User talk:Coldstreamer20/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

Archive Note

Everything on Archive #1 is from 2017 to the end of 2018, Archive #2 is for 2019, and Archive #3 is for 2021 till September. J-Man11 (talk) 16:14, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Coming Back

Buckshot06 Bbb23 MPS1992 It has now been almost 3 years since I was originally banned, and since then I've not only learned a lot about wikipedia, but about how and what I used to edit and create. One of the things I've noticed is my lack of proper and credible references. This references issue (according to this talk page) was one of the major issues when it came to making well cited articles, for instance the 29th & 30th Engineer brigades, or the monstrosity known as the Lancastrian and Cumbrian Volunteers. Another issue is the useless/disruptive edits. Although this is a vague topic, sometimes it seems I would make edits on other pages which went un-referenced, or improperly cited. Back in 2017/18 when I was still in school, I didn't really care if I have to be perfectly honest, because I hadn't quite expanded into the full "wikipedia flow". Now that I can see this mistakes, It is clear that I have not only changed as a person, but also as an editor when it comes to both editing and referencing. I hope this gets read, because although when I started off I was (by my standards now) rather horrible, I personally feel I've changed a lot, and would love to be back and add so much more, though keeping the above issues in-mind. Thank you for reading, and hopefully we can work together again.. Another note, I would be willing to work with anyone in-order to get back into the wikipedia editors group, which I loved so much. This includes being able to work only on sandbox/drafts or have edits only approved by select administrators. But, I'm willing to accept this because I feel working together with someone I could remove the old problems and issues I had, and reinstate myself here. J-Man11 (talk) 15:21, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

You were blocked for abusing multiple accounts; trying to pass yourself off as another user, breaching our rules. You have not even admitted that yet; why do you think anyone would be willing to reexamine your case? Buckshot06 (talk) 22:29, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
Yes, you're right, but I feel that works (somewhat) for my case. I do understand how that looks bad, but it shows and I feel, it shows my high effort to show that I've changed, as apposed to just sitting around doing nothing and not improving my status. Again, yes it looks bad, I can see how that happens, but how else would I improve? There isn't really anywhere else for me to show how I've changed and been able to get rid of a lot of the issues I previously had. So, as you asked, I think that my case should be examined because you're able to see how I am (and still need to and want) to improve, or else I wouldn't be-able to work out my issues and problems. As far as "trying to pass yourself off as another user", I never deliberately stated I'm J-Man and am getting around the my ban, I was those 2 times trying to prove that I'm working harder and trying to fix my mistakes. J-Man11 (talk) 00:47, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
You need to *specifically* and *directly* address the fact that you created another username, and attempted to edit under that username. It *COMPLETELY NEGATES*, DOES NOT, work for your case, it DESTROYS YOUR CASE. Until you acknowledge re the other username, all else is b***sh**. I have very little interest in any of your other pleading - you broke our rules. *Specifically* and *directly* address the fact that you created another username, and broke our rules!! Buckshot06 (talk) 05:45, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
You've been continuing to abuse multiple accounts as recently as yesterday. I'm revoking your talk page access for wasting our time. If you're actually serious about re-joining the Wikipedia community and aren't just going to keep ignoring our policies, please read WP:SO, then read WP:GAB, then you can make an appeal through WP:UTRS. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:12, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
If and when you follow, carefully, Ivanvector's instructions and submit a request, I would be very interested to hear why you believe [1] the Home Service Force is "unnecessary." Just as much a part of the Army as anything else!! Buckshot06 (talk) 01:49, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of 1989 Portuguese Armed Forces order of battle for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 1989 Portuguese Armed Forces order of battle is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1989 Portuguese Armed Forces order of battle until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Fram (talk) 13:06, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of 1989 Swiss Army order of battle for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 1989 Swiss Army order of battle is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1989 Swiss Army order of battle (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Fram (talk) 09:44, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Royal Navy Order of Battle (September 1939)

Hello, J-Man11. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Royal Navy Order of Battle".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 13:30, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of British Army Structure Before Army 2020

Notice

The article British Army Structure Before Army 2020 has been proposed for deletion. The proposed deletion notice added to the article should explain why.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

BlueD954 (talk) 07:43, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of 1989 Portuguese Armed Forces order of battle for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 1989 Portuguese Armed Forces order of battle is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1989 Portuguese Armed Forces order of battle (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:09, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Moving Forward

@Buckshot06: and @SmartyPants22:, I'm not touching ANYTHING but my sandbox. What can I do to help remove the scar which has plagued my account here? Again, I'm not doing anything until you let me know here.. I will however list a couple things I have in mind, but just listing them as ideas. (see the sandbox) J-Man11 (talk) 18:20, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Welcome back J-Man. - wolf 17:45, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
Thank you, any help you can provide would be appreciated. J-Man11 (talk) 17:47, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
Hey Jman, congrats on your 1ISR article. I meant to ask earlier, were there any conditions with your ban being lifted? Do you still have a mentor? Or are you free to edit like any regular editor? The only reason I ask is because I've noticed some things and I don't want to see you get in trouble again. Cheers - wolf 11:01, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
Right so I agree. No.1 from what my ban lift reads, and I quote, "accepted your appeal, however, subject to a one-account restriction". No.2 I don't, but would love one again, to transition from this horrible era I've just come out of. No.3 I agree I don't want to get that whole scandal and what not going on again. So, like I said you're right in most areas, and want to move on as you've just seen also. J-Man11 (talk) 14:45, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

You should definitely put your name on the list to seek a mentor, I think it would help keep you on the right path. Meanwhile, I noticed that your new article is very similar to the 1ISR article at the military wikia. Almost word-for-word at some points, and just overall. I would strongly encourage you to do a re-write, asap... you don't need copyvio hassles. (The fact that the wikia page was written by a notorious, well-known perma-banned LTA sock acct, who has steered you wrong before... you don't need that kind of trouble.) Same goes for your Queen's Own Warwickshire and Worcestershire Yeomanry page. I wouldn't submit it just yet, not as is. [Note: I just noticed you had already put it out and received the decline notice while I writing this out!]. Again, to many similarities to the wikia page, which has also been edited by that same LTA sock.

Dont be in such a rush! There is no deadline to get articles out. You just got one out, work on that for awhile. Build it up as best you can. And also, perhaps spend some time at Wikipedia:Articles for improvement. Instead of pushing out your own, new milhist pages, try salvaging an article or three in need of work, on different subjects (something like... a classic motorcycle, vegan pizza, and a river in Sub-Saharan Africa). It'a a good way to learn. Talk to the people there. Work on prose. Find and improve sources. Fix up lay outs & infoboxes and improve images. Put some time in on a few articles there, then you'll bang out a new article about some little known rifle Regiment from WWII like a pro.

But definitely try and get a mentor to help guide you along for while. Go read up on WP:MENTORship again and get your name on the list for adoption. Anyway... this is all just some friendly advice. Take it or leave it. - wolf 18:52, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

I wrote the original articles, and I'm transferring them over and improving them as needed, so kinda confused what you mean by that. And yes, I'm certainly going to look for the mentor option. J-Man11 (talk) 18:54, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
No intent to confuse you, just pointing out some issues. If I noticed them, good chance others will as well. Perhaps you should've made clear that you wrote the original wikia article. Maybe take a look at WP:COPYVIO (and related policies), as well as WP:ATTRIBUTION, to see what, if anything, applies or may be instructive. - wolf 19:58, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
I'll certainly make it clear on the articles that I originally wrote them. Also, would adding the link to the original help in your opinion? J-Man11 (talk) 20:02, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
In my opinion, I don't see a problem with adding a link to the article in the external links section, but don't be surprised is other opinions differ. - wolf 03:24, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
I have just discovered that J-Man11 has been unblocked via some kind of WP:ARBCOM appeal. Can somebody link me to the relevant discussion? Buckshot06 (talk) 09:58, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
@Buckshot06: The discussion was here at AN, and therein contains a link to the ArbCom chat. - wolf 14:29, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: 1st Military Intelligence Brigade has been accepted

1st Military Intelligence Brigade, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

CommanderWaterford (talk) 10:21, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Queen's Own Warwickshire and Worcestershire Yeomanry (March 19)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Robert McClenon was:
Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at Queen's Own Warwickshire and Worcestershire Yeomanry instead.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
There already is an article. This draft is more detailed. The article can be expanded from the draft.
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.
Robert McClenon (talk) 15:55, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
Teahouse logo
Hello, J-Man11! 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! Robert McClenon (talk) 15:55, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Smarty?

@SmartyPants22 mind explaining what 'messed up links and structure, incorrect information, number of other issues' means? Instead of just removing things, maybe let me know what it is so it can be fixed..? J-Man11 (talk) 17:35, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

@J-Man11: My apologies, J-Man, it wasn't my intention to leave you in the dark, but I got temporarily distracted. In a nutshell, the references you added were great, and I will probably (or you if you want to) retrieve those and add them again. However, you completely re-wrote the structure which red-linked a lot of units, along with not linking a load of units; added unnecessary "The"s i.e. "The Royal Regiment of Scotland", as opposed to just "Royal Regiment of Scotland"; you overlinked a bunch, i.e. linking every instance of The Rifles, instead of just the first one; you grouped together two links, i.e. Victoria Barracks, Windsor instead of Victoria Barracks, Windsor and 6th Battalion, The Rifles, instead of 6th Battalion, The Rifles; you added in unnecessary sub-unit structures at company level; you used out of date sources; you added unnecessary long lists of command appointments; you used "armed with [vehicle name] – instead of equipped; and some aspects were just unsourced changes from the current structure. In all honesty, the page was fine how it was before, I cannot see any issues that required such a comprehensive re-write. I appreciate your effort and you trying prove yourself upon your return to Wikipedia, however it was really unnecessary to make such drastic changes. I'm not trying to be nasty or condescending in any way; by all means make the neccesary structure changes (accompanied by appropriate references), however you're just wasting your time re-writing an article for no reason at all. – – SɱαɾƚყPαɳƚʂ22 (Ⓣⓐⓛⓚ) 18:32, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
Sounds good, thanks for the explanation. I worked really hard on finding refs and completely re-writing the structure from scratch myself. I'll take your notes into account, and just add the refs. J-Man11 (talk) 18:34, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
@User:SmartyPants22 is this what you're referring to which is fine?: change to 4 Inf Bde J-Man11 (talk) 18:39, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
@J-Man11: Your references are second to none, if you want to carry on with adding as many references as you can, that would be great. Also feel free to make changes were neccesary. There was just really no need for a re-write. – SɱαɾƚყPαɳƚʂ22 (Ⓣⓐⓛⓚ) 20:41, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
Will do! I'll keep to the individual units.. J-Man11 (talk) 20:41, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
@J-Man11: By the way, great work on 1 Close Support Battalion REME :) – SɱαɾƚყPαɳƚʂ22 (Ⓣⓐⓛⓚ) 20:42, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
Oh, thank you. Again, trying to find a lot of the reliable references, which is hard but very useful. J-Man11 (talk) 20:47, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: 1 Close Support Battalion REME (March 20)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Robert McClenon was:
Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at 1 Close Support Battalion REME instead.
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.
Robert McClenon (talk) 20:37, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 21

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 1 Close Support Battalion REME, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page 4th Armoured Brigade. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:10, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Removal of accounts

@Buckshot06 can I request that my spin-off old accounts be deleted? I don’t want that hanging over me anymore.. J-Man11 (talk) 17:10, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

(If this helps) you can request the history of a user page be deleted using the {{Db-u1|rationale= }} template, but user talk page histories are almost never deleted. (see here for more info) The best way to move forward from socking is to never do it again. - wolf 22:44, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
Well I certainly won't, but I feel like it's a stain on who I used to be, and certainly not a fan of it. J-Man11 (talk) 22:47, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
That was last year (ane you were gone for what? 6, 7 months?) Many people who may have known have already forgotten, (bringing it up again is not helping). You can't completely erase all traces of the past on WP. Best you can do is delete what you can, blank the rest and move forward, using only this account, and making good edits. The less missteps the better, and on that note, have you had any luck finding a mentor yet? As of today, 12 of the available adopters are offering mentoring. You should drop a note on their talk pages. A mentor would be of real benefit for you, help start erasing any 'stains'. (jmho) - wolf 23:08, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
I've not, still looking through the mentorship programme. J-Man11 (talk) 23:09, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
Have you read the arbcom discussion that followed your unblock? Some folks seem to have some issues with how it was handled so unfortunately that might mean more scrutiny on your editing, especially if there are further problems. Your worries seem to about your socking past, but that shouldn't be so; just don't sock again and it will never be an issue. The were concerns raised there about article creation and editing quality. Even the most well intentioned can make mistakes, and you need to avoid those right now, as best you can. That's where a mentor can make a big difference. Anyway, just some friendly advice, take it or leave it. - wolf 00:02, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXIX, March 2021

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

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, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Bulford Camp

Bulford is not a garrison, it's a camp under TidNBul Garrison. – SɱαɾƚყPαɳƚʂ22 (Ⓣⓐⓛⓚ) 21:48, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

It used to be, but not anymore and I've provided the refs for the proof. I will be receiving a confirmed report from the MoD soon, and I'll send that to you. J-Man11 (talk) 22:22, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
I have always understood it to be a camp under TidNBul Garrison (Or officially "Tidworth, Netheravon and Bulford Garrison"). If it has changed it has changed very recently and without a reliable source it should be changed back to Bulford Camp. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 22:24, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
For now I'll request it go back to camp, and once I get my confirmation from the MoD I'll provide it. J-Man11 (talk) 22:31, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
References for TidNBul are here, here, here, here, here, here, and here; with the final reference being from just 4 months ago. – SɱαɾƚყPαɳƚʂ22 (Ⓣⓐⓛⓚ) 22:58, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
Take a look at my page here and let me know what you think. Personally (of course I'm bias in this section), my version is better than the version currently provided. I tried to match @Noclador style on 1989. Current structure of the British Army. J-Man11 (talk) 23:13, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
It appears to have been copied word for word from this website. Also as a correction, as far as I'm aware Merseyside Garrison is based in Liverpool, not Fulwood Barracks. – SɱαɾƚყPαɳƚʂ22 (Ⓣⓐⓛⓚ) 23:16, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
Of course it was copied, I wrote it XD, and yes I'm trying to find a ref for its location, so I'm not quite there yet. J-Man11 (talk) 23:24, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
@Dormskirk just quickly remind me (it's been 2 years ha ha) what do you do? I think I'm thinking about Noclador for the graphics? Or was it you? J-Man11 (talk) 23:11, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi - I am afraid that I cannot help on graphics. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 23:14, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
Ha ha alright, thanks for the clarifications. J-Man11 (talk) 23:15, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

The 10,000 Challenge

Good afternoon J-Man, I hope you don't mind, but I added the articles that you've created over the past few days to the Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge. Any article that has been created and is related to the United Kingdom can be put on there, so if you want to help get the numbers up (it's taken 5 years to get to 6,600 so far xD) feel free to add any articles that you create onto the list (although ideally they have to be start-class or above). Great work, may I also add! Best wishes – SɱαɾƚყPαɳƚʂ22 (Ⓣⓐⓛⓚ) 13:11, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

WP:SMALLCAT again

Do *not* establish categories for anything under ten members -- this violates WP:SMALLCAT. The category guidelines actually say 20, but something over ten has historically been acceptable. Also, even if you were setting it up legitimately, not repeat not 'Signal Groups of the British Army' but 'Category:Signal groups of the British Army' - we never uppercase the second word in these types of categories, because they're plural. Buckshot06 (talk) 07:44, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

@Buckshot06: In J-Man’s defence, I think you’ve misunderstood WP:SMALLCAT. - SɱαɾƚყPαɳƚʂ22 (Ⓣⓐⓛⓚ) 11:08, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
So, for instance, the 'Military units and formations of Gibraltar' isn't needed because there would be like 3 units, instead of others with more pages in that category page? J-Man11 (talk) 12:24, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Also, I wanted to create that cat because signal groups are different than brigades. However, there are only about 5 or so, but you said I need 10, that's my problem.. J-Man11 (talk) 12:27, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
@Buckshot06 Any recommendations, issues, or reports need to make? Like I said, I don't want to repeat the past, so your communication with me to help would be greatly appreciated. I've noticed your comments on the signal groups and cats related to less than 10 articles, anything else needs improving? (also just noticed 'Signal' not 'Signals', that was a small mistake which went un-noticed. In addition the military units and formations established/disestablished dates, good to know. J-Man11 (talk) 01:15, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Signal Groups of the British Army

A tag has been placed on Category:Signal Groups of the British Army requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz Read! Talk! 14:47, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

"Native Names"

@SmartyPants22 It was my understanding the tag "Native Name/s" means the unit/groups title as it appears to the military, for instance 7 Signal Group, 1 Signal Regiment, or 1 LANCS. I didn't think it literally meant it's title in said language. I'm sure I'm mistaken here, but would nickname work in the fashion we're "arguing" about? For an example of what I'm referring to, see here: ARRC Sp Bn (see infobox) J-Man11 (talk) 01:16, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

@J-Man11: For an abbreviation, I usually use use the “identification_symbol” parameter, with the “identification_symbol_label” set to “Abbreviation”. For example see: Solomon Mahlangu Regiment. Best wishes – SɱαɾƚყPαɳƚʂ22 (Ⓣⓐⓛⓚ) 02:00, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
Oh, I completely forgot about that, I'll give that a shot. J-Man11 (talk) 02:01, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
@J-Man11: By the way, you beat me to creating Kimberley Barracks. I started writing that yesterday lmao. I guess I need to speed up lol. Great work anyway! ― SɱαɾƚყPαɳƚʂ22 (Ⓣⓐⓛⓚ) 02:03, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
Well I need more refs still, so feel free. J-Man11 (talk) 02:04, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
Yeh, I’ll add some early history on for sure. ― SɱαɾƚყPαɳƚʂ22 (Ⓣⓐⓛⓚ) 02:05, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 29

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Intelligence Corps (United Kingdom), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Newport.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:13, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Somme Barracks

Hi - Please remember that if you move the article it is your responsibility to redirect the incoming links. They should all individually be redirected to Somme Barracks, Sheffield, or Somme Barracks, Blackburn or Somme Barracks, Shepparton. I cannot find any for Somme Barracks, Blackburn and only one for Somme Barracks, Shepparton, which suggests that Somme Barracks, Sheffield was the primary topic and that it should be moved back to Somme Barracks. (See WP:PRIMARYTOPIC). Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 09:15, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Oh, ok I wasn’t aware, I’ll figure that out.. J-Man11 (talk) 12:36, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
It is probably best to leave it where it is for now, unless other editors object. Just for future reference. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 16:07, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
I do plan on making Somme Barracks, Blackburn soon which is why I did it originally. However I do see where you're coming from atm. J-Man11 (talk) 16:08, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Staffordshire Regiment

Hi - I see that you have created quite a number of redlinks for battalions of the Staffordshire Regiment. Please see WP:WRITEITFIRST#Red-linking in lists which states that "Consensus on how helpful or pointless red links in lists are has been a moving target on Wikipedia for a long time, but including them has a large number of detractors for the following reasons..." These orbats are lists and it seems to me that many of these battalions are unlikely to be notable in their own right. For example it would be better to expand the article on the Staffordshire Regiment rather than trying to write a whole article about (say) the 5th/6th Battalion, North Staffordshire Regiment which was formed in 1961 and disbanded in 1967. I would convert all these battalion redlinks to black links for now. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 10:19, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Peninsular Barracks

Hi - Please can you stop moving articles without discussion. As with Somme Barracks (see my comments above), in my view, there is a primary topic for Peninsular Barracks and that's the barracks at Winchester. If you had looked at the incoming links (and redirected them) you would have seen that. Please read WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. But the key point is please do not move any more articles. Thanks. Dormskirk (talk) 21:39, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

50th Regiment Royal Artillery

Hi - You seem to have again moved an article without discussion. I have always known this unit as 50 Missile Regiment and that recollection is born out by this page. Dormskirk (talk) 18:05, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

All other units are designated in the same fashion, keeping one in a certain way is ridiculous. That means you have to rename all the others to 'Field' and 'Heavy AA', etc. J-Man11 (talk) 21:12, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

I am not suggesting renaming any other articles: I am just suggesting (i) that discussion takes place before any name change and (ii) we use the last known name before it was disbanded. By the way, there are plenty of other articles that do use 'Field', 'Heavy AA' etc. Here is one at random: 6th Heavy Anti-Aircraft Regiment, Royal Artillery. Dormskirk (talk) 21:31, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
That's true, but those are pre-1947 titles so they are fine. I'm referring to post-1947 J-Man11 (talk) 21:54, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
I am not sure what the significance of 1947 is: the last name this regiment was known by was 50 Missile Regiment. Dormskirk (talk) 23:22, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Long story, but pre-1947 (for instance) 153rd LAA Regt became 22nd LAA Regt after the 1947 reorganisation, in 1964 became 22nd LAD Regt, 22nd Reg RA in 1992. So, why wouldn't you just do 22nd Regiment Royal Artillery, instead of 22nd LAD Regt, RA. Same for 50th Regt which went by several designations. J-Man11 (talk) 23:39, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
My understanding of the way that wikipedia's guidelines work is that you just take the most recent name. Dormskirk (talk) 00:02, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
The almost every regiment that @Rickfive has made needs to be renamed, and every TA battalion page should become company pages? That doesn't make sense. My understand was (I even asked @Buckshot06 a while back on names) and he said the title the unit was known by the majority of its life.. J-Man11 (talk) 00:06, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
I am just referring to this regiment for now. It was last known as 50 Missile Regiment but it was also known as 50 Missile Regiment for the majority of its life (it was formed in 1952 and was known as 50 Missile Regiment from 1966 to 1993). But the main point is that these things are decided by consensus: there should have been a discussion before the move. Dormskirk (talk) 01:09, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
Noted.. J-Man11 (talk) 01:12, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

I will move 50 Missile Regiment back to 50 Missile Regiment. Read the *rule,* J-Man11, if you wish to come back and edit: WP:MILMOS#UNITNAME: "When a unit or base has had multiple names over the course of its existence, the title should generally be the last name used; however, exceptions can be made in cases where the subject is clearly more commonly known by one of the previous names." 50 Msl Rgt has been around and serving in BAOR for decades; that supersedes its' Second World War service.

Indeed, Rickfive has been creating his pages, often, at the initial names, but there are, first, all kinds of special 'regiments,' such as the Tyne Electrical Engineers or Tynemouth Volunteer Artillery which deserve special consideration, and secondly, as per the rules, there's good reason to say that many units are best known to history under their World War II designations.
We maintain regimental pages for any regiment that has had regimental status; we don't rename them as companies, though sometimes later history when the regimental lineage/history was carried on only at the company level is attached at the end.
If you wish to start moving around u:Rickfive's pages, start a general discussion with the participation of senior editors; he knows his stuff, generally follows the rules, doesn't need cleaning up after, and is an editor in good standing, which you J-Man11 certainly are not. Buckshot06 (talk) 08:55, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Current structure of the Royal Navy (April 5)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by -noah- was:
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
Nearly all of the sources appear to be primary.
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.
Noah 💬 17:06, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Royal Navy

@Dormskirk and @SmartyPants22 mine helping me out here?: Draft:Current structure of the Royal Navy. Confused on the subject of "secondary sources". J-Man11 (talk) 21:52, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

The sources you have cited here are almost entirely primary sources (i.e. MoD). WP:RSPRIMARY specifies that we should use secondary sources as far as possible rather than primary sources. A good secondary source I recommend when citing British military articles is Charles Heyman's book "The Armed forces of the United Kingdom" but there are others. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 22:04, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
Now, I always thought it was the opposite, as Primary were (and are) considered the most authoritative source of information with regard to MoD stuff. I'll take a look at the Primary Source article, and see what I can find.. J-Man11 (talk) 22:14, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
WP:RSPRIMARY says "Wikipedia articles should be based mainly on reliable secondary sources"; (my emphasis in bold) in some cases secondary sources may not be available and you will have to use primary sources. Dormskirk (talk) 22:33, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
Great work, by the way. – SɱαɾƚყPαɳƚʂ22 (Ⓣⓐⓛⓚ) 00:13, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, but any advise on the RN article in the works? J-Man11 (talk) 00:17, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
Yeh personally, I'd remove all the officer positions and star images, and also remove all the red links (until they are created). – SɱαɾƚყPαɳƚʂ22 (Ⓣⓐⓛⓚ) 18:55, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
I know that's where we disagree a lot, but personally, I think it's a better way of showing the overall command type of unit/command and its officer's rank. This helps to show the size of a unit and explains who these commands are reporting to. I used the same structure here and here. So, getting another view might help both of us here, @Dormskirk and @Buckshot06 any thoughts? For reference, what we're referring to here. J-Man11 (talk) 19:16, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
Leave it as a draft until every current coordinator has specified on the main talk page that he/she's happy with it. Leave out all the star images -- we are not dealing with illiterates. We do not run by how many userspace drafts a just-let-back-in user has inserted star images into.
Apart from the 'current' which you would have to run to keep up with, even if we could be sure of the org to that specificity, as it is actually March 2021 or so, there's the use of primary sources, which is frowned upon -- which is partially why the sourcing is difficult, and the multitude of errors which I've only cleaned up parts of -- Director Personnel and Training, a rear admiral, mentioned three time, once as subordinate to FOST, a commodore; having all the surface ships reporting to Commander Strike Force when actually for day to day they report to Commander Operations (Royal Navy) - and all the other things, like no mention of Commander Air in the QE air group, and assuming that all the ships that have been earmarked for QE's first deployment are permanently under Commander Carrier Strike Group, which is nonsense, etc. Leave it in draft!! Buckshot06 (talk) 19:53, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
Hey hey hey!! I did not say delete it!! If it's really deleted now, that's a shame, because it should have been kept as some sort of draft. Despite the mistakes - numerous - it was a really credible attempt to pull together a current structure, though your knowledge of the Royal Navy has significant gaps. If a copy still exists, I will set up a link to drop it into my userspace to fix it in slow time, if that's OK.. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:02, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
I didn't delete it, see it here: Structure of the Royal Navy in March 2021 J-Man11 (talk) 21:03, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
Nothing is ever really deleted on WP, especially for an admin like you Buckshot. Looking forward to seeing your RN page when it's done J-man. - wolf 21:57, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
Not rushing it, need more secondary refs as stated, and need to figure out a way for deployments.. J-Man11 (talk) 21:59, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
@J-Man11: In terms of deployments, the local newspapers of the ship's homeport usually have good coverage. – SɱαɾƚყPαɳƚʂ22 (Ⓣⓐⓛⓚ) 22:34, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

@Buckhot06 if you wouldn't mind, please don't edit by sandbox, I don't want to lose my mind over stuff which just randomly appears. If you have stuff that's great, just add that to the bottom. J-Man11 (talk) 22:50, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Sure, as you like, but you're not being 100% clear. Don't change your sandbox at all, or, I can add stuff, but do so in a separate section at the bottom of the same page? Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 11:41, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
You can, but add them to the bottom, so I don’t get all discombobulated with stuff being added into areas out of the blue.. J-Man11 (talk) 13:30, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of E (Leicestershire and Derbyshire Yeomanry) Squadron

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on E (Leicestershire and Derbyshire Yeomanry) Squadron requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, images, a rephrasing of the title, a question that should have been asked at the help or reference desks, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 04:36, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Image tagging for File:Queen's Regiment Badge.gif

Thanks for uploading File:Queen's Regiment Badge.gif. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 05:31, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Image?

@Dormskirk you stated on your edit for the Queen's Regiment that "restore image (new image is due to be deleted)". Thought I've been told the image is now fine because I provided the information needed and source, etc. J-Man11 (talk) 13:45, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

OK. Please feel free to insert the new one then. My concern was that the old one one would be deleted because it was not being used, the new one would be deleted because it was inadequately sourced and we would be left with no image. Thanks. Dormskirk (talk) 13:54, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 10

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 6th (Volunteer) Battalion, Royal Anglian Regiment, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Eastern District.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:52, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Image without license

Unspecified source/license for File:4 Yorks Queen's Colours.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:4 Yorks Queen's Colours.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time after the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|cc-by-sa-4.0}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: Once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot (Talk • Contribs • Owner) 15:45, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Unspecified source/license for File:York Volunteers Badge.png

Thanks for uploading File:York Volunteers Badge.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time after the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|cc-by-sa-4.0}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: Once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot (Talk • Contribs • Owner) 15:45, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Difference in Territorials (T) and Volunteers (V)

I used to be horrible at this, but spent around a year of research and have this down pat.. @SmartyPants22 following the formation of the TAVR in 1967, the units in the TAVR III Category held the designation '(Territorial)' and were all disbanded by 1971 and reduced to cadres in 1975 along with new company units. These units (no-matter their corps/title) were all infantry units tasked with home defence/nuclear support. However, those in TAVR II Category (Section A) had NATO roles and held the designation of '(Volunteer)', and these were formed in 1967 or formed part of the expansion of 1971/75. So, the reason I bring this up is because in the example of the Queen's Regiment, the 5th (V) Bn was in the IIA Category, while the 6th (T) Bn (Queen's Surreys) was in the III Category, and therefore separate from the volunteers. Again, in the example of the Queens, the 6th and 7th (V) Bns were formed in TAVR IIB and were formed from elements of the former Territorial battalions, they were not successors to the former. I understand this can be confusing even for myself early on, but now after much research I understand the difference here. Hope this helps, and this is why I reverted your edit. J-Man11 (talk) 23:43, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Hey J-man, you should consider posting to the article talk page instead. That's where article issues should go anyway, other editors would benefit from your research and be able to take part in the discussion. - wolf 09:58, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
WP:BOLDLY copied to Talk:Army Reserve (United Kingdom).. Buckshot06 (talk) 10:31, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Red links

So, way back I remember @Buckshot06 you telling me to keep redlink and screaming at my rather often about it, but now @SmartyPants22 is telling me to get rid of them. Can I just get a straight answer please? J-Man11 (talk) 14:54, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Red links should be included where the page is likely to be created. However, you keep red-linking Army Reserve Centres, and other such like that, chances are, will never be created. For exampple: you red-linked to Edward Brooks Barracks numerous times, a 10 year old Army Reserve Centre that will not have an article on it; you red-linked to 2nd Battalion RGBWR, a volunteer battalion that only existed for 4 years; you linked to the Waterloo Band and Bugles of the Rifles, an army reserve band where a section on the battalion page would suffice– of which you have created one already. – SɱαɾƚყPαɳƚʂ22 (Ⓣⓐⓛⓚ) 15:13, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
There was a time where red links were considered a good thing because the idea was they promoted article creation. But like SmartyPants22 says, some of these red links lasted for years because it was unlikely that any articles would ever be created. So with existing red links, it's a judgement call; keep if you believe an article will be created, remove if not. When it comes to adding red links, WP:WTAF is the way to go. Oh, and no red links in list articles, the main point of such articles is to list existing articles. Red links defeat that purpose. (imo) Hope this helps. (And don't think any less of Buckshot06, I believe that deep down, he is actually rather fond of you) - wolf 16:47, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi - Please see my thoughts on the same subject under Staffordshire Regiment above. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 09:35, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
Endorse SmartyPants22 above, Thewolfchild. Usually regiments get pages; longstanding barracks get pages; but each individual battalion does not necessarily, because the regimental page contains that information. Certainly not for individual battalions of regiments that only existed briefly. 3rd Bn The East of England Regiment would never get a page, the information would be conveyed in the regimental pages of all the applicable regiments. Buckshot06 (talk) 11:46, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:4 Yorks Queen's Colours.jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:4 Yorks Queen's Colours.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:02, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:York Volunteers Badge.png

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:York Volunteers Badge.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:43, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Revamp

@Buckshot06 I'm taking a break from new articles and such for now, and want to ask you what I should work on to improve my very old horrible articles. J-Man11 (talk) 21:19, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Hey J-man, I'm sure Buckshot will have better ideas, but just as a suggestion, have you ever followed an article through a GA process? Find any GA article, (a milhist one if you prefer) and look up the GA process in the talk page history, (sometimes it has it's own article subpage), and check out the problems found and improvements made. That should give you some good insight into article improvements. (jmho) - wolf 22:00, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
What is GA and where do I see them? J-Man11 (talk) 22:05, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
"GA" is Good Article. There are lists of lists of them at the link, but an example of a good article would be Iowa-class battleship. (You can tell a GA by the little green cross in the top right corner; ) An example of a GA review is Talk:Iowa-class battleship/GA1. - wolf 00:03, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
@J-Man11: Hey J-Man, I think that's a great idea- you clearly have a lot of knowledge and using that to help improve existing articles would be great! Here is a list of Military History Good Articles, of which the criteria for can be found at this page. A great example of a recent GA nomination is 46th Infantry Division (United Kingdom); before the nominee started work on it, the article looked like this, and you can clearly see the great amount of work that's been put into it in order to bring it up to GA-class. It's probably best to start with improving a B-class article at first to get you started, which most of the time isn't too far off GA status; however if you wanted to challenge yourself more you could go for one of the many C-class, Start-class, or even Stub-class Mil Hist articles. I know I would, and I'm sure the likes of wolf, and others, would be more than happy in conducting/contributing to a GA-class review on an article you expand, along with answer/assist you with anything. And remember- it's not always about quantity of prose, but quality of what's written and presented visually. Good luck! – SɱαɾƚყPαɳƚʂ22 (Ⓣⓐⓛⓚ) 00:09, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Endorse both. Find the GA nomination that appeals to you the most, whichever one, and go to the lead author's talk page and offer to help him with it, would be my advice. Buckshot06 (talk) 06:56, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Hey Jman, along with Good Articles, there are also Featured Articles (FA) - (those are the ones with the little gold star in the top right corner; ). Anyway, same idea, they go through the "FA review" process whereby the article is reviewed and improved, and hopefully achieves FA status. However, FA is a tougher process. There almost 34,000 GA, but less than 6,000 FA. But the reason I mention it, not only does this potentially give you more variety to choose from, but there is a subset of FA at Wikipedia:Featured lists (FL). One of the FL subjects is History→ Military & Military History→ Orders of Battle. There are currently 12 pages listed there. Thought you might like to check that out, if you haven't already. - wolf 01:12, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Hey Jman, just checkin if you saw this last comment - wolf 05:22, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

COMUKAMPHIBFOR no longer exists

In April 2018 it was announced that the two separate deployable two-star maritime operational commanders (COMUKMARFOR and COMUKAMPHIBFOR) would be merged into a single, larger, organisation.[1] This took place on 1 July 2019, whereupon the incumbent COMUKMARFOR took the title of Commander United Kingdom Strike Force (COMUKSTRKFOR), and responsibility for all the deployable elements of COMUKAMPHIBFOR. The Role of Commandant General Royal Marines remains in existence as the non-deployable head of the Royal Marines and the Senior Responsible Owner for the future of amphibious warfare and littoral strike capability, or Future Commando Force.[2] Buckshot06 (talk) 10:16, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

  1. ^ "Jane's – UK Amphibious Headquarters to Disappear in Merger". 20 April 2018. Retrieved 22 February 2020.
  2. ^ "Future Amphibious Force". BMT. Retrieved 21 February 2020.

File:Ubique Barracks.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Ubique Barracks.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Dylsss(talk contribs) 13:36, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

4th Infantry Division

I have reposted your work in the 1st Infantry Division (Belgium) page. To view the work, search it up on Wikipedia. From Burgundian Feudalism (talk) 15:00, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Oh.. I just realised that was actually for the 1st Division, my apologies. J-Man11 (talk) 15:30, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

J-Man

Hey J-Man, I know we clash sometimes on certain things, but I just thought I'd let you know that it's nothing personal or anything lol. I think you're a great editor with a ton knowledge, the fact that we sometimes disagree is nothing against you. :) Best wishes – SɱαɾƚყPαɳƚʂ22 (Ⓣⓐⓛⓚ) 20:23, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXX, April 2021

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

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) 02:09, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Land Operations Command (Land Ops Cmd)

@SmartyPants22 any help here would be welcome. In addition, I've added it here, and have went though with a FOI(A) to confirm this is new, and its units, etc. J-Man11 (talk) 04:14, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Fantastic start, although I believe this should remain in draft space for a little while yet, just until we gain a bit more clarity over the details. For example, we don't know for sure whether 16X and 1X have officially re-subordinated from CFA and JHC respectively. We also need to wait to gain more reputable sources, rather than LinkedIn pages and the like, as the current "History" section is very specualtive. Furthermore, reading this article, I'm not convinced that the command has stood up yet, and I am under the impression that the new aviation BCT will be separate from 1X. Best wishes – SɱαɾƚყPαɳƚʂ22 (Ⓣⓐⓛⓚ) 13:03, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
Also if your name is the one on the FOI request, then we've spoken on Instagram before lmao. – SɱαɾƚყPαɳƚʂ22 (Ⓣⓐⓛⓚ) 13:05, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
This is my what do they know page, and the request is there. J-Man11 (talk) 15:21, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
Yeh, I've spoken to you on Instagram before without knowing it was you. – SɱαɾƚყPαɳƚʂ22 (Ⓣⓐⓛⓚ) 15:24, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
Well, great? Tis' a small world.. J-Man11 (talk) 15:26, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
Looking at the only piece of solid information, the story on the Army website, it seems very likely that the 'Global Response Force' will be much like the JRRF, Littoral Response Group, or other such 'forces' before it; not a force with a HQ, but a capacity concept. I would remove the extra two-star line in the draft. If at three star level, Land Operations Command will not be a separate command separate from Field Army; why have two three-star's commands fighting over two divisions and the odd brigade? It appears to be operational now, or as of late last year [2], but I will personally find and throttle you J-Man11 if you mainspace what we have at present: there's been no announcement, we don't know it's responsibilities, what it commands, or who it reports to. Wait for a proper news story (JDW is falling down at present, they used to be able to at least cover British developments properly).. Buckshot06 (talk) 16:38, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
@Buckshot06: Although it could very well be a standing HQ considering there are HQ staff that have been assigned this month. – SɱαɾƚყPαɳƚʂ22 (Ⓣⓐⓛⓚ) 17:31, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
HQ staff assigned to a "Global Response Force" or possibly a "Headquarters, Global Response Force?" I couldn't find the links you must have located -- can you add them here? Buckshot06 (talk) 18:07, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
@Buckshot06: Ah, I misread. I was talking about the Land Operations Command being a standing HQ. – SɱαɾƚყPαɳƚʂ22 (Ⓣⓐⓛⓚ) 20:54, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
@Buckshot06 here's our proof Land Operations Command was formed after 2015 now, also noticed a 29 Pre-Hospital Divisional Medical Group?? Is possibly the former Pre-Hospital Care Group? Link to my FOI(A) here. J-Man11 (talk) 21:38, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
I have reduced this page to a redirect. It's a staff branch in Headquarters Field Army, not a command, according to the FOI response, so it goes at the Field Army (well, Commander Field Army) page; and it fails WP:PRIMARYSOURCES - one official document which indicates clearly that not all information was released does not match our WP:SECONDARYSOURCES and WP:TERTIARYSOURCES standard for WP:RELIABLESOURCES. Do not, repeat, do not, mainspace anything when your single source is an FOI, please. Simply isn't RS enough. There is no publishing deadline whatsoever; we can wait until secondary or tertiary sources cover the matter. Buckshot06 (talk) 11:11, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Notability of organic squadrons, and move of Soviet formations: just don't

Do not, please, create separate redirects for each RLC squadron. Our general notability practice is such things need to be *independent,* not organic-to-a-regiment. Should you wish to link them to the cavalry or other ancestors, just do (Royal Buckinghamshire Yeomanry) in the squadron title. Add any extra info you wish to add to the regimental page. Also, all the NKVD divisions are annotated NKVD at the end, and I created the articles that way to emphasize they were NOT Red Army. I've just moved the 1st Division back. Same with 9th Rifle Corps; if you look at the category you will now see that corps is an outlier - 'Rifle Corps' is a unique title and does not need a disambguator. In general, don't move pages and don't create redirects without checking with a more senior editor, because you continue to demonstrate with about a third of your edits you don't fully understand how this site has been set up, military wise. Buckshot06 (talk) 13:51, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

So.. for the RLC if a page is made on a RLC squadron, it gets a category. However, if it's simply a redirect, no need for the cat? And didn't know about the Soviet Army stuff, thought other nations had Rifle Corps like smaller countries of the USSR J-Man11 (talk) 14:14, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
My general point is don't DO THINGS JUST BECAUSE YOU "THOUGHT." CHECK!! Regarding the RLC, do not, do not, create pages for squadrons or companies which aren't separate - right now, never mind their status in the past. Don't move pages without checking with people. Better still, confine your edits to additions to existing articles without creating new ones, because you're amassing a hefty backlog of stuff other people need to fix. In sum, please get yourself a mentor, or you are exactly on the road to getting blocked again for not following the protocols.. Buckshot06 (talk) 06:35, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Worcestershire Rifles

@SmartyPants22, @Dormskirk, @Buckshot06, @Rickfive if you could "peer review" my new full article which I've been working on for a long time (as I'm sure you're aware): Worcestershire Rifles. Would be greatly appreciated if you could just make sure this is all good, and nothing's missing, etc in this area. J-Man11 (talk) 23:10, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

It looks a great piece of work to me. There are some references missing in the India & Burma and Rangoon sections but nothing else from me. Good job! Dormskirk (talk) 10:07, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 25

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2nd Marine Division (Wehrmacht), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Division.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:57, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Overlinking

I should probably have referred to it as excessive linking; the actual term is duplicate linking so it's under WP:DUPLINK. The distinction is that overlinking is linking to words most people would understand and are capable of looking up separately if they wanted to eg. linking to USA. GraemeLeggett (talk) 05:59, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Royal Navy follow-up

@Buckshot06 received my request regarding the following via FOI(A): Ship home ports, and information regarding Overseas Patrol Sqn and Coastal Forces Squadron. The responder went further to notify the squadrons when they were renamed with a date, and even the ships assigned. link. J-Man11 (talk) 03:42, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Worcestershire Regimental Badge.jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Worcestershire Regimental Badge.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:19, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Sandbox Royal Navy

I hope you will forgive me for arranging the command chain in line with the way it actually works: you can revert should you wish.

CJO / PJHQ is NOT repeat NOT under the First Sea Lord; he reports to Commander, Strategic Command (United Kingdom). There are actually three first-level ( == (title) == ) headings. First Sea Lord / CNS ; Chief of Joint Operations under Commander Strategic Command, all operations, including Carrier Strike Group 21 (actually Operation Fortis 21 [3], for information only, not a WP:RELIABLESOURCE), Kipion, all the land operations, 83 EAG, Mali etc etc; and, because you've listed CTF 150, the United States Navy. If you look at United States Fifth Fleet you will see Combined Maritime Forces has *three* or more Task Forces, 150-152 and possibly others (MCM).

Director of Overseas Bases is separately responsible to Commander, Strategic Command, is responsible for Cyprus, Gibraltar, BIOT, BFSAI, BDSSU Singapore, and the Joint Arms Control Implementation Group.

On the home administrative side under CNS/1SL and under him, Fleet Commander, please, merge everything at Portmouth into Surface Flotilla. Portsmouth Flotilla no longer exists. Regards Buckshot06 (talk) 08:13, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Cheers for the information, however I am going to wait for my FOIA regarding the current standing commands to completely revamp everything, though yes I agree with the reduction of the base flotillas. J-Man11 (talk) 14:15, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
I've seen your FOIA listings. You're barraging them with things they cannot be expected to keep up with.
Read (1) Commander Operations (Royal Navy); and (2) more importantly, the Navy Directory, 2019 edition, at https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/-/media/royal-navy-responsive/documents/useful-resources/navy_directory.pdf. The skeleton of the [2019] command structure you should be working from is at pages 6 and 7. Note quite clearly midway page 7 3 Cdo Brigade is under Commander Maritime Operations; there is no Mine Countermeasures, nor Hydrographic Flotilla.
Now, yes, there are changes underway, and the Gulabin refs at Commander Operations show the new merged Surface and Submarine Flotilla commodores now existing.
In addition, I have checked out separately two of your references about the new flotilla structure you gave, and [4] doesn't list any of the new flotillas, nor did ref 33 about the 'MCM Flotilla' support what you claim it did. You need to give a link to an exact detailed description of this 'Royal Navy Transformation Programme,' because, for example, the Fleet Commander position was not introduced in 2016, it was established when CINCFLEET was downgraded a star in 2012. Buckshot06 (talk) 19:50, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
Part of your problem with references is that you're not fitting things together properly. There are far too many references on that page supporting inconsequential facts, and you've got data that was current years ago mixed in with current material, and unreliable sources (like this 'MCM Flotilla' your new ref 7, directly contradicted by the Sunday Times saying DEVFLOT and PORFLOT were to be amalgamated). (1) Start with the Navy Directory to fit the overall pieces together. (2) Each sub-section (eg Surface Flotilla; Submarine Flotilla; 3 Cdo Bde; Fleet Air Arm) needs to have one single source *AT THE SAME DATE* listing *all* the relevant information: higher commander; location; subordinate units.
In Wikipedia terms, you're doing too much WP:SYNTH.
Putting a listing like this together depends on finding the subsections (like, for example, 3 Cdo Brigade listed without 43 Cdo Fleet Protection Group, which only as of 2005 was part of the brigade, and now I strongly suspect is under the Commodore in Faslane) as up to date as possible, from the *most reliable source possible,* preferably an official document. You don't want to make too many guesses when you assemble a listing.
This will mean that it is not possible to assemble an up-to-the-minute listing unless 'Navy News' or suchlike prints one in full, or you get hold of one of the Bridge Cards (example for 2012; see MCM1 and MCM2 under PORFLOT and DEVFLOT, page 2, and no mention of any MCM Flotilla). Basically, we should not try as Wikipedia to attempt to stay up to the minute, because by the time we are asking for Bridge Cards, we're trespassing on WP:PRIMARYSOURCES and we should be using secondary or tertiary sources.
What I would recommend is stopping your attempt to try to track this to the minute, and instead, carefully and slowly, track through the 2019 Navy Directory and assemble a 2019 order of battle. That would be much more reliable because we have the 2019 ND and two years' worth of additional data. Then we could use that as a basis for going forward. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:07, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
Yeah I'm working on making this like the 1989 version where it for the year, not current/after 2010/2015, etc. I also plan on making a 2002 version in the future, but this is first.. J-Man11 (talk) 22:09, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
I have this ref, but I really don't consider it remotely reliable here for Hydrographic Survey Flotilla also here (page 26), ref for it being formerly a squadron here also squadron here and here. Also see here (Hydrographic Surveying Flotilla on Hydrographic Office report).
With regard to the MCM flotilla, see here (Mine Warfare and Diving Association), older ref from MoD here and here.
J-Man11 (talk) 22:23, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
With regard to the Surface Flotilla, it is entirely possible that the Surface Flotilla has been split between the two naval bases being titled 'Surface Flotilla (West)' and '(East)'. Though I don't have any proper references to fully support this, see here (not reliable). It is entirely possible HQ Surface Flotilla is now based at Devonport see here (from Babock's presentation on the future of Devonport, pages (pdf pages) 7 -> states Type 26 will be part of SURFLOT (West) and consolidate in Devonport). See also page 3 which states the Hydrographic (Squadron) is based at Devonport. J-Man11 (talk) 22:36, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
Update, ref for Surface Flotilla (East) here. J-Man11 (talk) 22:38, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
I explained at length above that you have to have a single source for an entire subcomponent, properly dated. None of your Hydro references meet that standard. Your continuing numerical errors (like transformation being 1 April '2021' when it was actually 2020, or the Hydro squadron reference in that future of Devonport document being actually on page 4, rather than where you said it was on page 3) really also leave your work open to severe criticism.
Instead, look at a ref that *does explain one subcomponent in full* - the 2012 Bridge Card, something I realise I noted at the time. Both port flotillas have a couple of subordinate captains, the successors to the former Captains D and F. There is a Captain (HM) and Hydrographer of the Navy under DEVFLOT. That's a Captain under a flotilla commander in 2012.
Now, nine years later with the Navy constantly shrinking, *and* the Sunday Times just having said the *two surface flotillas* -- that's all surface ships, not just destroyers and frigates -- were to be amalgamated, and rear admirals' numbers being reduced, do you think they have created another Commodore for a shrinking Hydro force? No. Everything points to both Hydro and MCM (you'll see the 2012 Bridge Card again lists no MCM Flotilla, nor the 2019 Naval Directory, but there are two MCM squadrons under some of the port flotillas) being under the single Surface Flotilla. And yes of course the Surface Flotilla is still split between both bases; all that has happened is that one commodore's position has been abolished and a few captains re-posted. There is no need to get into the tangled details of Surface Flotilla (West) and (East): reference the HQ location if you have it, and then reference the homeport of each ship, and the remainder is tiny details that honestly I would never have been trying to record in 25 years plus of doing this kind of thing.
Also, all the pure basing arrangements, I believe, are probably under the Naval Region Commanders, though you would have to confirm that. Buckshot06 (talk) 02:55, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Image tagging for File:HMS Caledonia badge.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:HMS Caledonia badge.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 19:30, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Edits

@SmartyPants22 wanted to just say sorry if I seem like I've been mad or rude by reversing many of your edits lately. It's simply that we have different ways of doing things. Lately and for the next week and a half I'll be in by Finals time for college classes, so I'm really stressed on all fronts. Again, sorry but hopefully we'll get on a better track here shortly. J-Man11 (talk) 23:48, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Titles and Sub-titles

Now, I have my own complicated view on this, but wanted to know what @Dormskirk, @Thewolfchild, @SmartyPants22, and @Buckshot06 all thought regarding Titles and sub-titles. What I'm referring to for instance, is the separation of squadrons under a flotilla, or brigades in a division. Image for what I mean (sorry it sounds complicated): Linear (Only one) or Separate (each independent) here. J-Man11 (talk) 02:06, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Simplify your question; I do not understand what you are asking. Give an example, here, not at imgur. Buckshot06 (talk) 06:03, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Well the picture explains it, but Linear (has one Heading/sub-heading), while Separate includes each (brigade in a division or squadron in a flotilla) has its own Sub-Heading. The image I provided explains what I mean. J-Man11 (talk) 13:49, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Yeh, I'm not too sure what you mean either. Best wishes – SɱαɾƚყPαɳƚʂ22 (Ⓣⓐⓛⓚ) 12:40, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Sorry Jman, I'm with Buckshot06 and SmartyPants22 on this.
Dormskirk was also pinged here, maybe he has more to add? I hope you get it sorted out. - wolf 18:28, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
No more to add. I was just waiting for J-Man11 to expand a bit further so that we can help. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 18:46, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
The example given on imgur is a fine example of a correct use of hierarchical headers. Every unit of the same size, battalion/regiment in this case, should have the same number of indents. One mistake at the very top, however: you should combine the black '9th (Highland) Infantry Division' and the blue 'Headquarters, 9th (Highland) Infantry Division;' the arrangement in the diagram merely takes up a line and might give the impression that there are two entities, rather than one.
What I would do is:
9th Highland Division
Headquarters: Queen's Barracks, Perth
26th Brigade
Battalions
27th Brigade
Battalions (etc) Buckshot06 (talk) 19:18, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
So in the Royal Navy example, they should be combined in the flotilla? (For example). That would also mean Current structure of the British Army should be in that style? J-Man11 (talk) 19:24, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Instead of making changes to any articles, how about you do up an example of your proposed edits in your sandbox, give others a better idea of what your talking about? - wolf 19:55, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Well I have, Linear in this, and Separated here.. J-Man11 (talk) 20:27, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
I have been repeatedly scratching my head at why some of the RN sandbox 5 material was repeated, and meaning to counsel you about it. Listing things twice doesn't help anybody. Virtually without exception every order of battle I have ever seen follows the pattern at your 'linear', the British Army in 1939, example. Buckshot06 (talk) 11:05, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

1st (UK) Strike Brigade

@Buckshot06, check here, seems 1 Armoured Inf Bde has finally become 1st (United Kingdom) Strike Brigade.. J-Man11 (talk) 16:52, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

You *can* make a note on the talk page saying you think that 1 Armd Inf Bde has now become 1 (UK) Strike Brigade. But I have reverted your inaccurate edit at the 1 Brigade page, because the ACPD page mentioned a new entity called '1 (UK) Strike Brigade' but did not say '1 Armd Inf Bde has now become 1 (UK) Strike Brigade!!' You're taking 2 + 2 and making 7: WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH. That is NOT the referencing standard we adhere to. You can only say '1 Armd Inf Bde has become 1 UK Strike Brigade' when the page says *EXACTLY* that, and you are not doing WP:OR. Wikipedia:There is no deadline; you do not need to breathlessly update every unit page minute by minute. You're slowly destroying the accuracy of all our British Army pages at the moment by doing so. WAIT !!

Wait until you have proper sources!! It doesn't matter if WP is three months late, six months late, as long as the sourcing is OK. Buckshot06 (talk) 17:24, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Ok, will do. J-Man11 (talk) 17:26, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
Do not repost any sort of a order of battle at HQ SW and try and claim it is 'current' unless you have one source for it. With the sources I saw, you could have posted a 2008 order of battle; but not a lot since!! Buckshot06 (talk) 17:28, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
Yeah I did a FOI asking for it, so I'm waiting for that atm. And will be moving what was previously there to the 43rd (Wessex) Brigade page. J-Man11 (talk) 17:30, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Your sandbox 1

Make sure you have a very careful read of Supreme Allied Commander Atlantic before you make much more progress on this. Do not alter that article, please, before making notes on the talk page. Buckshot06 (talk) 14:42, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Uhm what? I didn't edit that page, and don't plan on..? J-Man11 (talk) 15:05, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
The structure of the Royal Navy in 1989 is intimately connected with the NATO Military Command Structure. Eg Flag Officer Third Flotilla = Commander Anti-Submarine Warfare Group 2, SACLANT; CINCFLEET = CINCEASTLANT *and* Commander-in-Chief Channel. Make sure you get all the alignments correct. Buckshot06 (talk) 06:06, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
So far according to my main source, and many of the others all line up so far. J-Man11 (talk) 16:18, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
Also see Outline of the British Royal Navy at the end of the Cold War. Buckshot06 (talk) 06:32, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Defence Paper 2021/Defence in a Competitive Age

I was originally going to post this as a major edit, but I decided to wait as I thought it added too much possibly. Let me know what you think @Buckshot06, and also @Dormskirk I'm asking you also. See here. J-Man11 (talk) 23:34, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

First, fix 'Future Solider;' and take all the brigade identifications out, like saying the new heavy brigades will be 12th and 20th: 'Future Soldier' does not list any such thing. It's either WP:OR or some kind of reference you haven't added. Remove all the bizarre italics, and the double listing of 'Medics' (Royal Army Medical Corps) etc; just straight Royal Army Medical Corps, thanks.
Can you explain this term 'Army 2021?' Where does it come from? We are *NOT* here to create our own terminology: stick RIGIDLY to the sources, please. Buckshot06 (talk) 16:33, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
Subject to Buckshot06's comments, this looks a useful summary. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 16:52, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
No I wasn't, just using it here to better explain what I mean by the upcoming paper, not using it anywhere else. I know what you mean, just using the terminology here to better explain my point of what I mean.. J-Man11 (talk) 17:02, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
No, I don't "know what you mean." The paper was called 'Defence in a Competitive Age.' Use that. Anything else is WP:OR. More generally, when you repeatedly use 'Army 2020' or similar terms, no-one has any clue when they were announced, and often for what date/year they were intended to be for. ANYTHING you write about an official announcement should give the date of the announcement, not like half your unit pages 'under Army 2020 was to be organised as'. When is that? No-one knows. Tie it to a specific date of announcement. Buckshot06 (talk) 06:10, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
If you link our article 1st Aviation Brigade (United Kingdom) with the pipelink |1st Combat Aviation Brigade again, one more time, I will, as I have promised before start an RfC/administrative action aimed at removing any future ability of yours to edit this site. THEY ARE NOT THE SAME!! DIFFERENT WORDS = NOT THE SAME!! Buckshot06 (talk) 08:06, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Russian Armed Forces

Dear J-Man11, I am taking increasing amounts of time trying to follow around after you and attempt to fix your numerous errors and failure to understand repeated corrections to mistakes. This is bad enough with the British Armed Forces (creating a page for an independent signals troop, when the standard for WP:NOTABILITY is a battalion/regiment or at the least a company) but the idea of you trying to write up the Russian Armed Forces is extremely unwelcome.

Consider the following options, please:

  • 1. Cease all activity on the Russian Armed Forces listing. I can transfer it into my sandbox and you can happily edit there, but the decision to go to mainspace would be my decision;
  • 2. Or, I will start a WP:RfC / other administrative action asking that you be banned from editing on this site.

I am extremely unhappy with the very poor standard of accuracy; repeated inability to write proper English; and repeated need for correction for repeated mistakes that you display, and I *do not wish* you to try and write up the organisation of the Russian Armed Forces. It is *not possible* with the information available to us to attempt to list most armed forces with a date of this year. Buckshot06 (talk) 07:01, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't remember saying I have any plans to move it out of my sandbox..? J-Man11 (talk) 15:40, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Then why create it, if not to move it to main space? Have a look at WP:NOT. User spaces, such as sandboxes, are for creating and/or discussing content for the project. If this content isn't intended for mainspace, what is it for? - wolf 16:19, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
If you have no plans to move it out of your sandbox, then do you have any problem with my nominating that page for deletion via Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion, then? Buckshot06 (talk) 17:14, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
@Buckshot06 Can I ask why you don't want me to do that page? I'm completely revamping it, and only adding sourced units, working by district and transferring to their respective pages. As I stated, I don't have any plans on moving it out, only having my own full outline, while transferring to the individual commands' pages. J-Man11 (talk) 02:38, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
"I am taking increasing amounts of time trying to follow around after you and attempt to fix your numerous errors and failure to understand repeated corrections to mistakes. This is bad enough with the British Armed Forces (creating a page for an independent signals troop, when the standard for WP:NOTABILITY is a battalion/regiment or at the least a company)." You make so many mistakes that you strain my blood pressure trying to fix them all; again, for example JSIO in 1989 under London District!! Look, when I started doing this I spent literally years compiling the orders of battle from the available hardcopy sources, piece by piece, reading around the subject and understanding how the forces fitted together. They stayed private; you can find only about three of them if you look. You, by contrast, stick everything up immediately, and you wish to guess - no - pontificate - on what you think the order of battle might be *right this minute.* That's by definition almost impossible; armies themselves issue periodic internal notices (UK: Army Information Notices) which are not always - not often - public, and change subordinations without public notice. Buckshot06 (talk) 05:37, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
Yet another example: there was something called 12 Signal Brigade. It had several TA regiments which had the suffix (Volunteers) at the end of their titles. But since 1967 or so, there have been no TA-only brigades in the Army. But what did you do? Off NO sources whatsoever, you added "Volunteer" to the title of the BRIGADE, not the subordinate regiments, and you put it in the middle of the title, not even at the end!! I DO NOT UNDERSTAND how you managed to do that, and you even repeatedly do so after you've been counseled about it several times!! Buckshot06 (talk) 05:41, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
I do NOT WANT you to create ANY pages dealing with either (a) the British Army or Armed Forces, or (b) any other armed forces after 1900, without going through a period of several checks with me first, or people I direct you to. Because there are SO MANY MISTAKES!! Buckshot06 (talk) 05:44, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

a pause...?

J-man, it seems like you're right back where you started. Maybe take break and consider a new approach? Or else you may just find yourself getting blocked again, a block you won't be able to come back from. (also re-read the thread #Moving Forward at the top of this page as well, the entire thread) This is just friendly advice, take or leave it. - wolf 18:15, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Yikes. Just saw the comment below. Jman, did you read my comment here? If so, any thoughts? Any reply? - wolf 07:31, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXXI, May 2021

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

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) 00:57, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of 13 Air Assault Regiment RLC

Notice

The article 13 Air Assault Regiment RLC has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Duplicate of 13 Air Assault Support Regiment RLC, which is the correct title of the unit.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. SɱαɾƚყPαɳƚʂ22 (Ⓣⓐⓛⓚ) 22:22, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

@SmartyPants22 go ahead with it, I'll even do an extra for you and do it myself. It's a very old article of mine, and don't need it anymore.. J-Man11 (talk) 02:37, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
@J-Man11 Thanks, I didn't actually realise it was one of yours. – SɱαɾƚყPαɳƚʂ22 (Ⓣⓐⓛⓚ) 11:34, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Reference for Chelsea Barracks being HQ 56 Brigade, late 1980s, early 1990s

I have just rolled back this edit. I have never found an authoritative source saying *where* HQ 56 Brigade was located, and was initially surprised and pleased to find that you had appeared to find a source for its location at Chelsea Barracks. I was NOT happy to find that all there was at Drenth page 10 was the rough formation and disbandment dates for 56 Brigade, probably sourced from where I got it from, Beevor, Inside the British Army - the information was *exactly* the same. THERE WAS NO MENTION OF A BRIGADE HQ LOCATION!! DO NOT INSERT FALSE REFERENCES!! Buckshot06 (talk) 06:18, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

You will note that this Grenadier Guards history gives the brigade HQ location as Horse Guards. Buckshot06 (talk) 18:14, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Milhist talkpage post

I have started a thread on the main Milhist talk page outlining my severe concerns with your editing style. Buckshot06 (talk) 12:07, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

J-man, the thread is here. Dude, this is serious. I've been in your corner pretty much since you joined, that is why I encouraged you to get a mentor before, and why I am encouraging you now to go take part in that thread. You need to convince people that you can make a the necessary course-correction in your editing, along with some other changes, (definitely need a mentor now, maybe some kind of modified topic-ban as well as some editing restrictions and possibly a short term block) or you could very likely be indefinitely site-banned again, and if that happens, it may be several years before you could return, if at all. The appeal you were given was rare, I don't think it happens twice. As always, this is just friendly advice, take it or leave it. - wolf 17:35, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Mentorship

@Dormskirk would I possibly be able to ask you for a mentorship? I know there are only 2 or a few mentors in the are, but I know you've been pretty active in the area too. J-Man11 (talk) 20:12, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

It's good that you're seeking a mentor, but a few things to keep in mind; Dormskirk isn't on the Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user/Adoptee's Area/Adopters as an Adopter/Mentor seeking to take on editors to supervise, it might not be something he's interested in doing (in general, nothing against you personally) or he just might not have the time needed to mentor someone. But, wait and see what he says. Meanwhile, you don't need a "milhist" editor to for a mentor. What you need is someone who is an experienced editor, knows about sourcing, policies & guidelines, article structure, writing, etc. These things aren't specific to milhist, they apply universally across Wikipedia. On the list of available adopters/mentors, there are currently 20 editors showing as available to take on people. Some might not be suitable for you (there's one with so little experience, you would probably end up mentoring them!), but one that jumps out is Rosguill who is an admin. If Dormskirk is not available, then I believe you should approach Rosguill. They have the experience and policy knowledge needed, as well as the ability to steer you clear of troubled waters. Anyway, just my two cents on the matter. I also saw your comments at milhist, it's good that you posted there. Hang in there man - wolf 20:53, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
J-Man. I appreciate you approaching me on this but I think wolf is right: you should go for really go for somebody with appropriate experience of policies, guidelines etc. Good luck and best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 21:29, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
I was never able to find the list it helps @@-wolf, both thanks for the quick response. J-Man11 (talk) 21:36, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
Hey J-man, if you have questions, better to ask than to let things slide. I see you asked Nick-D and Peacemaker67 about mentorship as well, just keep in mind they may be in the same boat as Dormskirk. Speaking of not letting things slide, the sooner you get a mentor the better (especially a qualified and available one). It might not prevent an imminent ban in the end, but it certainly won't hurt. (jmho) - wolf 22:13, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Hey, J-man, I gotta ask about this comment you made on Nick-D's talk page; "...I haven't been able to find a mentor, no matter how hard I look.". It's important that you are honest with people, especially if they're willing to spend the extra time and effort to mentor you (it's not clear if Nick is officially your mentor now) or just "informally" helping you out. When you returned, you were encouraged to find a mentor, repeatedly, and all the info and links you needed to do so were provided to you in the above thread "Moving forward". But it doesn't appear you made any effort to find a mentor until Buckshot06 posted his recent concerns at milhist. (And he did you a favor there, had be posted at ANI instead, you'd probably be blocked already). Even then, you only asked like 3 people, and even after you were again provided the info and links to the list of 20 available adopters offering mentorship, it doesn't appear you contacted any of them. Instead you've been busy with your sandboxes, (as you mentioned on Nick's tp), until... when? Surely you hope to return to article space? And you can't just bury your head in the sand... boxes (sorry about the pun) until all this blows over. As I've said many times now, I believe you have a lot to offer WP, but you need to take this more seriously. If you get indef'd again, there's very little chance of you returning. (jmho) - wolf 00:02, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Well I've been looking for a mentor, but only a few are in the area of history (in general), or in the area of editing which I would feel comfortable with. Because I don't have time every-single-day to check which mentors become available, I wasn't able to find one till now. Yes, it coincided with the post because of the deteriorating situation, which I then helped double my methods. J-Man11 (talk) 01:01, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:AFDHOWTO

Go back, please, and clean up your mess at AfD/4th Carabiners by following the instructions (simple line-by-line linked above), one of the subsections I pointed you at on the main page of WP:AfD. Buckshot06 (talk) 19:10, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Got it thanks for the link to the specific section, took me about a half an hour to figure out which page to use, but couldn't find the actual section. If you wouldn't mind could you check it now, I'm pretty sure it's fine now though. J-Man11 (talk) 19:28, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

WP:CBAN proposal made at WT:MILHIST

As advised informally beforehand, I've now made this proposal at Milhist. Buckshot06 (talk) 11:54, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

..and been advised that I need to make it at WP:AN. The discussion is at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Proposal_for_topic_ban:_J-Man11; you are warmly invited to contribute, have your say. Buckshot06 (talk) 13:55, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Chasseurs Bretons

@Buckshot06 I'm ready to post my article (Chasseurs Bretons), see here. If you could check it over that would be great. J-Man11 (talk) 13:13, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm no Napoleonic French Army expert. Post your request on the main page, and track down the editors of the main French Army regiments of that period through the pages histories. Buckshot06 (talk) 16:49, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
Well that's the problem, no one has made any in a very long time. So I asked you to check just for stuff like basic grammar, any ref issues, or primary sources which aren't supposed to be there.. J-Man11 (talk) 17:15, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
Dude, at the risk of sounding redundant, that's what mentors do. Have you tried any of the other 20 available adopters? They don't have to have an interest in milhist to check "grammar and sourcing"... that stuff is universal. - wolf 01:17, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
Every time I look, no military history (or history for that matter) mentor is available from what I'm seeing. Trust me, it might not look like it, but I look every single morning and night to try and improve myself, but can't find anyone. J-Man11 (talk) 01:22, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
I would love to have @Rosguill, however it seems he's unavailable to help with the current main issue with the primary sourcing, referencing, and lists and such. However, I will be also looking at @IntoThinAir. J-Man11 (talk) 01:30, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
Well, I can only reiterate that you don't need a "milhist" mentor. You just need an adopter that will help you with sourcing, grammar and writing, page creation and page move , etc., etc. An adoptor can have zero milhist experience and still help guide you to being a better editor. Just contact everyone on the list, telling what you need help with, and see what happens. At least you can say you tried. - wolf 02:48, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Well, that helps. I was under the impression until just a few minutes ago that I NEEDED a milhist mentor. J-Man11 (talk) 02:49, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
You need to properly reference your sources and pay attention to grammar. where in that sentence is the word 'military'? no, get yourself any mentor, would be better than the situation at present. Buckshot06 (talk) 07:19, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
Wolf has been telling you for weeks to get *any* mentor that would assist. any mentor. Buckshot06 (talk) 07:20, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Re: Capri Campaign

Hello J-Man11 I have added projects History, Naples, United Kingdom, to your article. You may wish to join them, check their to-do, and meet new people with interest in these topics. ( To reply click "edit" next to this section, and add your reply at the end. ) Cheers, --Gryllida (talk, e-mail) 03:45, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Pretty sure this is an automated message, but either way I'll take a look, I'm doing a lot more in the Napoleonic era now, especially with the main secondary sources I have, and the many missing armed forces and units. J-Man11 (talk) 14:09, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

empty

Pleasedo not mark a article for speedy deletion as empty using criterion A1 when they have any meaningful content at all. DGG ( talk ) 16:20, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

@DGG: ...say what? - wolf 21:05, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
I have no idea what he was/is trying to say.. J-Man11 (talk) 21:07, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
I fixed my rather incredible string of typos, but I think I must have spotted a tagging from when you were changing titles, and msiunderstood it. My apologies. DGG ( talk ) 07:32, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Simplify, remove from WP:SMALLCAT

Do not create categories for (regiments) unless that category is going to have at least 10 members. Leave them in the main category and categorize the regiments individually. We don't need more WP:SMALLCATs. Buckshot06 (talk) 07:17, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

I'll fix that right now, can you @Buckshot06 send me to where I can do the individual categorizing? And the reason I did that is I'm planning on making them, but in hindsight, yes I see what you mean, I'll put them back to their next hierarchal cat right now.. J-Man11 (talk) 13:06, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
Put the next higher up categories on each individual regiment, not on a category with only 3-5 members. Buckshot06 (talk) 09:43, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
Ok, I thought you meant to different things, but I'm working on moving them back now. Eventually when I have more members of the sub-categories I can add them back, but now I'll concentrate them. J-Man11 (talk) 19:12, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Emptying preexisting categories

Hello,

May I asked why you removed foreign many military units of the French Ancien Régime from their categories (e.g. these edits). As a result of these subsequent edits, these units are no longer in Category:Foreign regiments in French Service or in categories about bilateral relationships. This does not seem to be an improvement. Place Clichy (talk) 05:11, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

@Place Clichy check the above discussion on remove from WP:SMALLCAT.. J-Man11 (talk) 14:15, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
Well if you do not want to create small categories, you should move the articles to all the parent categories, not just one. E.g. in [5], you should probably have replaced Category:Irish regiments of the Royal French Army not just by Category:Infantry regiments of the Ancien Régime but also by Category:Irish regiments in French service, which was the other parent. Also, it is considered bad practice to empty a category which you have not created yourself (see e.g. this discussion). As a result of your edits, you removed most of the content of categories such as Foreign regiments in French Service, German regiments in French service, Irish regiments in French service and Swiss regiments in French service. If you disagree with the existence or scope of these categories, you should probably open a discussion about them at WP:CfD, not just empty them. Would you be so kind as to move back articles you removed, which was I assume by mistake? Place Clichy (talk) 14:49, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
Now I'm confused, because @Buckshot06 informed me I shouldn't have less than 10 units per category (in these examples), and they should instead by part of the next parent organisation. However, you're telling me to revert them.. So I'm confused here.. J-Man11 (talk) 14:52, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
Place Clichy, in this discussion J-Man11 is almost acting as a newbie, so we should try and avoid biting him. I advised him of SMALLCAT as you will have seen above. I was surprised at the existence of these various SMALLCATs, though I did realise that there might be many more regiments which might bring the number in each category over 10 (or 20, which is what SMALLCAT actually says). Can more regiments be added to bring each of these right-now-SMALLCATs to over 10, or 20? Or should I register that I believe they violate WP:SMALLCAT in some other fashion? Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 21:27, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
In due course I will be adding a lot of the foreign regiments, but for now (on the English wiki) there are very few royal French units. So for now, there aren't enough, but eventually there will be.. So, because of that I was listening to what you said @Buckshot06.. J-Man11 (talk) 23:37, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXXII, June 2021

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

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) 03:06, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Régiment d'Armagnac

The article Régiment d'Armagnac you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Régiment d'Armagnac for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of AustralianRupert -- AustralianRupert (talk) 15:21, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

"Armoured Recon/Formation"

@Buckshot06, didn't need the language, but either way. Apologies about the word issues, I wasn't aware there was a different title. And for reference, the use of "Administrative" was there because in peacetime it wasn't a formation, only during war when it became an operational group. J-Man11 (talk) 17:33, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Thus you should have used the word "ad-hoc." Wikipedia:Competence is required. "Administrative" applies to under-local-administration for housekeeping; garrison issues; delegations for military justice, Commanding Officer's orders etc, whether it was fully formed in peacetime or not. Read Anthony Beevor, "Inside the British Army," Corgi, 1989 or 1991 editions. Does *not* describe a brigade sized formation that was to be very sharpest of the sharp ends against the Soviets.
Stop trying to interpret WP:PRIMARYSOURCES like the 1999 SOHB, or even the expansive 2007 writeup.
Stick to subjects you can use secondary and tertiary sources for, like before 1900.
And, while you're at it, if you create categories, like for the Neapolitan Army, they must have categories in which they go themselves!! Compare Category:Kingdom_of_Naples_(1806-1815), which I've just created, to Category:Regiments_of_the_Neapolitan_Army!! Buckshot06 (talk) 18:43, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
I thought I had used the word ad-hoc originally, but if not thank you for explaining the use of "Administrative". I sometimes forget that there is ad-hoc, and settle for administrative, which I've been lately trying to get rid of. And I'll work on that second part right now. J-Man11 (talk) 18:45, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Restarted proposal for topic ban : User:J-Man11 is the restarted topic ban thread. I have changed the date now to 1850. Please, do us both a favour, and keep working through the Napoleonic Wars - there's lots of opportunities there for you to learn. Don't have Dormskirk and myself running around trying to fix your twentieth century articles. Buckshot06 (talk) 19:28, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
That's what I've been trying to do, but you keep going back to the older articles it would seem. I would fix them, but every time I try you and fix something, you say stay away from them, so I'm being pulled and backwards it would seem right now.. But yes, I have a lot of articles to add for the French and Napoleonic era which I have a lot of secondary references and expanded a lot in the referencing section with help from @Dormskirk. J-Man11 (talk) 19:36, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
Don't try to go back to any post-1850 articles you have previously worked on. Leave them. I went back to 1st Reconnaissance Brigade because you went back to 2 Signal Brigade and Dormskirk had to run after you. Leave everything post-1850, or better still, post 1815, well alone: it will get done in time. But if you keep picking at the scab by going back to try to edit post-1850 articles, or keep creating new post-1850 things in sandboxes, I will raise it again. And again. And again. And you may end up completely blocked in the process. Buckshot06 (talk) 19:52, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Titles & Awards

@Buckshot06 would you mind directing me to the page you had sent me a while ago regarding (in this case) General's titles and awards. (ie: KCB, CBE, etc.). J-Man11 (talk) 04:33, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Which general? In what connection? There are better people in Milhist for British military decorations and noble titles, Order of the Bath etc. Make a post on the Milhist talk page stating your query and ask for help. Don't refer to any administrator issues you're having etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buckshot06 (talk • contribs) 07:21, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
In this example I'm using Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington in my Oob for the Waterloo Campaign here. J-Man11 (talk) 15:27, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Category:Regiments of the Neapolitan Army has been nominated for merging

Category:Regiments of the Neapolitan Army has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:12, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

@Marcocapelle the page SHOULDN'T be merged, the regimental category should and needs to stay, as it has nothing to do with the "political category". For instance, would you merge Category:French regiments of the Ancien Régime and Category:France? No, because they're neither the same nor similar in the manor for which is being used in these category. So, it should stay and NOT be merged. J-Man11 (talk) 19:20, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Images

Hi @Buckshot06, I'm using images from Digby Smith's "Murat's Army". The words are from himself, while the plates are from Henri Boisselier and according to Digby Smith, the images are now in the public domain here. My question is, does this mean I can therefore use these in wikimedia/wikipedia?. J-Man11 (talk) 15:36, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

What is the source for the images you wish to use, and which articles or drafts do you wish to use them in? You need to explain yourself better. Also, have you made the Milhist request post re British orders of chivalry? There are a lot of experts around who will be more than pleased to help you out -- asking for help when you know you need assistance is a sign of maturity. Buckshot06 (talk) 16:24, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
No. 1 the source is from 2 areas, one line (see above), and one in-person, Digby Smith's Murat's Army. No. 2 I plan to use (the images we're currently talking about) on the Neapolitan Honour Guards Regiment page. And no, I thought you were going to be sending a reply regarding that because originally you had sent me a link regarding it, but I'll do that now.. J-Man11 (talk) 16:27, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
You're raising my blood pressure here. WHAT EXACTLY IS "Digby Smith's Murat's Army?" Be exactly specific? Some worthless website from somewhere? A magazine? A book? If a book, give the full citation details.
What link? I linked Order of the Bath because Wellington had a KCB - might help. When I advise you to make a post, a wikileak means nothing more than I thought the linked article might be a useful resource that *you* should click on, rather like Westphalian sovereignty which gives the lie to your arguments at the category discussion.
Before you go any further with User:J-Man11/sandbox/Order of Battle of the Waterloo campaign, I would invite u:Hawkeye7 and all the major editors of the page Battle of Waterloo and Waterloo Campaign to take a very close look at it. You have to be extremely sure that you're not pushing the sources beyond the limits of what they say. Buckshot06 (talk) 16:36, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
Murat's Army is a book, as I stated yes. The Honour Guards uniforms are shown on pages 21 and 22 (as shown on the wiki page). A description of the Royal Guard cavalry is given on page 20. See here for the full reference. J-Man11 (talk) 17:46, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
You said "in-person." I had no clue what you meant. "In-person" is no citation style that I've ever heard of!! Next time you refer to anything in talkpages, don't be so incredibly cryptic!! -- just import the entire reference so that the discussion *flows*!! Buckshot06 (talk) 18:58, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
Well appologies than, normally I refer to something as "online" or "in-person". But I'll be sure to differenciate for now on. Here is the full reference: Smith, Digby (2018). Murat's Army: The Army of the Kingdom of Naples 1806–1815. Solihull, West Midlands, United Kingdom: Helion & Company Limited. ISBN 978-1912390090. OCLC 1912390094.. J-Man11 (talk) 19:17, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
I'll give you a suggestion then: don't use 'online' or especially not 'in-person' which sounds like you're interviewing Digby Smith!! Say 'book', or 'article,' or 'website,' or 'Internet-accessed book/journal/magazine..' Buckshot06 (talk) 04:48, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
Will do.. So, about the use of the images? J-Man11 (talk) 04:51, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
Talk to Moonriddengirl - she's our copyright Queen Bee. I cannot be sure from looking at it myself. Buckshot06 (talk) 14:46, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Infobox

Hello @Buckshot06 for some reason I can't see the 2nd notable commander I added on my new Régiment Royal Louis page. Any help is welcome!! J-Man11 (talk) 04:02, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Take anything that's about template markup and infoboxes straight to WT:MILHIST. Several such questions pop up there regularly. Get into the habit of posting there, first, rather than calling me, for anything that's simple and not "political". Buckshot06 (talk) 06:09, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
Ok, will do! Thank you.. J-Man11 (talk) 15:23, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Image without license

Unspecified source/license for File:Alexandre Joseph Gabriel de Boisgelin.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Alexandre Joseph Gabriel de Boisgelin.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time after the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|cc-by-sa-4.0}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: Once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot (Talk • Contribs • Owner) 05:45, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Order of Battle of the Waterloo campaign (July 27)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Tol was:
Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at Order of battle of the Waterloo campaign instead.
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.
Tol | talk | contribs 23:22, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXXIII, July 2021

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

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) 12:30, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Things to fix when editing

Dear J-Man11,

I was editing your new article 1st Swiss Regiment (France) and I noticed repetitive mistakes. I am mentioning them to you in order to inform you of them so that you would not repeat your mistakes. So:

1. References (which you call footnotes) should be made in the sfn template. You already put the sources in a proper template (e.g. cite book, etc.) which is great, but it would be marvellous if you put the footnotes in the sfn template (like this).

2. No need for one heading at the start "Napoleonic Wars" and making the rest sub-headings. It is best to make the subheadings into headings because that is how featured wiki articles like 21st Massachusetts Infantry Regiment or 13th Waffen Mountain Division of the SS Handschar (1st Croatian) do it for clarity and order.

3. After each sentence, there was an unnecessary space, which is grammatically improper. I tried fixing as many as I could in the aforementioned article.

I noticed more things, but I only mentioned the major three ones, because if you fixed them, that would be of enormous help to the wider wiki community down the road. Best --Cukrakalnis (talk) 14:12, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

  1. May I ask what the difference is between the 'Ref' tag and the 'Sfn' templates? I used them once and they began driving me crazy because of the constant tagging and all of the unnecessary full reference for each one even, which seems to be needed..
  2. With regard to the Napoleonic Wars tag, you'll notice here I originally didn't have it, but added it after I found the regiment was reformed (and later disbanded) during the Bourbon Restoration, which to me means there should be two 'headings' and several of the smaller ones instead to differentiate.
  3. Would you mind explaining what the 'unnecessary space' your referring to is?
Cheers.. J-Man11 (talk) 14:38, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
  1. The difference between Ref and Sfn is that when anyone hovers with their mouse over sfn, they are shown the source which is being mentioned.
  2. Now that you say it, I see it. However, when reading, it was harder to distinguish clearly as to what is under what, e.g. Battle of Maida and Calabria and 4th battalion.
  3. An example of unnecessary spacing is [6].
Cheers! :) --Cukrakalnis (talk) 14:46, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
Alright that's for clarifying. So for No. 3, it might just be a regional thing, but apparently in my area the 'two space rule' is a standard, but some people use one. I've been told, brought up, and even now don't get points unless I use two spaces. J-Man11 (talk) 14:48, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
Interesting, I would have never thought of that.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 14:50, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

@Cukrakalnis: I do not believe it is appropriate to describe using ref tags instead of sfn templates as a "major mistake". Ref tags are not deprecated. MPS1992 (talk) 21:57, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

@MPS1992: Yeah, my bad, I shouldn't have called them so. I probably did so because it looks better when all footnotes are neatly structured and arranged ;) In WP:GOODFAITH.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 22:06, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Légion de Conflans has been accepted

Légion de Conflans, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 20% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Tagishsimon (talk) 12:51, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Stop it

@DGG STOP moving my article around, IT IS A DRAFT. I never asked for the AfC, so STOP MOVING THE ARTICLE. I'M NOT DONE WITH IT AND YOU'RE DRIVING MY INSANE. J-Man11 (talk) 21:22, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

@Tagishsimon I NEVER asked for the article to be submitted. I didn't even get close to finishing it, and if it keeps moving I will contact an administrator. This is ridiculous, I NEVER asked for the AfC, NEVER, and don't plan on doing it for a while. Both you and DGG are driving my insane moving the article back. It's not even F-ing done. J-Man11 (talk) 21:24, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
I am not clear what you actually do want. If you put it in draft space, I or any other reviewer who thinks it's adequate, can move it, just as anyone on Wikipedia can edit it. Once you have entered anything in wikipedia, you have given an irrevocable license to the entire world to copy or publish or modify it as long as they maintain the attribution. You have no special right more than anyone else in the world, except to have it attributed, and to release it under a different license as well if you wish to The only way to control your text is to not put it on Wikipedia in the first place, but to publish it conventionally. I know several potential contributors who will not contribute here, because of this: they want to publish where they can control what they have written, and that's a perfectly reasonable feeling.
But as a courtesy, it is our usual practice that if it is moved to your own user space as a user draft, which I can do for you if you like, and remove the various redirects, it would be at User:J-Man11/Légion de Conflans , and I can put a note on it as an administrator, asking that it not be moved until you move it yourself or request it be moved. But of course, if for some reason you should stop working on it and I or anyone thinks its good enough, we could still move it to mainspace. That rarely happens, but it does sometimes happen. DGG ( talk ) 03:08, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
Well thank you for explaining it and sorry for loosing my temper. I was just pissed because the article isn't finished (really isn't even ready for its own page for that matter) and I've never had anyone move an article out of the draftspace. So when it happened I just lost it because I wasn't even close to finishing it. I have a lot more, and you're right it's not "my article", but I do feel like I would want it to be pretty good before it's moved out of draftspace first. J-Man11 (talk) 03:42, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
if you want me to move it back, I will; if you want me to move it to user space I will; just ask. All I can say in excuse, is that it's great that you have high standards--it's not all that usual, and I wasn't prepared for it. DGG ( talk ) 18:38, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
Well once again I apologise, but it is all fixed now and added everything I wanted to. So it can stay as it is now..J-Man11 (talk) 02:01, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Guards of Honour (France)

Please do not effectively delete articles by converting them to redirects, as you did with this edit, without prior discussion. Your replacement article is shorter and contains less detail. A merge would be the proper course here. I also disagree that the article should be at Guards of Honour of the Imperial Guard, Pawley & Courcelle are clear that they were not officially part of the guard - Dumelow (talk) 05:08, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 22

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 7th Military Division (Vichy France), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Northern France and Western France.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:55, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Cease your post-1800 sandboxes etc, please

Take it all down and stop work on such things, unless you wish to face administrator action. Buckshot06 (talk) 09:02, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXXIV, August 2021

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

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) 15:48, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

August 2021

Information icon Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. This is just a note to let you know that I've moved the draft that you were working on to Draft:22nd Army Corps, from its old location at User:J-Man11/sandbox4. This has been done because the Draft namespace is the preferred location for Articles for Creation submissions. Please feel free to continue to work on it there. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to ask me on my talk page. Thank you. -Liancetalk/contribs 22:05, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Coldstreamer20/Archive_3&oldid=1057379327"