User talk:Coldstreamer20: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 21:23, 12 February 2019

No drafts, whether sandbox or not!!

Peacemaker67 and I have both asked you to stop creating new pages. This applies to pages in mainspace, drafts, or even sandbox drafts, because you are not properly sourcing them, and they will likely be deleted because they are not properly sourced in time. Cease and desist, please. Peacemaker67, am inclined to apply a block. Your thoughts? Buckshot06 (talk) 02:23, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They "may" have misunderstood the restriction applied to the sandbox as well. So far as I am concerned, this is their last chance to fix up the articles, drafts and sandbox drafts they have already started, and get them up to minimum standard per previous guidance. One more article, draft or sandbox creation, and a month-long block will be imposed. You are not completing the work you are starting. Go back to your first article/draft/sandbox drafts and add multiple reliable sources, cite it properly (not with bare urls), and then let one of us know when you are done. Then we will see if there is enough for an article to remain. Then we'll move on to the next one. If you don't do this, it is highly likely most of your work will end up deleted. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:04, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's correct I didn't know you meant the sandbox too, I thought you just meant the Draft: and the / ones..J-Man11 (talk) 16:56, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For 1 Sigs Regt, please start by applying Template:Cite Web to citations 6, 7, and 8. Buckshot06 (talk) 12:53, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alright I made a few changes to all the signals regiments ones..J-Man11 (talk) 17:03, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would much appreciate it if you would focus on your signals regiment drafts rather than promising and working on a whole bunch of other things. You've amassed an enormous backlog, and both I and PM67 have many other things to do. Note also please that companies of battalions (like Guards incremental companies) and signals squadrons of regiments (like 200 Sigs Sqn) have been deemed not to be notable, and will like not make it out of draftspace. They're part of a larger regiment/battalion. Only independent companies have been deemed definitely notable. Buckshot06 (talk) 17:02, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Obwill do! J-Man11 (talk) 17:03, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a lot of changes lately so.. what do I do now?J-Man11 (talk) 23:44, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are still issues with 1 and 2 Signal Regiments, as I've noted on the talk pages. Address those first, then I'll show you how to write a MOS:LEAD for one of them, then you can write leads for all of your drafts. As you finish the leads, I'll assess them for moves to article space. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:54, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

J-Man11, insert this text [[:Category:Regiments of the Royal Corps of Signals]] into all your signals regiments drafts IMMEDIATELY, please. Do not insert the nowikis. Do not delete categories again, please, as you just did with Draft:1 Signal Regiment (United Kingdom). WP:CATEGORIES are key to navigating Wikipedia. Buckshot06 (talk) 05:37, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"The central goal of the category system is to provide navigational links to Wikipedia pages in a hierarchy of categories which readers, knowing essential—defining—characteristics of a topic, can browse and quickly find sets of pages on topics that are defined by those characteristics. " Buckshot06 (talk) 05:38, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Will do, I thought I just deleted one that was "un-linked" but ok.. J-Man11 (talk) 14:44, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That was because it was in Draft: space. The only thing that would be required, when it was ready to move to mainspace, was to take the first : out. Then it could be switched to mainspace without trouble. Now, [1] is incorrect. Only Category:Regiments of the Royal Corps of Signals is required. If you check that category, you will see it is inside the regiments of the British Army category and the Royal Corps of Signals category. If you leave it like that, the article will be in three levels of the category structure at the same time. Take the other two categories out. Do me a favour, follow my instructions, not more (like extra categories), not less, and you'll get along faster. Buckshot06 (talk) 03:25, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So... any news or anything its kinda boring just sitting around editing on old articles and not making new ones that I really love.. J-Man11 (talk) 18:20, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll write the lead for 1 Signal Regiment in the next day or so and fix the MOS:BOLD errors, then you need to do the same thing with the articles you've already drafted. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:50, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look at it! J-Man11 (talk) 23:51, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I expanded the lead of 1 Signal Regiment. You need to do the same with each of the articles you've created, properly summarising what is in the body and bolding alternative/historical names in the lead. As you finish each one, let me know and I'll check them. I will now move 1 Signal Regiment to article space. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:28, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wow that cool, also I've decided just to leave the last changed name as bold.. J-Man11 (talk) 00:29, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So I'm working on 3 and 7 atm.. but can you let me know how the 2nd Signal Regiment's intro is? J-Man11 (talk) 01:03, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Peacemaker67 and Buckshot06: - In all fairness, the sandboxes are on me. The post is gone now, but earlier I had told J-man that he could create as many sandboxes as he likes since it was his own userspace (we even have notification & warning templates advising new users and vandals to go to the sandbox for practice edits). I get that J-man has created alot of pages and then just left them incomplete while going on to create more, and we would like to see him finish what he starts. But I had to speak up here because I was surprised to see someone threatened with a block for using their own sandbox. He should feel free to continue practice-editing in his sandbox(es), without fear of being sanctioned, as that is exactly what they were designed for. (jmho) - wolf 01:40, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I knew someone told me I could use sandboxes, thats why I was so surpised when they told me I couldn't.. J-Man11 (talk) 01:43, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Using your sandbox for practice edits shouldn't be a problem, but it would be a good idea to not use them as a platform to create entire new pages until you have brought the existing pages you've created up to article standard. I agree 100% with Peacemaker and Buckshot on that. But it seems you are working on them, so that's good, keep it up. Cheers - wolf 01:56, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough.. I do like making articles and editing them.. I'm kinda addicted to it now ha ha.. but better is preferred over more.. J-Man11 (talk) 01:59, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that's right, we want quality over quantity. For example, 1 Signal Regiment is now a C-Class article for WikiProject Military history, and that is a good effort. If you can replicate that on the other drafts you have created, you will be doing well. Keep it up. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:29, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's not easy but I'm trying on the other atm.. J-Man11 (talk) 03:31, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Signals Regiments

@Peacemaker67: Can you check out the 2nd Signal Regiment? J-Man11 (talk) 00:35, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look later today. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:16, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I did a copyedit, added a bit from one the sources and reworded some of it, have now moved it to article space and set up the talk page. I'm assuming good faith regarding the offline sources. Good work. Now make the other signal regiments like 1 and 2 and you'll be cooking with gas. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:12, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wow thanks!! But question.. what do you mean "I'm assuming good faith regarding the offline sources".. What does that mean? J-Man11 (talk) 14:20, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:ObI worked on 7th Signal Regiment if you want to check that out.. I don't have much to put in the intro though..J-Man11 (talk) 17:40, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming good faith means that I haven't been able to verify them myself because I don't have access to them. Given we have had some issues with sources not reflecting accurately what is in the article (wrong pages etc), I am assuming you've got them right and they actually support what is in the article. I'll take a look at this one next. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:33, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can give you a little section of text or something if you want proof, because I don't want to cheat the system.. J-Man11 (talk) 00:53, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also.. how would a page like this [[2]] be? It seems to be exactly like that other website we were using.. It seems like a good source as its main source is the French Army's historical "book" on the units and history of the army in the Battle of France. Also, in addition the sources are shown on every page. J-Man11 (talk) 19:54, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If your interested I've wanted to work on division pages for a lot of things as I have a lot more French and italian divisionary information now. So if you to check this out: Can you tell me how this looks?J-Man11 (talk) 23:35, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

france1940 website isn't reliable. With any source, the author, publisher and the source itself need to be separately reliable, and we don't know who the author is (or their expertise), it is self-published (generally a no-no unless they are an acknowledged expert, usually having had books published by reputable publishing houses), and it hasn't been checked against other sources to see if it is even accurate per the original source. So, you can't use it. What you need is the French book it is supposedly drawn from. I'll have a look at the draft, but if it based on this website, it won't be ok. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:10, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No I didn't use that page for it, I used the niecester or whatever page along with my French and italian army book. I'm starting to learn some french and germany military terms lately so I quite like doing both languages now.. The reason why I asked about that page is because if you look here: France Order of Battle the order of battle is linked to that page..J-Man11 (talk) 00:22, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Using Niehoster's work is ok, but using a webpage linked to by Niehorster is not. It isn't his work. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:30, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, the The Organization and Order of Battle of Militaries in World War II is a self-published source by an author who is not reliable and should not be used in articles. Before you create other French articles, I suggest you obtain copies of print (hard copy) books that are actually published by reliable companies. Kges1901 (talk) 18:00, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Again I ask thought.. overall how is the page? Because I'm trying to do a new style and I thought it looks better (than what I had) J-Man11 (talk) 18:07, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File copyright problem with File:HMS Medway sea trials.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:HMS Medway sea trials.jpg. However, it is currently missing information on its copyright and licensing status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can verify that it has an acceptable license status and a verifiable source. Please add this information by editing the image description page. You may refer to the image use policy to learn what files you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. The page on copyright tags may help you to find the correct tag to use for your file. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please also check any other files you may have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 14:47, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

14th Luftwaffe Field Division (Wehrmacht)

G'day J-Man11, have a look at what I was able to do with 14th Luftwaffe Field Division (Wehrmacht) using Mitcham. We don't need dodgy sites like Lexicon der Wehrmacht to create and properly cite articles. I suggest if you want to create similar articles, you use this article as a bit of a guide on the minimum standard. Of course, in the longer term, we'd want some info about what the division did in Norway and Denmark, were they involved in any atrocities, what was the command structure they were under, but this is a good start. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:58, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That page was sooooo great and easy to follow, but if I can't use it I have a few other good books and articles so I guess I can keep going.. J-Man11 (talk) 13:09, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You can’t use it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 13:16, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I know, well now I do, I have other articles I can use though.. J-Man11 (talk) 13:17, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you have used it for other articles, delete it. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:16, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:HMS Medway sea trials.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:HMS Medway sea trials.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. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 16:10, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Panzer III 10 panzer division France.jpg

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for the calculation of the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. See User:RonBot for info on how to not get these messages. RonBot (talk) 18:02, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ordersofbattle.com

I don't believe www.ordersofbattle.com is reliable, mainly because it is a self-published source. While it lists sources, each page doesn't list the sources used, and there is no indication anywhere that the person who puts it together is an expert on orders of battle. Do don't use it. Use books like Mitcham or use www.niehorster.org (Leo Niehorster has a PhD and is an acknowledged expert on orders of battle), used in quite a number of Featured articles. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:53, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

www.niehorster.org your joking right? XD I've been using that forever I just never referenced cause of my book on the UK order of battles.. well fair enough ok.. It's a shame all the useful and easy to find pages are all "not allowed".J-Man11 (talk) 04:30, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is exactly why I have been telling you to use books. Niehorster is a notable exception, as are uboat.net and Haugh's convoy database, but don't bother with websites other than those ones. I suggest you ask me or Buckshot06 BEFORE using a website other than the MoD one. Stay away from axishistory, lexikon der wehrmacht, vojska etc, they are basically just fanboi or gaming websites, and they aren't reliable. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:36, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free rationale for File:Panzer III 10 panzer division France.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Panzer III 10 panzer division France.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F6 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 00:53, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 22

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited British Army Order of Battle (September 1939), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Lancaster and Weymouth (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:23, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of 2007 British Army order of battle

The article 2007 British Army order of battle has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The article creator has not provided any rationale for choosing 2007 for this order of battle, despite several opportunities to do so. We would not have orders of battle for every year of the existence of the British Army, so why this year in particular? Why is this year notable in respect of the order of battle of the British Army?

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. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:09, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked for it to be deleted almost 5 times and it keeps being stopped.. J-Man11 (talk) 13:35, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Other websites to avoid

Also do not use feldgrau and axishistory, as well as lexikon der wehrmacht. They are not reliable. Given your keenness for websites rather than books, any other websites you come across, run it past Buckshot06 or I first before you start using them. That will save you (and us) some heartache. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:00, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I have a list of like 10 website 4 have been deemed not good so far, but I won’t hesitate to ask.. J-Man11 (talk) 13:02, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Divisions of Vichy France (Armistice Army)

It's commendable you're working on these formations, using Niehorster as a source. But I would request you kindly to first establish, with references, the page Armistice Army, using as a basis the text at Military history of France in World War II, and then adding all your proposed text for any Group of Military Divisions/Corps and divisions there first. From that point, please, should you wish to do further work, create the two Group of Military Divisions' articles first, and only then, the divisional articles.

The reason for working on the higher structures first is that any other relevant information added by later wikieditors on the whole Armistice Army has a place to go. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:39, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for telling me but can I ask what you need me to actually do on that page? I just made a rought draft: 1st Group as the "higher formation" 1/7 commands would that be ok? And than go down to division pages and regimental pages? J-Man11 (talk) 02:12, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1. Copy the text at Military_history_of_France_during_World_War_II#French_State_Army_(1940–44) into the Armistice Army redlinkpage. Start the page by saying 'The Armistice Army was the army of Vichy France, formally the French State, from 19xx to 19xx..' WP:DICDEF says that 'Encyclopedia articles should begin with a good definition and description of one topic,' which is what you will be doing.

2. Reference that text, using Niehorster or other.

3. Find the commanders from 1942 - 44. Reference them.

4. Write up the orders of battle you wish to write at that page. Merge Draft:7th Military Division (Vichy France), Draft:14th Military Division (Vichy France), and Draft: 1st Group of Military Divisions (Vichy France) into the Armistice Army page. Check WP:SIZERULE about page lengths, whether it goes over say 60kB of readable prose size (WP:RPS).

5. Establish links from Military history of France during World War II, and Vichy France, to Armistice Army.

6. If it goes over that 60kB of actual text size, establish 1st Group of Military Divisions, and/or 2nd Group of Military Divisions. Keep everything at the higher organisational levels unless you go over SIZERULE and need to establish an another page. Buckshot06 (talk) 02:35, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So pretty much make the page and just put all the information I previously had into 1 page? J-Man11 (talk) 13:18, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you go over the RPS size limit, yes. Adding some of the Google Scholar results for a "Vichy France" and Army search would be good too. Buckshot06 (talk) 13:39, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Where did all that text in the article come from? Have you forgotten about having to reference everything? Buckshot06 (talk) 04:55, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you told me to copy those things over....? J-Man11 (talk) 12:54, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I did. But the article I mentioned was Military history of France during World War II. You appear to have copied the material from Vichy France. When you copy text from one page to another, you must say in the edit summary something like 'text copied from Vichy France' and insert the link, because the copyright was for when it was inserted at that article. Buckshot06 (talk) 05:55, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant guideline is WP:COPYWITHIN. The standard edit summary for such copypasting is "copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution". Please follow this when copypasting within WP. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:58, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks PM67!! I have done the final touches and transferred the article to mainspace; it's a total of 14 kB. Buckshot06 (talk) 06:27, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

sounds confusing but I'll try and see what I can do J-Man11 (talk) 15:03, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

Nice to see things working out for you Jman. (Thanks to some fine mentoring by PM67 & BS06). Keep up the good work. (just my 0.02¢) - wolf 08:26, 26 January 2019 (UTC) Well thanks I’m trying to make things (better) because I have A LOT of stuff I want to add. So might as well make it good. J-Man11 (talk) 23:21, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

27th Alpine Infantry Division (France) moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, 27th Alpine Infantry Division (France), does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Britishfinance (talk) 17:01, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stop the editorial comment

I've asked you before to stop making comments in articles beyond things you can directly cite!! It's been common for twenty plus years to NATO units to have deployment arrangements that would include other nations' HQs; multinational engineers, artillery, signals, all the CS arms. Especially when you leave spelling mistakes behind as well. STOP WRITING THINGS THAT YOU CANNOT *DIRECTLY* CITE.

Peacemaker67? I feel this is not working out at all well, with J-Man11 incapable, for example, of even following my instructions properly above re the Armistice Army, and I am inclined to recommend to you some very severe restrictions. Buckshot06 (talk) 12:42, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't mind me asking.. what do you mean by a "editorial comment?" Is that adding information about units and stuff in the article? J-Man11 (talk) 12:56, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FYI - you shouldn't remove part of someone's comment... either remove all of it or none of it. In this case, you shouldn't remove any of it, considering there is a ping to PM67 to respond. But I'm sure it was just a mistake anyway (right?). - wolf 14:26, 29 January 2019 (UTC) (talk page stalker)[reply]

If I did, it was a mistake because I was responding to the comment and I didn't want it to go to the bottom.. J-Man11 (talk) 14:27, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An editorial comment is giving your personal view on something, an opinion. Here is was saying "29th Engineer Brigade had a very strange structure" (by including other states' units). Saying it's "strange" is just your WP:POV. Don't give your editorial comments; they are WP:OR. The only time we can insert such things is when other WP:RSs say them. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:43, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Uhm ok fair enough so don’t add my opionion / view? J-Man11 (talk) 23:19, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Never! Your opinion/view is not a WP:RELIABLESOURCE. Buckshot06 (talk) 01:47, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Drafts

I've decided (regretfully) to put the new pages / drafts on hold for a bit to finish up the rest of the drafts that I've left for about 4 months.. J-Man11 (talk) 13:21, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to delete the 1976 BAOR OB, unless Peacemaker67 disagrees; it's not ready for Wikipedia. Keep it offline and reference it better, especially 7th AA Brigade, before bringing it back here. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:45, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It was a draft also, what do you offline? J-Man11 (talk) 23:20, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jmho, but you should be able to save it in one of your sandboxes, as that is your own userspace. (Some editors literally have hundreds of subpages that sit untouched for years). fyi - wolf 01:51, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's perfectly adequate. Take it to a sandbox, J-Man11. Buckshot06 (talk) 01:56, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Rifles & infantry battalions/regiments

@Buckshot06 or @Peacemaker67 would either of you mind looking at either my 2 RIFLES or 3 RIFLES pages? J-Man11 (talk) 03:25, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have. Remove the Twitter references, which are not reliable enough, date the "before" and "after" A2020 far more precisely, and upmerge the remainder to The Rifles. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:38, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure you understand about individual battalions of infantry regiments. Don't create articles for them. The idea with Wikipedia is to get articles to WP:Featured Article status, and your articles are in general skeletons; so just add the data to the regimental page. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:03, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The RRS has individual battalions though.. I’ll try to add the information. Though. J-Man11 (talk) 23:48, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Don't. Add the Rifles data, with exact dates (NOT just "Before Army 2020" and "After Army 2020", which is so imprecise as to be almost useless) and then focus on getting your existing drafts up to standard. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:54, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Organization and Order of Battle of Militaries in World War II

I have noticed that, on 1st Guards Breakthrough Artillery Division, you used this as a source. I have previously told you above that sources like this that are WP:SPS are not reliable for use in articles. In general avoid sources not published by reputable publishers. High quality English RS sources for the Red Army in World War Ii include the books of David Glantz, for example, which you should be making an effort to use instead of Pettibone. Kges1901 (talk) 03:56, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll go further. DO NOT use Pettibone at all. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:28, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Endorsed - do not use Pettibone. Find better sources. Buckshot06 (talk) 05:16, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: 12th Signal Group (United Kingdom) has been accepted

12th Signal Group (United Kingdom), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can 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.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.