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)

Ok... was just trying to help. - wolf 23:35, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

I archive all my pages, so the issue was fixed, but he got two different pages (Sandbox 5 and the Sandbox/Royal Navy Structure in 2020) mixed up. I've got a detailed archive of every single page (major) which I have ever created and thereby am able to replenish all of them and update, etc if needed. Cheers, Coldstreamer20, feel free to chat here or see my made pages! 23:37, 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 Block

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)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Coldstreamer20 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

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). I'll remove the icons since that was my mistake, apologies about that. To be honest I wish you had given me a warning and where to view the issue, since I didn't know I couldn't use them on sandboxes even. Sorry for the inconvenience. Look at it now, I didn't see until just now about the part regarding "Restrictions on location. Non-free content is allowed only in articles (not disambiguation pages), and only in the article namespace, subject to exemptions." Cheers, Coldstreamer20, feel free to chat here or see my made pages! 18:15, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Firstly, thank you to CS20 for their patience and for those who have tendered their positions alongside relevant details. I've declined on the basis that the appeal doesn't sufficiently make me confident on the multiple grounds raises: copyright, the milhist areas and so on. That said, I don't believe I remain as confident of these judgements as, say, JJMC89 is, and, as such, would suggest that CS20 make an additional appeal covering the various areas that I can then place on AN for a community review. I would suggest they also propose their own editing restrictions within it and state the reasons why they'd be relevant. This isn't mandatory (another admin might accept a direct appeal), and does come with the reminder that should AN review and decline, it will become a CBAN. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:38, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

• Coldstreamer, not an admin but I think you have been editing Wikipedia long enough to know not to put non-free images except where provided for by the WP:NFCC. Worse, you edit-warred with JJMC89 in order to keep these non-free images in an article for which there was no usage rationale. And to cap it off, your unblock message shows no sign that you understand the gravity of copyright violations and won't do it again. (t · c) buidhe 00:43, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

  Hi @Buidhe, yes you are correct. However, I haven't (and you can check my talk page archives) had an issues before now. I really haven't had anything to do with images until recently, so it's only a recent issue for me. No. 2 As I explained, I thought it was just a bot going out on my pages, so I wasn't aware that I was actually reverting and going back and forth with an actual admin/editor. No. 3, I do indeed understand the gravity of it, and now that I've learned that I can't actually use it anywhere, I understand the issue it creates being on Wikipedia as it is not just on the specific page. No. 4 of course I won't do it again, so now that I know the issue it causes, I can 100% confirm it won't happen again and will be able to look further into which images not to use. Cheers, Coldstreamer20, feel free to chat here or see my made pages! 02:08, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

• Pinging blocking admin @JJMC89: for their opinion on the appeal. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:08, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

  For any admin that has any concerns about unblocking here, there is currently a report at AN that could impose restrictions that should help with those concerns. (fyi) - wolf 06:05, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

  Coldstreamer20 should not be unblocked without having Topic Ban restrictions placed upon him, in accordance with the thread linked by Wolf above, and previous threads at AN on the issue. Buckshot06 (talk) 09:05, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

  Thank you both for highlighting that. Given there's clearly a consensus there for the TBAN, even if it doesn't get formally closed, I would view it as a necessary condition for unblocking, along with any others that may be necessary (I'm particularly looking at seeing if any on imagery are necessary). Nosebagbear (talk) 11:57, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

  Good to hear. It may not have been quite clear: there has been not one but three AN threads over Coldstreamer20's behaviour, (both at Archive 334, second at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive334#Restarted proposal for topic ban : User:J-Man11) all of which had a general consensus that sanctions should be applied, but none of which were actually closed. Buckshot06 (talk) 19:29, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

  I do not believe that they have the necessary understanding of non-free content and copyright to be unblocked. The issues outlined at AN and on Commons show that the problems aren't just limited to non-free content. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:39, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

  @Nosebagbear, if it means anything could I ask that the restrictions recommended both for the military history issues and the images issues be both applies together. For instance, the inclusion of the restrictions on military history after 1900 in addition to modern history (post-1850) together. Also include the restrictions on the images that I would be required to request an image be uploaded following a proper review and/or procedure. This is only a recommendation, as of course I'm in no position to ask/request anything, but this way it satisfies both the issues. Cheers, Coldstreamer20, feel free to chat here or see my made pages! 19:26, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

January 2022 Copyright issue

Your edit to No. 1 Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance Wing RAF has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. --Melbguy05 (talk) 12:53, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

January 2022 Non-free content image

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. We always appreciate when users upload files. However, it appears that one or more of the files you have uploaded or added to a page, specifically File:Badge airborne delivery wing 1024x1024.png, may fail our non-free policy. Most often, this involves editors uploading or using a copyrighted file of a living person. For other possible reasons, please read up on our Non-free criteria. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --Melbguy05 (talk) 13:58, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Coldstreamer20, you uploaded an image without identifying that the author of the image was the Ministry of Defence (MOD) or that it was sourced from the MOD Defence Brand Portal https://www.defencebrandportal.mod.uk .
The Ministry of Defence Illustration Licence requires that you "indicate that your use and reproduction of our Logo is under licence from us" with suitable wording such as “Reproduced with permission of the MOD”.
You were warned on Wikimedia Commons in January 2022 that you need to meet the terms of the licence.--Melbguy05 (talk) 14:20, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Melbguy05 did you not see my comment on Wikimedia Commons here: MoD Illustration License? I described it all there with what's coming for the files I've uploaded/updated. Cheers, Coldstreamer20, feel free to chat here or see my made pages! 14:50, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Coldstreamer20, your post on Wikimedia Commons on your [User talk] at 23:41, 13 January 2022 seems to have been made after you were earlier blocked on Wikipedia by JJMC89 for "violating the non-free content policy" at 18:03, 13 January 2022. You uploaded the No. 1 Parachute Training School RAF insignia image to Wikipedia at 14:26, 11 January 2022‎. You were advised earlier on Wikimedia Commons by RP88 at 18:07, 10 January 2022 in regard to the MOD insignia images that you could "upload such images to projects that accept Fair Use media (such as English Wikipedia), so long as you comply with their fair use policies". You had earlier received advice from myself in regard to the terms of the Ministry of Defence Illustration Licence at 06:39, 10 January 2022 that it requires you to "indicate that your use and reproduction of our Logo is under licence from us [Ministry of Defence]".--Melbguy05 (talk) 15:46, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Wow Jupy7er (talk) 16:38, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Uhm @Jupy7er hi there, who are you sir? Cheers, Coldstreamer20, feel free to chat here or see my made pages! 16:39, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 1st Prussian Infantry Regiment

The article 1st Prussian Infantry Regiment you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:1st Prussian Infantry Regiment for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Shushugah -- Shushugah (talk) 02:21, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXVIII, January 2022

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D on the Australian Army in Somalia Review essay: Hog Farm on American Civil War sites in the South and Midwest

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) 09:45, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

January 2022 Block Appeal #2

Trying another block appeal per @Nosebagbear's recommendations here.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Coldstreamer20 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

So, I'm trying this appeal again here, per the recommendation from Nosebagbear. I was blocked back on the 13th of January for using (what I thought at the time) as copyright images free to use on sandboxes, but not on main space pages. Now, this quickly became an issue when @JJMC89 (who I thought was a bot at the time) kept reverting the images which caused the issues. These images, I can say I knew were copyrighted, however I didn't until around the 15th or so understand the images issue on Wikipedia. After I learned the issues this could cause, I began trying to fix the issue, but was blocked while removing them in my edit. Later on, I learned (after this block) that JJ is in-fact not a bot, and a real person so we were going back-and-forth. Editors can see here the back and forth issues. So, this brings us to the issues which at the time, but now after the block realise: * 1) JJ is NOT a bot (something I thought, because the first edit says the user is 'JJMC89 bot', and didn't see the others weren't from this bot * 2) The reverted edits from JJ stated "Removed WP:NFCC violation(s). Non-free files are only permitted in articles." Something which at the time I actually thought was just an automated message. * 3) After realising my mistake, I saw I was going back-and-forth as I stated with JJ, not realising he was actually an admin removing copyrighted images. * 4) Why was this an issue for me? Well, I wasn't aware at the time that I couldn't use the copyrighted images even on my Sandboxes, which I hadn't understood. After the block, I took the time to check the image issues and noticed the problems it causes and the issued I didn't understand regarding the use of the images. I thought that they were fine to be used on sandboxes because they aren't in the mainspace, but I then learned this isn't the case, and can't be used at all, ONLY on the page is for. * 5) What can I do? Well, #1 As I stated, I took the time to check what the issue actually was, and I will admit, after the block happened because I hadn't realised JJ was not a bot and wanted to stop with the back-and-forth. #2 after I took the time to check the issues, I saw how this can be an issue and very much understand how the images can only be used on the pages they are for, and nothing else. #3 Restrictions: ** #3A) Remove ALL images from my sandboxes, and only add them with consent of an admin or someone who wouldn't mind checking over the page first. ** #3B) Require all pages moving from sandboxes go to draft first and be reviewed, and in that case have an admin check for image/copyright issues, which can be problems on the page and down the road. * 6) Where does that leave me? I will admit that when this was all occurring at the beginning of the month, I honestly didn't realise that JJ wasn't a bot. As I stated, that first edit was from his bot, and immediately assumed that they were all from the bot because it was the same changes every time. This caused issues, and I can freely admit now that this wasn't just a copyright issue, but a problem because I was reverting an admin's edits. I very much know how this looks to others as if I couldn't care about JJ's authority or his good work trying to make sure copyright issues don't occur. * 7) As I stated, I freely admit I was wrong, and not just wrong, but an idiot (frankly) and acted like a fool, not checking that it was in-fact JJ, and not a bot who was reverting the edits so that way copyright issue wouldn't occur. At the time, I had no idea that the images couldn't be used on sandboxes, but now that I know this I very much see the problem this causes and an/will cause for me and my background for edits. I hope I've answered everything which was needed to be answered, and hope I'm able to be un-blocked, because I really want to do more on Wikipedia and have plenty to share. The images issue is a very recently problem for me, as I've typically not done much in the way of images, and made an honest mistake which unfortunately JJ took far very quickly without warning. I know that even when I had this issue occurring, I was planning on making changes to my pages and such, especially regarding copyrighted images which need to be replaced, adding my own made images, and remove myself from post-1900 military edits as per the discussions by Buckshot06. I very much want to come back though, and hopefully get rid of this stain and not do any image additions which would cause copyright issues. Cheers, Coldstreamer20, feel free to chat here or see my made pages! 18:03, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Appeal was rejected by the community. Yamla (talk) 11:04, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

• CS20, would you like me to place this on AN now, or do you want to see what another admin thinks? Nosebagbear (talk) 18:52, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

  Honestly, don't know, I'll let you make that decision based on your response to the first appeal. Whatever is better, feel free to do so with moving it, or keeping it here.. Cheers, Coldstreamer20, feel free to chat here or see my made pages! 19:40, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

  @Nosebagbear if you want to move it to the Noticeboard, I can also leave a link to the mil hist restrictions discussion so they are together. However, if that happens, I'm not sure if the actual appeal template should move or how that would work? Cheers, Coldstreamer20, feel free to chat here or see my made pages! 00:13, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

  I've raised the appeal on WP:AN Nosebagbear (talk) 10:23, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

  I've commented at AN. Please read my comment, as it will be to your benefit. Mjroots (talk) 07:02, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

  I don’t think this user deserves an unblock unless they explain what the hell is up with the STOP THA STEEL userbox on their page, which is clearly a violation of WP’s WP:FRINGE policy. Dronebogus (talk) 01:45, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

  @Dronebogus: There are no userboxes there that would necessitate a block, so there are none that could be used as an excuse to deny an unblock. If you're going to go on record stating you "don’t think this user deserves an unblock", then you should support that with sound resasoning. Show that you are aware of the reasons for this user's block, that you are familiar with the polcies involves, as well as any relevant history. Personal grudges are not sound reaons to call for someone to be banned. (imo) - wolf 05:11, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Your appeal was unsuccessful, with the closing rationale being: There is no consensus to unblock Coldstreamer20 at this time. We can't really limit this to the narrow question of fair use images, given the substantial previous block history. Any new block appeal needs to squarely addresses that history. starship.paint (exalt) 08:39, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

FOIA response

Hello there @Buckshot06, since you wanted to see the Royal Navy structure changes since 2020, I'll provide a link here for you. I was able to finally get my FOIA answered regarding command post, their star rating, establishment dates, and which commander they report to. See it here. Hope it helps. Cheers, Coldstreamer20, feel free to chat here or see my made pages! 00:17, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Wrong Link

Hi there @Nosebagbear, I noticed you tagged the discussion which I appreciate, but you tagged the wrong one. The correct discussion is here. Cheers, Coldstreamer20, feel free to chat here or see my made pages! 15:20, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:UBX/Trump Supporter

User:UBX/Trump Supporter, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:UBX/Trump Supporter and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:UBX/Trump Supporter during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Dronebogus (talk) 01:42, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Result: kept. starship.paint (exalt) 08:42, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Bias deletion request

Hi there @Rosguill and @Nosebagbear, can I ask you to look here: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:UBX/Trump Supporter. This is clearly a bias deletion request considering it ends with: "was rigged/fake/whatever bullshit". Please fix this or atleast comment on here to remove this bias request for deletion. Cheers, Coldstreamer20, feel free to chat here or see my made pages! 01:46, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

• What, you’re saying that most reliable sources don’t say claims of a rigged election are bullshit? Yes, I’m biased, but I’m biased against nonsense, and are you saying I’m wrong? Dronebogus (talk) 02:05, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

  You’re no less biased considering you made it and clearly seem to believe it, which no one is stopping you from doing outside of Wikipedia. But on Wikipedia you can’t promote WP:PROFRINGE content. Dronebogus (talk) 02:08, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

  No, actually I'm not promoting it, I'm just using it on my page because I want to express myself like yourself or anyone who wants to, and just because it's not the "mainstream media's" view, doesn't mean it should be shunned as you seem to want to do to get your way. Cheers, Coldstreamer20, feel free to chat here or see my made pages! 02:10, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

  By having it on your page you’re inherently promoting it, and no matter what you personally think Wikipedia cannot have content on it, even in userspace, that promotes extreme fringe ideas like this. See WP:PROFRINGE Dronebogus (talk) 02:13, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

  @Dronebogus: can you post a specific quote from policy that you are relying on here? Just repeatedly linking wp:fringe/wp:profringe is not particularly helpful. - wolf 05:17, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

  “Wikipedia is neither a publisher of original thought nor a soapbox for self-promotion and advertising.” And I should probably also link to WP:userboxes, which states “inflammatory” userboxes are forbidden. Suggesting baselessly that a free democratic election was rigged is pretty inflammatory IMO Dronebogus (talk) 05:20, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

  IMO, it seems your're letting this upset you a little too much, considering it's just a userbox on someone's userpage. It's not as if it's in article space. There are numerous userboxes, and userpages that otherwise have personal statements on them, all across WP, do plan on MfD'ing every one you don't like? - wolf 18:02, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

• CS20, pinging individual editors on bits like that with a non-neutral summary is an excellent way to get people to accuse you of canvassing deletion discussions. In any case, there have been struck through changes and multiple editors who are unsure and multiple editors who are actively !Keep. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:02, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

@Nosebagbear:, if it helps, the only two people CS20 has pinged here are you, an admin involved in his block review, and Rosguill, who has previously acted as kind of a guide. The MfD is somewhat questionable, so one can hardly blame him for reaching out, especially since he's limited to his own tp and can't even defend himself at the MfD. (fyi/jmho) - wolf 17:55, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXVIV, February 2022

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 and Nick-D on World War II in Europe

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 22:22, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXVII, March 2022

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D on Hitler as a military leader

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) 09:14, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Unblock attempt again and history

This user is asking that his block be reviewed:

Coldstreamer20 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Background: I've been a member of the Wikipedia community since June 2017, and free to admit that my time has been, well sketchy at best. When I first stated, I had issues with sourcing (as everyone does in the beginning), however then, I not only had trouble asking for help, but didn't stop making frankly awful edits. This culminated in a series of blocks, including the 22nd October 2018 by Buckshot06 for "poorly-sourced pages and not communicating", then the 13th of November for "disruptive editing", and then the 16th of November again for "disruptive editing". Then, in 2019 three more blocks followed for "poor editing quality and disruptive editing", and once again in September of 2020 for "socking". All of these times, the block was for the some basic issues (except the socking one) – that is poorly sourced edits and a lack of communication. Now, as I said when I started my sourcing was awful, and even to this day, it's still sketchy and I have freely admitted multiple times that I have trouble with understanding the difference and also when & when not to use Primary vs. Secondary edits.

Blocks and my Issues: During the summer of 2021, I began getting help for a short time from the amazing Mr. Rosguill (User:Rosguill/J-Man11 primary sources practice), which helped expand my knowledge regarding Primary vs. Secondary, however the help went off the deep-end due to Rosguill's business as an administrator. During this period, the editor's assistance was very useful, and I very much wished it continued. After the drying up of assistance, I then moved to the discord and achieved a lot of help via. other editors and an adopter who helped a lot with understand when and when not to use primary vs. secondary sources.

After a lengthy block, I finally returned and vowed to make my edits better and my pages. In this area, I made significant headway including several of my first Good Article nominations and later acceptances for them. However, as per normal, there were issues, especially on modern-era (referring to post Second World War here) pages and edits. In this field, once again I will admit there were not just issues, but headaches for both sides, myself and Buckshot and other editors, as it was not just him. The infamous example would by the Structure of the British Army in 1989, where the issue of Primary vs. Secondary get heated. Initially, my thought was that primary sources could be used if they were old enough (30 years in this case), however I quickly figured out this was not just incorrect, but completely opposite of the truth. Up until, and slightly past the latest block I still couldn't understand the issue, but now understand the difference and why I was in the wrong here.

Once again, I'll say it a million times if I have to, I WAS WRONG, not only that, but I was IGNORANT, and frankly looking back acting like an idiot. Not only did I clearly not accept help, but I refused to stop making crappy edits when I was told not to, offered help my other editors, and given help directly, especially by Buckshot who I probably will cause a heart attack for him. Not just was I wrong, I never moved on, at least for the majority of the time, I focused on recent military history and used primary sources galore, especially on current changes.

What I can, and will be doing: Why would I bring it up, well I want to show and 100% state here and now that I was wrong and the blocking admins, Buckshot, and the entire community was correct, but I was too ignorant to care. I not only have and was started to make changes, but they were too slow. I've now planned on 100% dropping modern military history from 1900 onward (really 1865 to be specific), and decided to remove myself from the First and Second World Wars, Cold War, Post-Cold War era, and order of battle projects and pages. This will not just help other editors who are sick and tired of me, but my own terrible editing which hasn't improved in these areas, and I'm at the point where I'm giving up in these areas. In response, I will be focusing on what I've gained a rather healthy amount of support and acclaim for, that is before 1865, notably the Napoleonic Wars, and also modern politics, where secondary sources thrive for me, and I don't have any issues with primary sources. Again, I believe my good article nominations and acceptances for the Napoleonic and pre-Napoleonic time periods show that these are the areas I should stick to. Buckshot also even recommended this before, and I began the shift, though moved too slowly. Not only am I removing myself from these areas, but I've decided to not even be involved in these modern military history changes anymore, and will move my focus to the older history as previously stated.

Future: I want to remain part of the Wikipedia community, as I love sharing my knowledge, however the way I was doing it cannot remain. I need to change, I am changing, and I believe I've been someone who had to learn that the hard way. My continually terrible edits and later my sourcing issues have shown that post-1900 military history is not my thing and I need to read the writing on the wall as one can say. I therefore will be withdrawing from all post-1900 military history projects and no longer be editing in these fields without explicit permission (if 100% need to edit) from an admin or a reviewer. I will instead focus on pre-1900 military history and all politics, which I do not have any complications or issues from/with.

What to change: The main issue I've had is the difference between primary and secondary sources, and therefore I would like to have a limited-block (I believe they are termed project blocks?) placed on me for all post-1900 military edits and further have a requirement for all military history articles must be approved via. draft/sandbox before publication. This will not only help me to learn what I have made mistakes in from other editors, but help improve in areas I might not realise I am having trouble with.

Images: Before really the beginning of this year, I didn't have much to do with images, and I now again, like military history have learned the hard way. My current block is due to a discrepancy where I believed a blocking admin was actually a bot, as it was his bot that kept reverting edits on a sandbox of mine. I then asked for help, but I was blocked very quickly by the person for using images incorrectly. I then decided to go via Wikimedia Commons and learn more about copyright, and what does and doesn't indicate "fair use" and "copyright violations". I now understand this, especially since I had uploaded many images under the incorrect licences (UK Crown Copyright V.3 & Public Domain) and attempted to fix them, but was blocked while doing so. This also included the use of fair use images on my sandboxes, which at the time I wasn't aware I couldn't use on even sandboxes. I now know they "fair use" is used for just one article, and if needed for more than one needs to be discussed BEFORE adding them to even a sandbox for copyright violation issues.

Final comments: I feel like I'm repeating myself at this point, but I do want to make it clear that I was wrong. I never admitted that, and now that I've stated it, I hope a new light can be shown on my in the tunnel. Again, I want to improve, but in the past I've been way too ignorant in accepting change, and my change recently was too slow. As much as I love current military history, I cannot keep doing it on Wikipedia when I have shitty edits and I'm not following the rules and acting childish.

I therefore, ask that my block is reviewed and my limitations are added if unblocked including the major No post-1900 military history edits and a review of all new military history pages which come close or possibly pass this year because of earlier histories. In addition, I will be removing all of my sandboxes and drafts which have to do with post-1900 edits and will completely drop modern orders of battles and structures.

Cheers, Coldstreamer20, feel free to chat here! 22:59, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2='''Background''': I've been a member of the Wikipedia community since June 2017, and free to admit that my time has been, well sketchy at best. When I first stated, I had issues with sourcing (as everyone does in the beginning), however then, I not only had trouble asking for help, but didn't stop making frankly awful edits. This culminated in a [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Log?page=User%3AColdstreamer20&type=block series of blocks], including the 22nd October 2018 by Buckshot06 for "poorly-sourced pages and not communicating", then the 13th of November for "disruptive editing", and then the 16th of November again for "disruptive editing". Then, in 2019 three more blocks followed for "poor editing quality and disruptive editing", and once again in September of 2020 for "socking". All of these times, the block was for the some basic issues (except the socking one) – that is poorly sourced edits and a lack of communication. Now, as I said when I started my sourcing was awful, and even to this day, it's still sketchy and I have freely admitted multiple times that I have trouble with understanding the difference and also when & when not to use Primary vs. Secondary edits. '''Blocks and my Issues:''' During the summer of 2021, I began getting help for a short time from the amazing Mr. Rosguill ([[User:Rosguill/J-Man11 primary sources practice]]), which helped expand my knowledge regarding Primary vs. Secondary, however the help went off the deep-end due to Rosguill's business as an administrator. During this period, the editor's assistance was very useful, and I very much wished it continued. After the drying up of assistance, I then moved to the discord and achieved a lot of help via. other editors and an adopter who helped a lot with understand when and when not to use primary vs. secondary sources. After a lengthy block, I finally returned and vowed to make my edits better and my pages. In this area, I made significant headway including several of my first Good Article nominations and later acceptances for them. However, as per normal, there were issues, especially on modern-era (referring to post Second World War here) pages and edits. In this field, once again I will admit there were not just issues, but headaches for both sides, myself and Buckshot and other editors, as it was not just him. The infamous example would by the [[Structure of the British Army in 1989]], where the issue of Primary vs. Secondary get heated. Initially, my thought was that primary sources ''could'' be used if they were old enough (30 years in this case), however I quickly figured out this was not just incorrect, but completely opposite of the truth. Up until, and slightly past the latest block I still couldn't understand the issue, but now understand the difference and why I was in the wrong here. Once again, I'll say it a million times if I have to, I WAS WRONG, not only that, but I was IGNORANT, and frankly looking back acting like an idiot. Not only did I clearly not accept help, but I refused to stop making crappy edits when I was told not to, offered help my other editors, and given help directly, especially by Buckshot who I probably will cause a heart attack for him. Not just was I wrong, I never moved on, at least for the majority of the time, I focused on recent military history and used primary sources galore, especially on current changes. '''What I can, and will be doing''': Why would I bring it up, well I want to show and 100% state here and now that I was wrong and the blocking admins, Buckshot, and the entire community was correct, but I was too ignorant to care. I not only have and was started to make changes, but they were too slow. I've now planned on 100% dropping modern military history from 1900 onward (really 1865 to be specific), and decided to remove myself from the First and Second World Wars, Cold War, Post-Cold War era, and order of battle projects and pages. This will not just help other editors who are sick and tired of me, but my own terrible editing which hasn't improved in these areas, and I'm at the point where I'm giving up in these areas. In response, I will be focusing on what I've gained a rather healthy amount of support and acclaim for, that is before 1865, notably the Napoleonic Wars, and also modern politics, where secondary sources thrive for me, and I don't have any issues with primary sources. Again, I believe my good article nominations and acceptances for the Napoleonic and pre-Napoleonic time periods show that these are the areas I should stick to. Buckshot also even recommended this before, and I began the shift, though moved too slowly. Not only am I removing myself from these areas, but I've decided to not even be involved in these modern military history changes anymore, and will move my focus to the older history as previously stated. '''Future''': I want to remain part of the Wikipedia community, as I love sharing my knowledge, however the way I was doing it ''cannot'' remain. I need to change, I am changing, and I believe I've been someone who had to learn that the hard way. My continually terrible edits and later my sourcing issues have shown that post-1900 military history is not my thing and I need to ''read the writing on the wall'' as one can say. I therefore will be withdrawing from all post-1900 military history projects and no longer be editing in these fields without explicit permission (if 100% need to edit) from an admin or a reviewer. I will instead focus on pre-1900 military history and all politics, which I do not have any complications or issues from/with. '''What to change''': The main issue I've had is the difference between primary and secondary sources, and therefore I would like to have a limited-block (I believe they are termed project blocks?) placed on me for all post-1900 military edits and further have a requirement for all military history articles must be approved via. draft/sandbox before publication. This will not only help me to learn what I have made mistakes in from other editors, but help improve in areas I might not realise I am having trouble with. '''Images''': Before really the beginning of this year, I didn't have much to do with images, and I now again, like military history have learned the hard way. My current block is due to a discrepancy where I believed a blocking admin was actually a bot, as it was his bot that kept reverting edits on a sandbox of mine. I then asked for help, but I was blocked very quickly by the person for using images incorrectly. I then decided to go via Wikimedia Commons and learn more about copyright, and what does and doesn't indicate "fair use" and "copyright violations". I now understand this, especially since I had uploaded many images under the incorrect licences (UK Crown Copyright V.3 & Public Domain) and attempted to fix them, but was blocked while doing so. This also included the use of fair use images on my sandboxes, which at the time I wasn't aware I couldn't use on even sandboxes. I now know they "fair use" is used for just one article, and if needed for more than one needs to be discussed BEFORE adding them to even a sandbox for copyright violation issues. '''Final comments''': I feel like I'm repeating myself at this point, but I do want to make it clear that I was wrong. I never admitted that, and now that I've stated it, I hope a new light can be shown on my in the tunnel. Again, I want to improve, but in the past I've been way too ignorant in accepting change, and my change recently was too slow. As much as I love current military history, I cannot keep doing it on Wikipedia when I have shitty edits and I'm not following the rules and acting childish. I therefore, ask that my block is reviewed and my limitations are added if unblocked including the major '''No post-1900 military history edits''' and a review of all new military history pages which come close or possibly pass this year because of earlier histories. In addition, I will be removing all of my sandboxes and drafts which have to do with post-1900 edits and will completely drop modern orders of battles and structures. <span data-dtsignatureforswitching="1"></span>Cheers, [[User:Coldstreamer20|Coldstreamer20]], feel free to [[User talk:Coldstreamer20|chat here]]! 22:59, 31 March 2022 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1='''Background''': I've been a member of the Wikipedia community since June 2017, and free to admit that my time has been, well sketchy at best. When I first stated, I had issues with sourcing (as everyone does in the beginning), however then, I not only had trouble asking for help, but didn't stop making frankly awful edits. This culminated in a [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Log?page=User%3AColdstreamer20&type=block series of blocks], including the 22nd October 2018 by Buckshot06 for "poorly-sourced pages and not communicating", then the 13th of November for "disruptive editing", and then the 16th of November again for "disruptive editing". Then, in 2019 three more blocks followed for "poor editing quality and disruptive editing", and once again in September of 2020 for "socking". All of these times, the block was for the some basic issues (except the socking one) – that is poorly sourced edits and a lack of communication. Now, as I said when I started my sourcing was awful, and even to this day, it's still sketchy and I have freely admitted multiple times that I have trouble with understanding the difference and also when & when not to use Primary vs. Secondary edits. '''Blocks and my Issues:''' During the summer of 2021, I began getting help for a short time from the amazing Mr. Rosguill ([[User:Rosguill/J-Man11 primary sources practice]]), which helped expand my knowledge regarding Primary vs. Secondary, however the help went off the deep-end due to Rosguill's business as an administrator. During this period, the editor's assistance was very useful, and I very much wished it continued. After the drying up of assistance, I then moved to the discord and achieved a lot of help via. other editors and an adopter who helped a lot with understand when and when not to use primary vs. secondary sources. After a lengthy block, I finally returned and vowed to make my edits better and my pages. In this area, I made significant headway including several of my first Good Article nominations and later acceptances for them. However, as per normal, there were issues, especially on modern-era (referring to post Second World War here) pages and edits. In this field, once again I will admit there were not just issues, but headaches for both sides, myself and Buckshot and other editors, as it was not just him. The infamous example would by the [[Structure of the British Army in 1989]], where the issue of Primary vs. Secondary get heated. Initially, my thought was that primary sources ''could'' be used if they were old enough (30 years in this case), however I quickly figured out this was not just incorrect, but completely opposite of the truth. Up until, and slightly past the latest block I still couldn't understand the issue, but now understand the difference and why I was in the wrong here. Once again, I'll say it a million times if I have to, I WAS WRONG, not only that, but I was IGNORANT, and frankly looking back acting like an idiot. Not only did I clearly not accept help, but I refused to stop making crappy edits when I was told not to, offered help my other editors, and given help directly, especially by Buckshot who I probably will cause a heart attack for him. Not just was I wrong, I never moved on, at least for the majority of the time, I focused on recent military history and used primary sources galore, especially on current changes. '''What I can, and will be doing''': Why would I bring it up, well I want to show and 100% state here and now that I was wrong and the blocking admins, Buckshot, and the entire community was correct, but I was too ignorant to care. I not only have and was started to make changes, but they were too slow. I've now planned on 100% dropping modern military history from 1900 onward (really 1865 to be specific), and decided to remove myself from the First and Second World Wars, Cold War, Post-Cold War era, and order of battle projects and pages. This will not just help other editors who are sick and tired of me, but my own terrible editing which hasn't improved in these areas, and I'm at the point where I'm giving up in these areas. In response, I will be focusing on what I've gained a rather healthy amount of support and acclaim for, that is before 1865, notably the Napoleonic Wars, and also modern politics, where secondary sources thrive for me, and I don't have any issues with primary sources. Again, I believe my good article nominations and acceptances for the Napoleonic and pre-Napoleonic time periods show that these are the areas I should stick to. Buckshot also even recommended this before, and I began the shift, though moved too slowly. Not only am I removing myself from these areas, but I've decided to not even be involved in these modern military history changes anymore, and will move my focus to the older history as previously stated. '''Future''': I want to remain part of the Wikipedia community, as I love sharing my knowledge, however the way I was doing it ''cannot'' remain. I need to change, I am changing, and I believe I've been someone who had to learn that the hard way. My continually terrible edits and later my sourcing issues have shown that post-1900 military history is not my thing and I need to ''read the writing on the wall'' as one can say. I therefore will be withdrawing from all post-1900 military history projects and no longer be editing in these fields without explicit permission (if 100% need to edit) from an admin or a reviewer. I will instead focus on pre-1900 military history and all politics, which I do not have any complications or issues from/with. '''What to change''': The main issue I've had is the difference between primary and secondary sources, and therefore I would like to have a limited-block (I believe they are termed project blocks?) placed on me for all post-1900 military edits and further have a requirement for all military history articles must be approved via. draft/sandbox before publication. This will not only help me to learn what I have made mistakes in from other editors, but help improve in areas I might not realise I am having trouble with. '''Images''': Before really the beginning of this year, I didn't have much to do with images, and I now again, like military history have learned the hard way. My current block is due to a discrepancy where I believed a blocking admin was actually a bot, as it was his bot that kept reverting edits on a sandbox of mine. I then asked for help, but I was blocked very quickly by the person for using images incorrectly. I then decided to go via Wikimedia Commons and learn more about copyright, and what does and doesn't indicate "fair use" and "copyright violations". I now understand this, especially since I had uploaded many images under the incorrect licences (UK Crown Copyright V.3 & Public Domain) and attempted to fix them, but was blocked while doing so. This also included the use of fair use images on my sandboxes, which at the time I wasn't aware I couldn't use on even sandboxes. I now know they "fair use" is used for just one article, and if needed for more than one needs to be discussed BEFORE adding them to even a sandbox for copyright violation issues. '''Final comments''': I feel like I'm repeating myself at this point, but I do want to make it clear that I was wrong. I never admitted that, and now that I've stated it, I hope a new light can be shown on my in the tunnel. Again, I want to improve, but in the past I've been way too ignorant in accepting change, and my change recently was too slow. As much as I love current military history, I cannot keep doing it on Wikipedia when I have shitty edits and I'm not following the rules and acting childish. I therefore, ask that my block is reviewed and my limitations are added if unblocked including the major '''No post-1900 military history edits''' and a review of all new military history pages which come close or possibly pass this year because of earlier histories. In addition, I will be removing all of my sandboxes and drafts which have to do with post-1900 edits and will completely drop modern orders of battles and structures. <span data-dtsignatureforswitching="1"></span>Cheers, [[User:Coldstreamer20|Coldstreamer20]], feel free to [[User talk:Coldstreamer20|chat here]]! 22:59, 31 March 2022 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1='''Background''': I've been a member of the Wikipedia community since June 2017, and free to admit that my time has been, well sketchy at best. When I first stated, I had issues with sourcing (as everyone does in the beginning), however then, I not only had trouble asking for help, but didn't stop making frankly awful edits. This culminated in a [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Log?page=User%3AColdstreamer20&type=block series of blocks], including the 22nd October 2018 by Buckshot06 for "poorly-sourced pages and not communicating", then the 13th of November for "disruptive editing", and then the 16th of November again for "disruptive editing". Then, in 2019 three more blocks followed for "poor editing quality and disruptive editing", and once again in September of 2020 for "socking". All of these times, the block was for the some basic issues (except the socking one) – that is poorly sourced edits and a lack of communication. Now, as I said when I started my sourcing was awful, and even to this day, it's still sketchy and I have freely admitted multiple times that I have trouble with understanding the difference and also when & when not to use Primary vs. Secondary edits. '''Blocks and my Issues:''' During the summer of 2021, I began getting help for a short time from the amazing Mr. Rosguill ([[User:Rosguill/J-Man11 primary sources practice]]), which helped expand my knowledge regarding Primary vs. Secondary, however the help went off the deep-end due to Rosguill's business as an administrator. During this period, the editor's assistance was very useful, and I very much wished it continued. After the drying up of assistance, I then moved to the discord and achieved a lot of help via. other editors and an adopter who helped a lot with understand when and when not to use primary vs. secondary sources. After a lengthy block, I finally returned and vowed to make my edits better and my pages. In this area, I made significant headway including several of my first Good Article nominations and later acceptances for them. However, as per normal, there were issues, especially on modern-era (referring to post Second World War here) pages and edits. In this field, once again I will admit there were not just issues, but headaches for both sides, myself and Buckshot and other editors, as it was not just him. The infamous example would by the [[Structure of the British Army in 1989]], where the issue of Primary vs. Secondary get heated. Initially, my thought was that primary sources ''could'' be used if they were old enough (30 years in this case), however I quickly figured out this was not just incorrect, but completely opposite of the truth. Up until, and slightly past the latest block I still couldn't understand the issue, but now understand the difference and why I was in the wrong here. Once again, I'll say it a million times if I have to, I WAS WRONG, not only that, but I was IGNORANT, and frankly looking back acting like an idiot. Not only did I clearly not accept help, but I refused to stop making crappy edits when I was told not to, offered help my other editors, and given help directly, especially by Buckshot who I probably will cause a heart attack for him. Not just was I wrong, I never moved on, at least for the majority of the time, I focused on recent military history and used primary sources galore, especially on current changes. '''What I can, and will be doing''': Why would I bring it up, well I want to show and 100% state here and now that I was wrong and the blocking admins, Buckshot, and the entire community was correct, but I was too ignorant to care. I not only have and was started to make changes, but they were too slow. I've now planned on 100% dropping modern military history from 1900 onward (really 1865 to be specific), and decided to remove myself from the First and Second World Wars, Cold War, Post-Cold War era, and order of battle projects and pages. This will not just help other editors who are sick and tired of me, but my own terrible editing which hasn't improved in these areas, and I'm at the point where I'm giving up in these areas. In response, I will be focusing on what I've gained a rather healthy amount of support and acclaim for, that is before 1865, notably the Napoleonic Wars, and also modern politics, where secondary sources thrive for me, and I don't have any issues with primary sources. Again, I believe my good article nominations and acceptances for the Napoleonic and pre-Napoleonic time periods show that these are the areas I should stick to. Buckshot also even recommended this before, and I began the shift, though moved too slowly. Not only am I removing myself from these areas, but I've decided to not even be involved in these modern military history changes anymore, and will move my focus to the older history as previously stated. '''Future''': I want to remain part of the Wikipedia community, as I love sharing my knowledge, however the way I was doing it ''cannot'' remain. I need to change, I am changing, and I believe I've been someone who had to learn that the hard way. My continually terrible edits and later my sourcing issues have shown that post-1900 military history is not my thing and I need to ''read the writing on the wall'' as one can say. I therefore will be withdrawing from all post-1900 military history projects and no longer be editing in these fields without explicit permission (if 100% need to edit) from an admin or a reviewer. I will instead focus on pre-1900 military history and all politics, which I do not have any complications or issues from/with. '''What to change''': The main issue I've had is the difference between primary and secondary sources, and therefore I would like to have a limited-block (I believe they are termed project blocks?) placed on me for all post-1900 military edits and further have a requirement for all military history articles must be approved via. draft/sandbox before publication. This will not only help me to learn what I have made mistakes in from other editors, but help improve in areas I might not realise I am having trouble with. '''Images''': Before really the beginning of this year, I didn't have much to do with images, and I now again, like military history have learned the hard way. My current block is due to a discrepancy where I believed a blocking admin was actually a bot, as it was his bot that kept reverting edits on a sandbox of mine. I then asked for help, but I was blocked very quickly by the person for using images incorrectly. I then decided to go via Wikimedia Commons and learn more about copyright, and what does and doesn't indicate "fair use" and "copyright violations". I now understand this, especially since I had uploaded many images under the incorrect licences (UK Crown Copyright V.3 & Public Domain) and attempted to fix them, but was blocked while doing so. This also included the use of fair use images on my sandboxes, which at the time I wasn't aware I couldn't use on even sandboxes. I now know they "fair use" is used for just one article, and if needed for more than one needs to be discussed BEFORE adding them to even a sandbox for copyright violation issues. '''Final comments''': I feel like I'm repeating myself at this point, but I do want to make it clear that I was wrong. I never admitted that, and now that I've stated it, I hope a new light can be shown on my in the tunnel. Again, I want to improve, but in the past I've been way too ignorant in accepting change, and my change recently was too slow. As much as I love current military history, I cannot keep doing it on Wikipedia when I have shitty edits and I'm not following the rules and acting childish. I therefore, ask that my block is reviewed and my limitations are added if unblocked including the major '''No post-1900 military history edits''' and a review of all new military history pages which come close or possibly pass this year because of earlier histories. In addition, I will be removing all of my sandboxes and drafts which have to do with post-1900 edits and will completely drop modern orders of battles and structures. <span data-dtsignatureforswitching="1"></span>Cheers, [[User:Coldstreamer20|Coldstreamer20]], feel free to [[User talk:Coldstreamer20|chat here]]! 22:59, 31 March 2022 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

Pinging previous reviewer plus those relevant: @Nosebagbear, @Buckshot06, @Rosguill, and @Mackensen. Cheers, Coldstreamer20, feel free to chat here! 23:00, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

I recommend that this unblock request not be considered - be declined. This editor was far far too much trouble for the additions s/he made. WP:CIR. Buckshot06 (talk) 05:29, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

British order of battle 1940

Dear Coldstreamer20, did you ever do a 1940 British order of battle draft? Somebody on my talk page is asking for help.. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:22, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

"1940" as in, the Battle of France or as in 1939 for before the war? Cheers, Coldstreamer20, feel free to chat here! 22:23, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

@CS: see the OP here on Buckshot's tp. It explains what they're looking for and why. Hope this helps. - wolf 03:21, 18 April 2022 (UTC) (talk page stalker)

Hi there @Buckshot06, so I reviewed the question, I had been working on a 1940 "Operation Sealion" order of battle (albeit two separate ones: Operation Sealion order of battle and British Home Forces order of Battle 1940), however I dropped them a while ago due to a lack of information, I really only had artillery and engineer unit roles and locations. Infantry is lacking information for the Second World War (overall, but of course not for everything), and therefore I really didn't have an "order of battle", just a listing of artillery and engineer units. The Germans on the other-hand was complete and correct because of the amazing information from several online sites and books. I can link a few here if you're interested in it (for both sides):

British (Commonwealth)

• Home Forces order of battle (only Artillery and divisions, but no details)
• Nafziger's Home Forces order of battle (lacking non-divisional/brigade details)
• Niehorster's British equipment by unit in May 1940

Germans

• Niehorster's Army Group A (lacking in detail, but online)
• Niehorster's 2nd Air Fleet (same as above)
• Niehorster's 3rd Air Fleet (same as above)
• Niehorster's 5th Air Fleet (same as above)
• Army Group A (in German)
• Army Group B (same as above)
• Army Group C (same as above)
• Nafziger's German Order of Battle (lacking in non-divisional details however)
• Niehorster's German Army equipment by unit in 1939/1940
• Online pdf versions of the amazing Verbände und Truppen der Deutschen Wehrmacht und Waffen-SS im Zweiten Wiltkreig 1939–1945. (these are in EXTREME detail if you're interested, separate by numbers from 1-1300 and then by branch, but type, then by region, then by time, and then by type (sub-types). All in German.

Physical:

• McCroden, William T.; Nutter, Thomas E. (2019). German Ground Forces of World War II: Complete Orders of Battle for Army Groups, Armies, Army Corps, and Other Commands of the Wehrmacht and Waffenn SS, September 1, 1939, to May 8, 1945 (Google Books Link). El Dorado Hills, California: Savas Beatie. ISBN 978-1611211092. OCLC 957581332.
• Joslen, Lt. Col H. F. (1960). Orders of Battle: Second World War 1939–1945 (Amazon Link). Official History of the Second World War. London, United Kingdom: Her Majesty's Stationery Office. ISBN 978-1843424741. OCLC 1023366366.
• Pettibone, Charles D. (2006). The Organization and Order of Battle of Militaries in World War II: Volume I – Germany. Victoria, British Columbia, Canada: Trafford Publishing. ISBN 978-1412074988. OCLC 64670086.

I'll also tag the gentlemen who asked, @Jean1505. Hope this helps. Cheers, Coldstreamer20, feel free to chat here! 15:14, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank's a lot Coldstreamer20 and Buckshot06 for your help !@Buckshot06. M research is about the order of British army, in UK, on september 1940 against the possible German invasion (operation SEALION). It's for a board wargame.

I think I have all what I need for the moment, I have to read all the informations you give to me. Thank's again !

I'm happy to found some specialist !

Best regards,

Jean (john) 2A01:E0A:4B8:A80:9BD:DD3F:B85B:BA7E (talk) 19:55, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

"It's for a board wargame." - wtf? We're here to help build and maintain an online encyclopaedia, not help random passers-by win at Stratego. (CS, you'll be lucky if you don't get your talk page access pulled over stuff like this.) If this is you Jean, how about a stop by the WP:TEAHOUSE to see how you can help the project out, son bon? - wolf 23:12, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Well seems its started again, I'm being blamed for something which isn't even correct? I don't see what I've done would cause my talk page to be revoked? I was asked for assistance by Buckshot, and somehow now this is incorrect? Cheers, Coldstreamer20, feel free to chat here! 23:34, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

FOIA response

Hi there @Buckshot06 and @SmartyPants22, you might find a recent FOIA I request to be of use regarding Future Soldier. My question was about the two new public duties companies each battalion will form while in the SFA role. You can see it here. Cheers, Coldstreamer20, feel free to chat here! 14:44, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Also SmartyPants, updates for you about the Merican Regiment, see here: "Work on the amalgamation of the 1st and 2nd Battalions of the Regiment continues apace. Detailed boarding of every soldier’s preferences was undertaken at RHQ, with the record of proceedings signed at The King’s Head in Lichfield – where an antecedent regiment of the Staffordshire Regiment had been raised in 1705. Private Derby accompanied the 1st and 2nd Battalion command teams to the signing! The vast majority of individuals in the Regiment are now clear on where their next assignment is; 90% of soldiers and officers got their first preference, with 99% getting one of their top-three. We expect that the vast majority of moves will take place in the summer, with the new 1 MERCIAN stepping off in extremely fine form on 1 September (MERCIAN Formation Day). That will be the start of a month of Regimental activities designed to bond the new Battalion together for the adventures and opportunities that lie ahead.". Cheers, Coldstreamer20, feel free to chat here! 15:22, 21 April 2022 (UTC)