
Thanks for new map are appreciated :) An updated version of the civil administration is in the works and should be up this weekend. XrysD (talk) 11:46, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
The inaugural GA Cup is now over! The competition officially ended Thursday. Congrats to everyone who participated, and especially to our finalists.
The winner of the 2014/2015 GA Cup is Jaguar! He earned an impressive 615 points, despite only being a wildcard in the Round 4. The key to Jaguar's success seemed to be reviewing lots of articles as well as reviewer the oldest nominations; he reviewed 39 nominations in this round. Overall, the key to everyone's success was reviewing articles that had been in the queue for at least three months, which was true throughout the competition. In second place was Wizardman, with 241 points, and following close behind in third place was Good888, with 211 points. Congrats!
Although there were a couple of bumps along the way, the judges have thoroughly enjoyed managing this competition. We hope that the participants had fun as well. The GA Cup was a resounding success, and that's due to all of you. The judges sincerely thank each and every participant, and for the editors who were willing to subject their articles to this process. We learned a lot. For example, we learned that even with meticulous planning, it's impossible to anticipate every problem. We learned that the scoring system we set up wasn't always the most effective. The enthusiasm and motivation of Wikipedians is awesome, and we enjoyed watching what was sometimes fierce competition. We look forward to the second GA Cup later this year.
We reached many of our goals. See here for GA Cup statistics. We made a big difference, especially in shortening the length of time articles spend in the queue, and in reducing the backlog. Overall, 578 nominations were reviewed throughout the competition and a total of 8,184 points were awarded. Everyone involved should be very proud of what we've accomplished through the GA Cup. Stay tuned for more information about our next competition.
There will be some much-needed changes made in the scoring system next time. We appreciate your feedback, and commit to seriously consider it. If you haven't already, please fill out the feedback form here. If you're interested in being a judge in our second GA Cup, please let one of our judges know or click on the tab found in the feedback form.
Again, thanks to all and congratulations to our winners!
Hey mate, just checking a few entries in the Feb contest and it looks like one of yours is actually a redirect - Talk:Yugoslav monitor Morava. You may want to take a look, the infobox title is inconsistent with the article title. Cheers. Zawed (talk) 06:33, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
cold, hard evidence
Thank you for quality articles for Operation Bora, with a focus on history and its people like Pavle Đurišić, offering "only cold, hard accumulated evidence gleaned from archives held the world over, and distilled into scholarly texts by academics" you "would kill to have a cup of coffee with", and for living your username, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!
You were the last to tally up the entries for the February contest. Have you awarded the barnstars and updated the contest totals? If not, I can do it, although somebody else will have to pass out the one for the 2nd place contestant ;-) Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:41, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Hey Peacemaker, are you interested in becoming an administrator? I'd like to give it another month or so of solid editing to allow for more time since your block, but from what I can see, that was an isolated circumstance; in all other areas, you've made massively positive contributions. If there's other times you lost your cool that I didn't catch, you should link me to them (I'm realistic and wouldn't nominate you if I don't think you won't succeed!). Cheers, Ed[talk][majestic titan]23:44, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
G'day Ed. I'm flattered, but I'm afraid I'm too old and cranky for admin work. I've been rapped over the knuckles a couple of times (after significant provocation), but I just don't think I would be a good fit for admin work. Thanks anyway, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 00:29, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Hrabri-class submarine you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:41, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Hello there. Judging by your edit history, it might not be of your best interest, but if you have the time and will, can you provide some input at the Master of Puppets peer review here? Thanks in advance.--Retrohead (talk) 18:23, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Peacemaker67. Please check your email; you've got mail! Message added 04:06, 1 April 2015 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Are you only supposed to add links in the external links section which are considered reliable sources? Huh ... the strikes me as very weird when almost every single film article on Wikipedia include a link to IMDb in the external links section, which is obviously not a reliable source! Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 22:25, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
I can't speak for films, I don't edit those articles. It's worth reading WP:ELNO for guidance. I rarely add ELs for the many reasons listed, the main one being if the material was reliable, it would already be in the article. Sites like axishistory and other fanboi sites are regularly added at EL, and I opften delete them out of hand, as they don't add anything. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 23:05, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
How do I do refs the way you've done at Yugoslav order of battle prior to the invasion of Yugoslavia?
Hi Peacemaker67. I've just added a couple of details over at Yugoslav order of battle prior to the invasion of Yugoslavia, but I can't seem to understand how I use the ref style you've employed there. I noticed it after adding my first ref, and I of course do not want to break with the style you've used. Could you show me how it's done? I've got several more ship refs that I would like to add to the article. Manxruler (talk) 18:01, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
G'day Manxruler. I use the shortened footnote (or sfn) template, which means the citation itself has only the bare information to link to the reference section at the bottom. That way you can click on the citation, it takes you to the footnote section, then if you click on that it takes you to the source itself at the bottom. Theoretically, if you then click on the source, it will take you to the website in question. Alhtough in this case, a subscription is required, so I've just used the website root address. So I've created three "website" sources for the three separate webpages referred to, and a simple citation of Sfn etc. If you like, you could replace the urls with the urls of the actual pages. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 00:24, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because the Wikipedia Library has record of you receiving a one-year subscription to HighBeam. This is a brief update to remind you about that access:
Make sure that you can still log in to your HighBeam account; if you are having trouble feel free to contact me for more information. When your access expires you can reapply at WP:HighBeam.
Remember, if you find this source useful for your Wikipedia work, make sure to include citations with links on Wikipedia: links to partner resources are one of the few ways we can demonstrate usage and demand for accounts to our partners. The greater the linkage, the greater the likelihood a useful partnership will be renewed. For more information about citing this source, see Wikipedia:HighBeam/Citations
Write unusual articles using this partner's sources? Did access to this source create new opportunities for you in the Wikipedia community? If you have a unique story to share about your contributions, let us know and we can set up an opportunity for you to write a blog post about your work with one of our partner's resources.
Finally, we would greatly appreciate if you filled out this short survey. The survey helps us not only better serve you with facilitating this particular partnership, but also helps us discover what other partnerships and services the Wikipedia Library can offer.
We’d like to invite you to participate in a study that aims to explore how WikiProject members coordinate activities of distributed group members to complete project goals. We are specifically seeking to talk to people who have been active in at least one WikiProject in their time in Wikipedia. Compensation will be provided to each participant in the form of a $10 Amazon gift card.
The purpose of this study is to better understanding the coordination practices of Wikipedians active within WikiProjects, and to explore the potential for tool-mediated coordination to improve those practices. Interviews will be semi-structured, and should last between 45-60 minutes. If you decide to participate, we will schedule an appointment for the online chat session. During the appointment you will be asked some basic questions about your experience interacting in WikiProjects, how that process has worked for you in the past and what ideas you might have to improve the future.
You must be over 18 years old, speak English, and you must currently be or have been at one time an active member of a WikiProject. The interview can be conducted over an audio chatting channel such as Skype or Google Hangouts, or via an instant messaging client. If you have questions about the research or are interested in participating, please contact Michael Gilbert at (206) 354-3741 or by email at mdg@uw.edu.
We cannot guarantee the confidentiality of information sent by email.
I added sources in correct manner because Scotti's books are both focussed on Italian fighters and cnj site is helpful site: I will add pages of second book in next days. RespectsPassando (talk) 12:46, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Look chief, read the template instructions, and cite properly. That is all I ask. The cnj site has nothing whatsoever on it that indicates it is reliable. I don't care if you find it "useful", if it isn't reliable, it has no place on WP. Read WP:RS. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 13:11, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
OK, we can collaborate in serenity: I added source in your language and Tuvixer's too but this is not a problemPassando (talk) 13:41, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
PM, I wanted to squeeze in "the armed wing of the Nazi Party that served alongside the German armed forces during World War II", and I made some minor edits. See what you think. - Dank (push to talk) 22:01, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Dan, that got cut from some earlier TFAs, but I think it is worth including. I changed Yugoslavian to Yugoslav, but otherwise I am happy with the changes. I appreciate the (1st Albanian) is clunky, and probably isn't necessary for TFA. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 22:52, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, that was actually the rule before I got there ... in the TFA instructions, it says "no ... alternate names". The idea is that alternate names are more useful when someone is trying to find the article they need than they are when someone just happens on the story on the Main Page, and is looking for a tight, short description of the article. Thx for the change to Yugoslav. - Dank (push to talk) 22:57, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because The Wikipedia Library has record of you receiving a one-year subscription to Questia. This is a brief update to remind you about that access:
Make sure that you can still log in to your Questia account; if you are having trouble feel free to get in touch.
When your account expires you can reapply for access at WP:Questia.
Remember, if you find this source useful for your Wikipedia work, make sure to include citations with links on Wikipedia: links to partner resources are one of the few ways we can demonstrate usage and demand for accounts to our partners. The greater the linkage, the greater the likelihood a useful partnership will be renewed.
Write unusual articles using this partner's sources? Did access to this source create new opportunities for you in the Wikipedia community? If you have a unique story to share about your contributions, email us and we can set up an opportunity for you to write a blog post about your work with one of our partner's resources.
Finally, we would greatly appreciate if you filled out this short survey. The survey helps us not only better serve you with facilitating this particular partnership, but also helps us discover what other partnerships and services The Wikipedia Library can offer.
Thanks 23! I'm (sort-of) getting used to ship articles now, but there are more sources available on the bigger ships than the torpedo boats... Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 21:13, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
.png)
