User talk:Coldstreamer20

NOTE REGARDING ARCHIVES

I've arranged the archives as follows:

• Archive #1 -> 2017–2018
• Archive #2 -> 2019
• Archive #3 -> 2021 till September
• Archive #4 -> 2021 from September

Coldstreamer20 (talk) 02:09, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Smaller unit Templates

Hi @Dormskirk and @Buckshot06, I'm currently trying out a new 'template' (so to speak) on the expansion of minor unit pages/creation using a certain template. For instance, the history, organisation, at-least one picture (if needed), at-least one physical reference, and an infobox. The reason I bring this up is because I'm trying it out and if you have the time, I would appreciate a peer review. The two units I've used this 'template' on are here: 1st Regiment, Royal Military Police and 211th (Wessex) Field Hospital. Cheers, Coldstreamer20 (talk) 01:24, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi - My interest is in military history rather than orbats. My only reaction is that there is a huge amount about orbats in these articles and very little about deployments and the actions the units were engaged in. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 02:49, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

I endorse Dormskirk's statement.

I encourage you, on pain of further referral for administrative action and WP:CR, to reference all your insertions, in line with WP:BURDEN, after each phrase. If a unit was established in 1967, a reference should follow the 1967,[insert citation] and then deployed to Aden in 1968,[insert the next citation].

However, also, you are to be commended for carefully going through The Wire as regards whether groups and brigades actually had the (Volunteers) suffix. I would be fascinated to see what the official Army orders establishing the units said.

On pain of further referral for administrative action and WP:CR, I would greatly encourage you to remove, completely, any mention of the 1991 Master Order of Battle from every article, and any statements supported by that document. It is a WP:PRIMARYSOURCE and can not be utilized here. Buckshot06 (talk) 05:38, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 1st Prussian Infantry Regiment

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 1st Prussian Infantry Regiment you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Shushugah -- Shushugah (talk) 21:41, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:Coat of arms with common ornaments / parameters Test

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 that the page you created, Template:Coat of arms with common ornaments / parameters Test, was tagged as a test page under section G2 of the criteria for speedy deletion and has been or soon may be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

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. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:19, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

User:Coldstreamer20 (J-Man11) and WP:PRIMARYSOURCES

Dear Coldstreamer20, in view of your editing after my note of 4 January above, I have raised what is effectively a preliminary ANI regarding your editing and the previously proposed site topic ban. See wt:milhist. Regards, Buckshot06 (talk) 08:44, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

I raised this request in the wrong place, it appears. I've now moved it. In accordance with the AN/I rules, I now need to inform you of a discussion concerning you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#User:Coldstreamer20 (J-Man11) - repeat my request for a topic ban. Feel free to make your case there. Buckshot06 (talk) 12:02, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Hey Cs20, I pinged you a couple times at the 1st ISR Bde tp, but you never responded, and now I see you've been editing since you were notified of this ANI, but haven't responded there either. Is there a reason for that? TPs are one thing, but you really should consider responding to the ANI. (jmho) - wolf 20:28, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

For some reason I wasn't notified about your tags, I'll read what you sent and reply now. Coldstreamer20 (talk) 21:09, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Moving

Hello again @Dormskirk, so regarding moves with redirects, I'd like to move Philippe Henri, marquis de Ségur to just simply Philippe Henri Ségur. However, the latter has a redirect already, so I'm coming here to ask how to deal with that. I know it caused issues regarding both Commander Field Army and Field Army, so I'd like to know how to go about it without creating a bunch of double redirects. Coldstreamer20 (talk) 13:46, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi - I do not know enough about French history to know whether the article should be entitled "Philippe Henri, marquis de Ségur" or just "Philippe Henri Ségur". The article is poorly sourced but the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica suggests he was a marquis in which case some editors may of the view that the article should stay where it is. So you should seek consensus before making a move. The process for seeking consensus is set out at WP:RMCM. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 14:06, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Note

Hi there @SmartyPants22, I use YouTube rather often, and love a channel called "Battle Order". Thought I would tag you as you might find this video: [1] rather interesting. This channel goes in-depth with army structures, history, and roles, etc. Recently a video was done regarding the upcoming 1st Deep Strike Reconnaissance Brigade and might find it useful/interesting. I know it can't be used as a source, but still a good little video to describe it all. Coldstreamer20 (talk) 13:49, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Question about images

Hi there @Dormskirk, I noticed you've uploaded a few images every now and then, so I thought I would ask you this question, but I'll also ask @Thewolfchild. I've uploaded images lately for the new updated cap badges to Wikimedia Commons. However, according to a few people and a good explanation, I know I shouldn't, and in-fact need to upload them here as per the MoD's license regarding uses images specifically on Wikipedia. So, my question is do these: File:Royal Scots Fusiliers Cap badge.png and File:Queen's Own Highlanders Cap badge.png look fine regarding copyright information, free use rationale, etc.? Cheers, Coldstreamer20 (talk) 20:34, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm not really up on the latest iamge-use policy. I'd suggest taking a look at WP:NFCC, and if you get no joy there, try asking Black Kite or Masem, I believe they would probably have the answer for you. - wolf 20:45, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Alright will do, thanks Coldstreamer20 (talk) 20:52, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

I will be very interested to hear what they tell you. Please let us know. Dormskirk (talk) 21:23, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

@Black Kite and @Masem, I'll be tagging you in regard to my above question. Any help is welcome here. Coldstreamer20 (talk) 21:33, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

"Wikipedia's goal is to be a free content encyclopedia" (see here). It seems to me to go against that concept to remove images that are authentic and are free use and to replace them with rather gaudy imitation images which remain the copyright of HM Government i.e. not free use. Just my thoughts. Dormskirk (talk) 21:59, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Again, tags?

Hi @Thewolfchild, again for some reason I don't get your messages, and I have no idea why. I added the archive fix that you added, thanks for that! Coldstreamer20 (talk) 22:47, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

You might want to ask the Help Desk for assistance regarding tags, and re: the archive box... you're welcome! - wolf 23:16, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Well I'm getting tags from other people, but I'm not getting them from you for some reason. Coldstreamer20 (talk) 23:39, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

I receive your pings, and it doesn't appear that anyone else is not receiving mine, so... I don't know what to tell ya. Btw, do you have 1 ISR Bde on your watchlist? If you're not receiving my pings, then at least you'll see my replies to you on that talk page, it's the only discussion we're involved in atm. - wolf 01:44, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, every page I've created is on my watchlist. I see some of your replies, but not your tags, which is very unusual. Cheers, Coldstreamer20, feel free to chat here or see my made pages! 01:57, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Moved 18 (UKSF) Signal Regiment, 651 Squadron AAC and 1 ISR Wing edits

In November 2021, you moved "18 (UKSF) Signal Regiment" to 18th Signal Regiment (United Kingdom). In the edit comment you wrote "As per discussion on talk page, titles being streamlined." There is no discussion on the article's talk page about moving the article. Why did you move the article changing its sourced designation from "18 (UKSF) Signal Regiment" to "18th Signal Regiment"?

In September 2021, you edited No. 651 Squadron AAC that according to a FOI response "the squadron comprises 6 x Britten-Norman Defenders, in addition 3 are in the sustainment fleet". The response is dated January 2020. The Defender was retired from service in June 2021. In August 2021, I edited the Britten-Norman Defender that it had been reported in July that the Defender had been retired from service in June 2021. I have removed your edit and updated the article that the Defender was retired.

In August 2021, I pinged you in Talk for No. 1 Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance Wing RAF that I couldn't find any references for your uncited intro edit that the Wing was formed as a result of the Strategic Defence and Security Review 2015. I edited the intro adding citations. As you never replied, I have removed the Strategic Defence and Security Review 2015 from the article.--Melbguy05 (talk) 02:34, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi, so for part #1: see here: Talk:3rd Signal Regiment (United Kingdom)#Name change, No. 2 I don't remember actually adding that, but I see it happened and I apologise, because I very much am aware the defenders were moved to the RAF at this point. No. 3 I never got your ping surprisingly, and if need be I can clarify its formation as part of the RAF increases from 2015. Cheers, Coldstreamer20, feel free to chat here or see my made pages! 03:05, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Coldstreamer20, you definitely need to contact the help desk about this ping situation. If you're not receiving pings from other users as well, this can lead to further communication issues and the problems that can follow from that. The help desk should be able to direct you to a possible solution. - wolf 17:03, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I'm currently trying to figure it out. Surprisingly this happened back in August of last year, and even looking at my email which I get notified (for literally everything on any Wiki software) @Melbguy05 see here. My oldest message is from the 10th, and nothing before that (note: this is all time and I don't clear this email as it is used specifically for wiki as an archive). So, sorry for the inconvenience and hopefully myself and Dormskirk have been able to solve the issues. Cheers, Coldstreamer20, feel free to chat here or see my made pages! 17:22, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Update to this reply, now I feel like an idiot. See here, apparently I DID get a ping and notification, why I didn't respond is beyond me as this happened almost a year ago at this point, apologies. Cheers, Coldstreamer20, feel free to chat here or see my made pages! 17:25, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Coldstreamer20, I also mentioned on Talk:No. 1 Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance Wing RAF that you copied a large amount of text directly from the RAF Waddington webpage on the Royal Air Force website for the Mission section and Squadrons sections. You created the article with this copied information. This is a copyright violation WP:COPYVIO as the webpage has "© 2022 Royal Air Force. UK Crown Copyright". You need to paraphrase and if you copy directly quote - see MOS:QUOTE.--Melbguy05 (talk) 04:48, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Request for review

Hi there @Buckshot06 and @Dormskirk when you have the change, if you wouldn't mind could you review a new page I just created. NOTE: I did use the RAF website as a reference for a few things, but they are ALL backed up by secondary references. See here: No 1 Air Mobility Wing RAF. Cheers, Coldstreamer20, feel free to chat here or see my made pages! 04:50, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Dear Coldstreamer20, I would kindly like to inform you (again) of the topic ban proposal being discussed at WP:AN, and request you confine your editing to phenomena before 1850, on pain of additional possible administrator action. Buckshot06 (talk) 05:08, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Cs20, do you plan on responding to this AN filing? You're not required to, but it's usually poor form to not post something, whether it be a rebuttal in your defense or some type of mea culpa - an acknowledgement of wrongdoing, an apology to the community, and a commitment to do better. Almost anything is better than nothing. (jmho) - wolf 17:49, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

It's just going to keep happening, and anything I say doesn't matter because it's only what others say that matters unfortunately. Whenever I prove and show that I'm making strides and asking for help and being supported by the community, I get stepped on and told that I'm not improving at all. I care and want to change, and in my view I'm made massive improvements, but it seems only a few editors including yourself see that while the higher-ups just keep nagging me and not assisting. I then get the response that I'm not trying myself to get help, which is extremely incorrect as I've been assisted by yourself, Dormskirk, Noclador, and many others including on the discord which is very useful. Therefore, no matter what I say it doesn't matter and nothing would change, it's just a big loop frankly. So, in that case I can't really do much in this case sadly. Cheers, Coldstreamer20, feel free to chat here or see my made pages! 17:54, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

It's too bad you feel that way, but I can understand how this project can be frustrating at times. If this filing stalls out again, you should still try to take on board what was said anyway and do your best to keep improving. If you do get some sort of ban, remember it's not the end of the world, that bans can be appealed after a certain period of time and that you can still edit other areas outside the ban (and also to try and take on board what was said and do your best to keep improving).

Good luck to you. - wolf 18:08, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Well I didn't say I was stopping and not taking anything to account. I completely understand @Buckshot06 and @Peacemaker67's comments and if I'm not mistaken, I've been clear that I have an issue with understanding when to use primary sources (only). Because, though I won't tag them, Noclador and SmartyPants22 have used more primary than I can count on (for instance): Future Soldier, while I received criticism on my sandbox here :User:Coldstreamer20/Structure of the British Army in 2021 where I've used A LOT of secondary references and few primary. Then, on pages such as 3 Regiment RLC, 201 (Northern) Field Hospital, and 243 (The Wessex) Field Hospital, primary references seem to be fine, but when adding information with those same references, I then get stepped on for using them. It's not only there, but then on pages such as Outline of the British Army at the end of the Cold War, where almost ZERO references are used, that's completely fine, but when I use the 1991 Order of Battle plus many secondary references, that's VERY INCOMPETANT OF ME, and then go on to be threatened (in the lightest sense of the word) with being banned for trying to expand with further references including a mix of primary and secondary. So, I feel like since the very beginning of my return I've been targeted in a sense while others are allowed to get away with it. I do want to say, it's several editors which are not held to account for doing the same thing, while I get stepped on for little changes using the same exact references. So, seeing the discussion just makes me sick because it's ALWAYS me, and NEVER others or a mix, and I find that very annoying. I'm sorry if I sound pissed, because I'm not, but I am annoyed because I feel like (I've said this a million times now) I get targeted while others are allowed to do the same thing without even a courtesy comment. Cheers, Coldstreamer20, feel free to chat here or see my made pages! 18:17, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Well, maybe it's better you didn't post a comment there, at least... not that comment. One thing I can tell you about WP is that comparing the yourself to other editors, or mentioning other editor's behavior wrt to the issues being discussed will almost always accomplish nothing, except usually a rebuke. When your behavior is called to account on a noticeboard, it's usually you vs. the policies and guidelines (p&g) only. If someone complains about your editing, you usually have two choices; 1) show where your edits are supported by the p&g and/or by a consensus, or 2) commit to improving and not repeating the types of edits being reported (and usually an apology helps as well). If you don't think you can, or want to, add a comment to that effect to the AN filing, then it's probably best to just leave off and wait it out. - wolf 19:29, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Noclador (especially) and Smartypants22 have demonstrated enough understanding of how the armed forces they document fit together. Noclador has sometimes not referenced his material, and at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 155#Falsification of sources by Noclador - 1989 listings of U.S. Army battalions by division you will see I chased him down when his sources did not match what he was writing. Smartypants22's edits I've gone over numerous times, without having brigades missing, or headquarters locations which were blatantly incorrect, or confusing commands 20 years apart. I've never found major fault with his edits. You on the other hand continually push well beyond the reliable sources, and don't listen to the advice you are given, then make the same mistake over and over again!! Take the naval order of battle of the 1991 Gulf War, just as you were being counselled to stick to the 1800s, you start making egregious errors on 'United States Carrier Group Independence' when we have had *expert* editors filling in the Carrier Groups, Cruiser-Destroyer Groups etc (see Carrier Strike Group 1 for an example).

And then you go endorsing and advertising above a well-understood unreliable source, Youtube!!

I've just taken a quick look through your latest 2021 sandbox of the British Army. (a) Did it occur to you that I have told you (repeatedly, on your talk page, see User talk:Coldstreamer20/Archive 3#Sandbox Royal Navy) that you need to have sources for whole formations, because units change from time to time, so roughly each whole brigade or equivalent needs to have *one* source? (b) "2nd Division's" logistics unit, sourced from Google Earth? Are you sure that's a reliable source? That someone has updated G Earth for that data point for 2021? Quite possibly the tag is from many years ago!! This is a great example of why I/we lose our tempers repeatedly because G Earth from (whenever) is simply not reliable enough to put here!! (c) "The Staff Corps"? You *link* the correct designation - the Engineer and Logistics Staff Corps - but don't manage to put the full designation into the listing..

You make some many so obvious errors so often that yes, you are targeted, because the cleanup is exponentially higher!! Stick to the 1800s!! Buckshot06 (talk) 19:47, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

You want to know why "on pages such as 3 Regiment RLC, 201 (Northern) Field Hospital, and 243 (The Wessex) Field Hospital, primary references seem to be fine"? Because I don't have the inclination or the time to argue with you on *every* new page you put up!, because it never seems to sink in! If I was *really* monitoring your edits, I would be in your face every two minutes!! Buckshot06 (talk) 06:38, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Right so, Buckshot now that we've both calmed down a bit after yesterday's skive, I'd like to ask about something which I haven't seen any comments from you specifically on. I've created several articles, almost 1/2 of which are now Good Articles regarding the Napoleonic Wars and before that (my main specialty). For instance, 1st Swiss Regiment (France), Dauphin's Cavalry Regiment, Armagnac Infantry Regiment, Breton Chasseurs, and Tirailleurs du Po. May I ask how you specifically feel about this, and if there is anything you see which needs improvement, or things you see which are good I could do more of, or bring over to others, etc. Cheers, Coldstreamer20, feel free to chat here or see my made pages! 16:56, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

New British Army Special Forces Template duplication of existing UKSF Template

Coldstreamer20, last month you created a new Template:British Army Special Forces. The template is largely a duplication of the existing Template:United Kingdom Special Forces. Why is there a need for two templates? The only difference I see is that the Army Special Operations Brigade, the Ranger Regiment and the Future Commando Force are included in the new template. These units are described as "special operations forces" distinguishing them from "special forces". The term special operations forces is used interchangeably with special forces. Countries use either term to describe these units. Special operations forces is a re-direct and wikilinks to the special forces article. I have not seen these new units officially described as "special operations forces" but rather as "special operations-capable". The Special Boat Service and Future Commando Force are not British Army. Why can't the existing template be modified to include special operations-capable units? --Melbguy05 (talk) 06:50, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Well, simply put, UKSF is the designation (technically) for the Directorate of Special Forces. This directorate, DOESN'T oversee all special forces (and special operation forces, which isn't the same), so this is different. So, the reason for this is they aren't the same. NOW, let me say, I would 100% support a change which would merge the two, with a new 'Army' tab which includes the Rangers (under Special Operation Forces), and then work from there, I don't be fine with that. The reason I created a separate template was more-or-less a temporary thing following the creation of the Rangers, and missing of certain units (specifically for the Army). Cheers, Coldstreamer20, feel free to chat here or see my made pages! 16:49, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Template:United Kingdom Special Forces could be modified to incorporate the new "special operations-capable" units of the British Army and the Royal Marines. Otherwise, articles will have two templates that have essentially the same information in each template. You seem to have misunderstood my post that "special operations forces" and "special forces" are one and the same. Nor viewed the Ministry of Defence publication Defence in a Competitive Age that refers to these units as "special operations-capable". I provided one citation from the many official sources available including from the British Army and the Royal Marines. I see you have corrected Template:British Army Special Forces removing non-British Army units, however, you did not remove the Special Boat Service of the Royal Navy.--Melbguy05 (talk) 07:21, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

References

Royal Navy 2021 sandbox

I did quite a considerable amount of work on this - is there a copy anywhere accessible now? Buckshot06 (talk) 05:46, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

@Buckshot06: is this what you're looking for? Or these? Cheers - wolf 07:01, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

No. A current structure of the Royal Navy which this user was working on in 2021. Buckshot06 (talk) 07:07, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

@Buckshot06: Also take a look at this talk page. You contributed a lot to the discussion in the bottom half. - wolf 07:12, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

@Buckshot06: From a cursory search if the sandbox histories, that was about the only contribs I saw from you. But if you take a look at, eg: 1st Swiss Regiment (France), specifically the history, you'll see what could be a problem in finding any draft-type work by you, or other editors, in Jman/Cs20's userspace. In the history of just this page, you'll see there are significant edits made (for example) by you, but on a completely different subject. The page has been blanked, multiple times, with as much as 200mB+ of content, and then finally, the article for the 1st Swiss Rgmt (Fr.) was created and the page was moved to that title, making such work difficult to find. As you can see, the lad here has created many articles, and any number of the them could have such work product hidden in the history. Good luck with your search. Cheers - wolf 07:30, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Wolf, what I am asking this user is whether he has a copy offline of User:J-Man11/Archive/Royal_Navy_2021 formerly sandbox 5. I do know the page I am looking for. Buckshot06 (talk) 09:25, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

@Buckshot06 as per your request, I've recreated the User:Coldstreamer20/Structure of the Royal Navy in 2020 page, via my archives. The latest version was from 28th August 2021. Cheers, Coldstreamer20, feel free to chat here or see my made pages! 14:35, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Thankyou. I've saved it down. You can now delete it again. Buckshot06 (talk) 16:42, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

January 2022

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for violating the non-free content policy, as you did at User:Coldstreamer20/Structure of the British Army in 2010.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  — JJMC89 (T·C) 18:03, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Uhm.. Hi there JJMC89, for some reason your bot just blocked me for reverting edits for icons on a sandbox? It was my understanding that the icons are fine if they aren't in the mainspace. I can revert my edits and remove the icons, but I wasn't aware I couldn't use them even in sandboxes. If need be I'll appeal this block since I didn't understand I couldn't use it in my sandboxes (sorry for saying that a million times). Cheers, Coldstreamer20, feel free to chat here or see my made pages! 18:07, 13 January 2022 (UTC)