User talk:Toddy1/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

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 and Hawkeye7 look at recent works Op-ed: TomStar81 on the evolution of the tank Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle: Issue CXXVII, November 2016

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 looks at two new books on the US military Interview: A chat with our new project coordinators Review essay: Nick-D discusses recent works on the British and Australian Armies in World War I Op-ed: TomStar81 on the end of the Battle of the Somme Timeline: This month in World War I

Hello, Toddy1. Voting in the

2016 Arbitration Committee elections

is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

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 looks at America's nuclear capability at the start of the Cold War Review essay: Hawkeye7 on the Manhatten Project suite of articles Op-ed: TomStar81 discusses leadership changes in World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

You are receiving this notification because you participated in a past RfC related to the use of extended confirmed protection levels. There is currently a discussion ongoing about two specific use cases of extended confirmed protection. You are invited to participate. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk (sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:31, 22 December 2016 (UTC))

Iryna Harpy (talk) is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Christmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{

subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec16a

}} to your friends' talk pages.

Graham.Fountain | Talk 10:59, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Kliment Voroshilov tank#You reverted grammar correction.-- Toddy1 (talk) 15:09, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Let me know if I got the history correct, please.--v/r - TP 21:57, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. I have left a message on the original editor's talk page.-- Toddy1 (talk) 22:05, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Time is running out to voting for the Military Historian and Newcomer of the year! If you have not yet cast a vote, please consider doing so soon. The voting will end on 31 December at 23:59 UTC, with the presentation of the awards to the winners and runners up to occur on 1 January 2017. For the Military history WikiProject Coordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:01, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

This message was sent as a courtesy reminder to all active members of the Military History WikiProject.

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 look at three recent works Op-ed: TomStar81 on a curious episode of World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

Special:Contributions/213.205.251.238 appears to be a UK contributor, whilst Special:Contributions/Djrun appears to be a US contributor. I was able to look up where the IP is located (London), whilst Djrun has interests in subjects that only an American could take an interest in. I have commented on the article talk pages about recent edits by you and Djrun at Talk:IERA, where I agreed with your position, and at Talk:Siraj Wahhaj, where I partly agreed with you and partly with Djrun. I have not commented on the article talk page for your disagreement at Hamza Tzortzis, because you seem to have accepted his edit of 05:22, 14 January 2017. I do not wish to examine Djrun's edits to articles on American "football" and Save Mart Supermarkets.-- Toddy1 (talk) 18:20, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! --JustBerry (talk) 21:57, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

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: Recent external reviews Op-ed: TomStar81 looks at submarine warfare in World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

Dude, you left a message on my talk page, about a primary sources tag on General der Nachrichtenaufklärung. You do know I have been on Wikipedia for longer than a decade, and created over 400 article. So why the crass comment left on my talk page? If you had taken more than a few minutes to read the article and understood the nature of it, you would have realized it was about a secret German organization during World War II. How many historians and other writers, do you think, write about secret German/Nazi intelligence organizations during World War II. I'll tell you, you can count them on one hand. Nobody even knew about the organization until 1985-1989, when the NSA released a whole bunch of documents. So the idea there is going to be loads of secondary and other fancy sources you get in popular culture articles, is not there. That tag would sit there until end of time. I've taken it off. scope_creep (talk) 23:38, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Maybe you should refresh your memory about

sourcing articles.-- Toddy1 (talk)

08:13, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

G'day all, please be advised that throughout March 2017 the Military history Wikiproject is running its March Madness drive. This is a backlog drive that is focused on several key areas:

• tagging and assessing articles that fall within the project's scope
• updating the project's currently listed A-class articles to ensure their ongoing compliance with the listed criteria
• creating articles that are listed as "requested" on the project's various task force pages or other lists of missing articles.

As with past Milhist drives, there are points awarded for working on articles in the targeted areas, with barnstars being awarded at the end for different levels of achievement.

The drive is open to all Wikipedians, not just members of the Military history project, although only work on articles that fall (broadly) within the military history scope will be considered eligible. More information can be found here for those that are interested, and members can sign up as participants at that page also.

The drive starts at 00:01 UTC on 1 March and runs until 23:59 UTC on 31 March 2017, so please sign up now.

For the Milhist co-ordinators. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) & MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:24, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

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 look at works on two facets of US military power Op-ed: TomStar81 on the Russian Revolution Timeline: This month in World War I

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on List of sovereign states and dependent territories in Europe. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Czechia2016 (talk) 23:54, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Why did you change the article on the IS tank family to American spelling?-- Toddy1 (talk) 19:07, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

It was ALREADY using American English for most of the article. Only a few recent additions used British spelling. DMorpheus2 (talk) 12:02, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

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 and Hawkeye7 look at air power and nuclear weaponry Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on Australia's part in the advance on the Hindenburg Line Timeline: This month in World War I

World War II was firstly began in China. If you don't think so because you are not CHINESE. CHINA IS MY HOMELAND! I HATE THE EVIL JAPANESE! — Preceding unsigned comment added by NAKFANS (talk • contribs) 02:57, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

It is foolish to hate people because of their race or nationality.-- Toddy1 (talk) 04:57, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Toddy1

I think you've misunderstood what Doktorbuk has been doing, which is cleaning up excess/dead citations from older elections. All the information on the page is still being covered by the citations he's creating/leaving in the election box headers. Regards - Galloglass 15:14, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Jdcomix (talk) 19:44, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Would you mind letting me know which article you are talking about?-- Toddy1 (talk) 19:54, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Trafalgar&action=history This violates the WP:3RR. Jdcomix (talk) 20:28, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

@Jdcomix: Maybe you should look at the edit history. If you did you would see that:

• 2.28.152.97 made one original edit and three reverts
• Pinkbeast made two reverts (both of 2.28.152.97)
• Toddy1 made two reverts (one was a partial revert of Pinkbeast, and one a revert of 2.28.152.97)
• Jdcomix made one revert of 2.28.152.97

Nobody has broken the three revert rule.-- Toddy1 (talk) 21:17, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

By the way, if you look at this diff you will see you put back in the article one of the "famously" words that the IP editor objected to, and Pinkbeast and I conceded to him/her. i.e. you set back attempts at a compromise.-- Toddy1 (talk) 21:29, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Green Lane Masjid shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. 31.53.205.125 (talk) 18:52, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Could you take a look at England expects that every man will do his duty‎? I think the same conclusions that apply at Battle of Trafalgar apply there... Pinkbeast (talk) 22:45, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

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 on Strategic Air Command doctrine Op-ed: Tomstar81 looks at a little-known aspect of World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

I am sorry, but there are times when I have to place notices on other editors' talk pages whether they like it or not.

• If I make a report to them on one of the administrators noticeboards, e.g. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents or Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring
• If you are have done 3 reverts in 24 hours, and I plan to take you to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring if you do a fourth, then someone needs to place an edit-warring warning on your page; which is the action you are complaining about.

-- Toddy1 (talk) 21:02, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Unless required by policy, of course. I obviously do not intend to break the three-revert rule, though I am disappointed that you would insist that a screenshot from YouTube is superior to an actual photograph, apparently for the purposes of making a point. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 21:05, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

I genuinely believe that the old photo is greatly superior to the new photo.-- Toddy1 (talk) 21:06, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Hey, wanted to say thanks for your excellent layout of what these users were doing. Had this been one user operating under a typical username, I probably would have thanked them for the work they had done. But seeing two accounts with very troll-ish usernames making such rapid edits raised my suspicion. Thanks for sorting it out. Home Lander (talk) 19:13, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

It was a very odd case.-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:09, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

I myself am wondering about their motive. They seemed to be an editor in good standing; other than recently being told that a question they posted at an RfA was apparently stupid, I'm not sure what went wrong. Home Lander (talk) 20:17, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

You beat me, I was just collecting evidence for a SPI. I looked at their global contributions and found [1]. H1N111 is a globally locked SP of ELreydeEspana. However, ELreydeEspana operated IP´s from Guatemala; these socks seem to be related to Maltese IP´s. JimRenge (talk) 11:08, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Please could you add what you have found to the SPI.-- Toddy1 (talk) 11:23, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

It should be in your User: space not User talk, but I trust you'll be moving it shortly. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:27, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

It is moved to the articles with a year number in Category:Mid Bedfordshire District Council elections.-- Toddy1 (talk) 15:16, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The

discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Eastern Europe, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here

.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:46, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi. Not sure whether you're subscribed to watch the Politics of the United Kingdom talk page, so just though I'd give you a heads up that I'd suggested a potential way of displaying electorates for local authority elections, by placing it below the ward name. I'd be greatful for your input. Ballotboxworm (talk) 16:50, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I have responded there.-- Toddy1 (talk) 17:02, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

See: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom#Number of registered voters

Thanks for your message re HMS Dee. I think it would depend if all the ships were named after the same River Dee or whether different ships were named after different rivers, but without knowing that I'm not sure what the best way to handle it would be.— Rod ^talk 20:48, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

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 looks at the Battle of Kokoda and US defence acquisition in the 1960s Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on the Battle of Messines Timeline: This month in World War I

A lot more than I expected! Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Oppulence76 Doug Weller talk 13:34, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

-- Toddy1 (talk) 14:56, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up but like other weapon articles in Wikipedia, I believe that the AK-12 should be named as "Kalashnikov AK-12", to represent the manufactures name. What do you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gun Lover (talk • contribs) 12:53, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Articles on other similar weapons do not have the manufacturer's name in the title. If the "Kalashnikov" represents the manufacturer, what should be done if other firms also start manufacturing it (this is not uncommon).

• AKM
• AK-47
• AK-74
• Type 56 assault rifle
• PPSh-41

If you think that the article on the AK-12 should be renamed, you might want to ask whether other articles should be renamed at the same time. You can see the instructions at

WP:RM#CM.-- Toddy1 (talk)

13:29, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Re [2] - as you prefer. I don't have a strong opinion, but my hunch from the URL was that it was unlikely to point to a reliable source, and without being able to load the page, it was hard to verify. --

Often these things are recovered by bots if marked as dead links. We can make a judgment once it has been recovered.-- Toddy1 (talk) 19:58, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the info. --

talk

) 22:00, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

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 looks at planning for the unthinkable Op-ed: TomStar81 on Russia's Provisional Government in World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

I am sorry to say that I don't remember to have made any modification to the Lugansk page. Maybe I did, it could be, since I have some interest in the argument, but honestly I don't remember doing it. Can you tell me something more? What modification I made, for example? That would help, I could remember doing it and then I could explain (probably) why I made that modification. Thanks. PS: I seldom modify stuff on Wikipedia, and I am not that experienced either. However, knowing myself, I am pretty sure that I made some very minor modification, something I thought to be necessary to do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.34.81.206 (talk) 19:46, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

This was your edit.-- Toddy1 (talk) 11:24, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

@Kbseah:, Toddy1 started the article several years ago in plain English. However, in the last six months the article suffered from bad IP edits, who removed sourced paragraphs and added large portions of text in Italian. I now reverted the article to the last good version and applied for a long-term semi-protection.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:52, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: Thanks for helping to revert the article! I don't read Italian and so could not judge whether the edits were good-faith or not. Apologies to Toddy1 for any unnecessary alarm. Best, Kbseah (talk) 19:15, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

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 on the Battle of Messines and recent Australian Army leadership; Nick-D on South African armour Op-ed: Nick-D talks photography Timeline: This month in World War I

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Carlo Giovanardi is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

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 and Hawkeye7 look at two recent releases Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on ANZACs in the Third Ypres Offensive Timeline: This month in World War I

Greetings from the Military history WikiProject! Elections for the Military history WikiProject Coordinators are currently underway. As a member of the WikiProject you are cordially invited to take part by casting your vote(s) for the candidates on the election page. This year's election will conclude at 23:59 UTC 29 September. Thank you for your time. For the current tranche of Coordinators, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:39, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Toddy1. Voting in the

2017 Arbitration Committee elections

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

is a Russian transcription for Ukrainian

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 and Hawkeye7 look at Australian involvement on the Western Front in 1918 and in post-war New Guinea Op-ed: TomStar81 on the October Revolution Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle: Issue CXXXIX, November 2017

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: Recent external reviews Op-ed: TomStar81 on late 1917 naval warfare Timeline: This month in World War I

...for taking an IP seriously! ----91.10.49.183 (talk) 12:54, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

appreciate that. You phrased it a lot better without the issues. SomewhatSpurious (talk) 19:00, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

I checked the history, and the wording you altered was generated in this edit. The citation was added by someone else, here.-- Toddy1 (talk) 21:48, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

As we approach the end of the year, the Military History project is looking to recognise editors who have made a real difference. Each year we do this by bestowing two awards: the Military Historian of the Year and the Military History Newcomer of the Year. The co-ordinators invite all project members to get involved by nominating any editor they feel merits recognition for their contributions to the project. Nominations for both awards are open between 00:01 on 2 December 2017 and 23:59 on 15 December 2017. After this, a 14-day voting period will follow commencing at 00:01 on 16 December 2017. Nominations and voting will take place on the main project talkpage: here and here. Thank you for your time. For the co-ordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:35, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Would you like to update his article and add Category:African-American academics please?Zigzig20s (talk) 13:28, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

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: Recent external reviews Op-ed: TomStar81 on the Halifax Explosion of 1917 Timeline: This month in World War I

If you believe that an edit was so bad that the only possible action is to undo it in its entirety, then it's a very basic courtesy to explain why you think that. If you don't actually think that, then don't undo the edit. Repeatedly undoing an edit without bothering to give any explanation as to why is stunningly rude and clearly not intended to actually improve the encyclopaedia. 118.163.32.172 (talk) 05:53, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

That is precisely what you are doing. It is not fair to ask of others what you are not willing to do yourself.-- Toddy1 (talk) 05:58, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Why lie? I am not doing anything remotely like that. Is the game you are playing lots of fun for you? 118.163.32.172 (talk) 06:04, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

You have not given a reason for your edits.

The reason I reverted you is that you are edit-warring to enforce your view. You have done this many times before, see Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Best known for IP.-- Toddy1 (talk) 07:35, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't know the proper method to respond to your accusations, so I now begin a section on your talk-page. I have reverted the edits of the IP on multiple occasions in relation to the claiming of a number of Soviets as being of Ukrainian origin. If the editor believes that the people should be listed as Ukrainian, then the editor should provide reliable sources that prove that he is known primarily as being of Ukrainian origin, rather than of Soviet or Russian origin. I also request that you do not wantonly accuse editors, such as myself, as editing in violation of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Remember to assume good faith when dealing with editors that you disagree with. If you wish to start a meaningful discussion on a talk-page of any of the articles you accuse me of edit-warring on, I would be delighted to participate. If you do not, I ask that you stop your editing. Yours Truly, HNdlROdU (talk). Signed 13:43, 12 December 2017 (UTC).

You were edit warring. There are policies on edit warring. There are links to them on your talk page.-- Toddy1 (talk) 19:20, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

That does not address the substance of my comment. If you wish the pages to retain a reference to Ukrainian origin, then provide reliable sources and establish widespread community consensus before you levy such accusations. Yours Truly, HNdlROdU. Signed 20:03, 12 December 2017 (UTC).

The post you made on my talk page started "I don't know the proper method to respond to your accusations". So I thought you were talking about your edit-warring.-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:11, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

I was referring to your accusations of my editing being in violation of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, as I stated further on in my comment. Do you have any evidence to provide in relation to the Ukrainian-Soviet distinction? If so, please respond in relation to the appropriate talk-page. Yours Truly, HNdlROdU. Signed 20:21, 12 December 2017 (UTC).

Perhaps you could show me where I made such an accusation. A diff would be helpful.-- Toddy1 (talk) 21:28, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

You made the accusation on Talk:Leonid Bykov: "It is not appropriate for PoV editors to go around erasing Ukraine from people's biographies." Yours Truly, HNdlROdU. Signed 12:30, 13 December 2017 (UTC).

Hi. Your map is OK, but official English names of metro stations in Ukraine are romanized from Ukrainian. If you can change this in your map, please do this. (Also please add Ukrainian names of the stations.) Sure, I know that in Dnipro Russian language is widely used, but still such terms as names of streets and stations are romanized from Ukrainian only. --Dƶoxar (talk) 17:39, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Nationalism? Is it an insult? In Dnipro names of the metro stations are only in Ukrainian (for example here) and all such termins are romanized from Ukrainian. That's a FACT, not my opinion.--Dƶoxar (talk) 17:44, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

There is another diagram showing the stations at the bottom of the infobox. That diagram is useful in that it shows which stations are usable.-- Toddy1 (talk) 17:46, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello.

Are you familiar with

The Watergate scandal was a scandal, but Richard Nixon was a person.

The Dreyfuss affair was a scandal, but Alfred Dreyfuss was a person.

If there is a notable scandal, then there should be an article about the scandal itself, such as the Jack Abramoff scandals. People involved the scandal could be categorized as "People associated with ...", such as in Category:People associated with the Jack Abramoff scandals.

If there is not enough material to create an article on the scandal, then create a properly named redirect – e.g. Hugh Dalton budget-leaking scandal – and place it in the appropriate categories, such as indicated in WP:INCOMPATIBLE.

But people cannot be categorized as scandals.

Regards

HandsomeFella (talk) 16:33, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Done

Clive Ponting scandal

Belgrano sinking scandal

-- Toddy1 (talk) 17:01, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Thumbs-up. HandsomeFella (talk) 09:24, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Greetings,

"Military history" is one of the most important subjects when speak of sum of all human knowledge. To support contributors interested in the area over various language Wikipedias, we intend to form a user group. It also provides a platform to share the best practices between military historians, and various military related projects on Wikipedias. An initial discussion was has been done between the coordinators and members of WikiProject Military History on English Wikipedia. Now this discussion has been taken to Meta-Wiki. Contributors intrested in the area of military history are requested to share their feedback and give suggestions at Talk:Discussion to incubate a user group for Wikipedia Military Historians.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:30, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi,

I would appreciate it if you could give your input regarding https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_naval_ship_classes_in_service#Split_this_article_into_multiple_articles Thanks in advance Dragnadh (talk) 16:28, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

I have my doubts about the IP who started the topic.

Yes.-- Toddy1 (talk) 19:35, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

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 looks at tropical medicine and Operation Market Garden Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on US Army doctrine in World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

Hi Toddy, it's Chantern. Thank you for your kind message, firstly. Secondly, I apologize for my haste removal of what at that time, I felt was biased towards. Quite frankly, I missed the opportunity to read his memoirs, a big mistake. So, I don't know what he actually did during the Sino-Indian war (he was my paternal great-grandfather). I didn't get back to at first, because I felt slighted, but then life came, and I forgot all about it. Thank you for your patience and sincerity towards me and Wikipedia. Lots of love warmth to you and your family (blood or otherwise). I had courteously vanished, but I'd just come back to make things clear. :) I will vanish again now. Thank you for your cooperation! Goodbye! (Robocop, eh?)

Kinda sad that I can't just disappear (i.e delete my account), but I will change my login id. By depression, I mean life. Ting! I'm so myself, when everything is anonymous! It's amazing! Uh-ha!

Well, that's me! Goodbye from me and would you kindly!

Chantern (talk) 20:38, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

I would recommend reading more about him; not just his own writings, but also what people like Dalvi wrote about him. His misfortune was to be in the wrong job in 1962. Good luck.-- Toddy1 (talk) 07:39, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

i try to add 1 relevant piece of information, and everyone keeps deleting it. Does Animorphs not count as part popular culture? it was a pretty famous book series. Was it just not good enough? i didnt think it needed to be a masterpiece, just enough to the information across. if it was not "good enough" instead of deleting it, why not improve upon it? it is legitimate information, and part of pop culture. in short, im done. i tried to contribute, but if its just gonna keep getting deleted, whats the point. i wish my account could be deleted, as im never gonna try to contribute again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nesenda (talk • contribs) 18:14, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

I have replied at Talk:Battle of Trafalgar.-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:49, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

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 Napoleonic Wars and Hawkeye7 on World War II Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on generalship in 1918 Timeline: This month in World War I

Hi, it has been suggested to call people involved in the Karaimit-Subbotniks subject to review the use of the word Karaimits which I see you were involved in here [3]. I have found that you were the the one who suggested the original merge of Karaimite info into the Subbotniks article. A couple of us are concerned that the subject of Crimean Karaites and of Karaimite Subbotniks should not be confused. Could you take a look please? 188.29.16Etc.BlahBlahBlah (talk) 08:17, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Three months ago, you reversed a revision I made, stating: If punctuation mark is outside a quotation it means that the punctuation mark is not in that place in the source being quoted.-- Toddy1 (talk) 22:11, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

According to which convention, or style manual, etc.?

In 20 years of academic reading and writing, I have observed that it is largely a matter of regional preference. In the Americas, the revision I made is correct. In Europe, as per influence of conventions in European languages, it seems your practice seems far more prevalent. During my time abroad at Oxford and Bristol Universities, I found that either practice regarding punctuation was acceptable. If you have some indication as to Wikipedia's policy on the matter, should there be one, I would be much obliged if you could send me in that direction. Otherwise, given that English language Wikipedia articles are overwhelmingly based in American English style and convention, my revision would appear entirely appropriate and correct. What concerns me, and compels me to make such revisions, is the broad inconsistency even intra-article let alone between articles, subsequent to the diverse backgrounds of those who produce them. If, however, there is no definitive method by which to approach the matter other than personal preference, then it seems you are as much at fault for changing quotations to say what you "want" as you claimed I was. Linuxxe (talk) 04:40, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Guidance can be found at

MOS:CONFORM. Falsifying quotations is dishonest.-- Toddy1 (talk)

08:23, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXLIII, March 2018

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 looks at a work by Daniel Ellsberg Op-ed: TomStar81 on the 1918 flu pandemic Timeline: This month in World War I

You have stated that I have marked edits as minor which are not as such. The revision that you marked, [1], to the article on Leonid Bykov, appears, to myself, to conform to the restrictions of Wikipedia's policy regarding the marking of edits as minor. If there is something further that you wish to inform me of, please do so promptly. Yours Truly, User:HNdlROdU. Signed, 23:21, 22 March 2018 (UTC).

G'day all, please be advised that throughout April 2018 the Military history Wikiproject is running its annual backlog elimination drive. This will focus on several key areas:

• tagging and assessing articles that fall within the project's scope
• adding or improving listed resources on Milhist's task force pages
• updating the open tasks template on Milhist's task force pages
• creating articles that are listed as "requested" on the project's various lists of missing articles.

As with past Milhist drives, there are points awarded for working on articles in the targeted areas, with barnstars being awarded at the end for different levels of achievement.

The drive is open to all Wikipedians, not just members of the Military history project, although only work on articles that fall (broadly) within the scope of military history will be considered eligible. This year, the Military history project would like to extend a specific welcome to members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red, and we would like to encourage all participants to consider working on helping to improve our coverage of women in the military. This is not the sole focus of the edit-a-thon, though, and there are aspects that hopefully will appeal to pretty much everyone.

The drive starts at 00:01 UTC on 1 April and runs until 23:59 UTC on 30 April 2018. Those interested in participating can sign up here.

For the Milhist co-ordinators, AustralianRupert and MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:53, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Could you please tell me what “POV edits” are? It seems to me no official Wiki term, anyway I don’t know what it means.
We do have a page 'Wikipedia:Neutral point of view' which states that an article as a whole must, as far as possible, represent fairly all significant views on a topic. I agree to that, but that does not directly or absolutely imply that new information cannot be added, nor that existing (and presumedly ‘wrong’) information cannot be adapted or removed.
Anyway I do agree that my edits in article Afghanistan on 17 March in the section heading (‘Marxist coup..’) and first sentence of that section were wrong (I was mislead by Wiki articles that contained outdated information but since then have been improved) but I do not see why my edit further on, about reasons why mujahideen opposed and rose up against the PDPA regime, would have been wrong. --Corriebertus (talk) 16:01, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

POV edits are edits that do not adhere to a neutral point of view.

If you are going to edit Wikipedia, please could you read some books on the subjects you want to edit. "I was mislead by Wiki articles" suggests that you are not doing this.-- Toddy1 (talk) 16:12, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

[ The following posting 27/29March is a rewriting and expansion of similar statements of mine (CB) here on 25March: ]
I don’t think an edit (in Wikipedia), being a lifeless thing, can ‘adhere’ to any ‘(point of) view’, neither to a ‘neutral’ (whatever that may be) nor to any other (partisan?) (point of) view. I think the only thing an edit in Wikipedia does and the only thing it can do, is: alter, adapt, change an article.
If this reasoning is correct and nobody comes up with another or better definition of ‘POV edit’ than the one given by Toddy1 here, we’ll have to conclude that ‘POV edits’ don’t exist, can’t exist, and that the whole term ‘POV edit’ therefore is a nonsense term.

People on the other hand can adhere to views or to points of view. And therefore, saying an edit 'adheres (not) to a point of view' strongly suggests that the editor making the edit adheres (not) to a (point of) view. But: whether a Wikipedia editor ‘adheres’ to any (point of) view, or ‘believes’ in any view (or religion or ideology or whatever) seems to me totally his own business, and not something his Wiki colleagues have the right to question or bother or attack or reproach him about. (Suggesting someone to have, or have not, affiliations/leanings towards, or 'adhere to', views, opinions, religions et cetera with the sole purpose to discredit their work or edits is considered always an unacceptable personal attack in Wikipedia.)
The only ‘bother’, business, any editor should have with the concept ‘neutral point of view’ is the business stated on policy page ‘Wikipedia:Neutral point of view’ (NPOV), which seems not well understood by Toddy1 (and perhaps others). The principle ‘NPOV’ comes into play only when different and partly contradicting views exist on some topic. In that case, the policy prescribes that we must strive for a fairly balanced (and ofcourse correct!) representation of the different (significant) views.
Therefore, I think it is quite useless and meaningless (and thus a form of disruptive editing) to revert any edit with the vague, reproaching remark: ‘POV’ (as motivation) without clarifying which different viewpoints on which topic exist and which view seems over-emphasised since the challenged edit. And insulting too, because the remark insinuates that the reproached editor violates a Wiki policy while being too vague to give that editor the chance to defend his position and edit. --Corriebertus (talk) 11:10, 27 March 2018 (UTC) (Adapted --Corriebertus (talk) 05:39, 29 March 2018 (UTC))

Please could you stop copy-editing day-old messages that you left on my talk page. I do not mind your copy-editing stuff you wrote an hour before - but when you are copy-editing stuff that you wrote the previous day (or two days ago) it gets annoying.-- Toddy1 (talk) 16:51, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

See subsection 'Discussion style within this section', below. --Corriebertus (talk) 21:25, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Please corroborate or take back that (insulting) reproach (and personal attack) "POV edits"

Therefore (see above), I'd like you to either specify which balance between which (correctly represented) views on which topic was disturbed by which part of my edits of 17March on 'Afghanistan', or take back that (insulting) reproach (and personal attack): "POV edits" of 17March17:12. --Corriebertus (talk) 11:10, 27 March 2018 (UTC) (Adapted Corriebertus, 29 March 2018.)

Wikipedia:No personal attacks#What is considered to be a personal attack? has a description of what constitutes a personal attack. You will find that edit summaries that comment on your edit, but not on you, are not personal attacks.-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:20, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Sorry: your challenged edit summary ostensibly comments on my edit, but behind the literal words it comments on me personally. As I explained above—already since my posting 25March16:20, which I've replaced later by my posting 27/29March(have you ever read it?)—an edit cannot be 'POV'. Thus, saying an edit is POV means (suggests) the editor is 'POV'. The only official meaning of 'NPOV' is given on page Wikipedia:No personal attacks and means: different and contradicting views must be presented in a balanced way. Saying the editor is POV (not-NPOV) suggests a breach of Wiki policy "NPOV", which requires specificity, otherwise it is uncorroborated: THAT was my main charge here at you as you can see in the subsection heading. (And such uncorroborated insinuation seems unfair/insulting to me.) (Moreover: you define 'POV' as an edit(but behind the literal words the editor himself) (not) adhering to views, which you apparently disapprove of: that seems a personal attack following Wikipedia:No personal attacks#What is considered to be a personal attack?, second bullet point.) --Corriebertus (talk) 21:25, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Discussion style within this section

Sir/madam Toddy1: you say(in the ‘main section’ of this discussion,29March), you'd rather not have me adapting my own "day-old" postings (here), even if no one has yet reacted on them; because that "annoys" you. Well, I'm sorry for that. I was simply aiming to facilitate this discussion by streamlining/improving my own postings before someone reacted on them. (Rules seem not sharp and strict on whether my 'posting style' here is correct/constructive/(un)acceptable/(un)desirable/etc..)

In this specific case, I don't see which disproportionate trouble or work my "copy-editing" my own postings may have caused you. (Is your "annoyance" there just a negative labeling of 'work' or 'trouble', or does it imply something more or else?) In that section we seemed (or still seem) to have a disagreement and/or misunderstanding concerning terms like '(N)POV'. Disagr./misunderst. can always arise where people collaborate on a project (like Wiki); solving/clarifying the disagr./misunderst. is then usually imperative in the interest of (the progress of) the communal project. Solving such a problem can at times be difficult, tiresome, troublesome, to some extent even 'annoying' (even when all participants behave perfectly civil, polite and constructive) but that does not directly diminish the necessity of solving it. --Corriebertus (talk) 21:25, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Please apologize for your disruptive editing with (insulting) edit summaries: "POV edits", on two articles on 17March2018

On 17March17:11, you reverted six recent edits of mine on article 'Saur Revolution' in one quick stroke, with only as motivation: "revert POV edits and MOS:EGG". 'MOS:EGG' refers to incorrect 'piped' wikilinks, which there surely applies only to my edit 17Mrch14:24 where I made a wrong piped wikilink. However: 'POV edits' is a nonsense term, as I explained above(previous Talk section ' 'POV edits' ?', 27March), and using it in an edit summary is therefore insulting and disruptive editing, as I also explained above. Thus, you've 'quick-and-easily' reverted five of my edits (which all were clearly motivated and all except the first seem substantially totally constructive and good) with no substantial motivation and instead with an insulting pseudo-motivation.
It is comparable behaviour to what you showed that day on page Afghanistan, on which I commented in the previous Talk section here. I'd like you to apologize for all that disruptive (and insulting) behaviour, and tell us you will stop with such seriously incorrect/disruptive-style editing. If you refuse, I'm afraid I'll have to take this up with the administrators' noticeboard, sooner or later. ----Corriebertus (talk) 04:28, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

I recommend going to

WP:ANI

will help, please go.

Commenting on editors rather than content is allowed on

WP:ANI. It is one of the few places on Wikipedia where personal attacks are OK.-- Toddy1 (talk)

08:29, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:ANI advice may also help you.-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:53, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Sorry: you start about 'personal attack', but the section heading clearly charges you with something else: disruptive editing (and secondarily with insulting edit summaries). I don't see the word PA in my posting here.
My edit scrapping the word 'communist' somewhere was in hindsight wrong: ill-informed by a referenced, but incorrect, Wiki "main article". But that is not a matter of "POV edit": read my posting 27/29March in the section above saying a 'POV edit' does not exist. 'POV edit' is a nonsense term, thus using it as motivation for a revert is insulting. You carry on about a (wrong) piped link ('hidden link'), but that was admitted by me and (therefore) has nothing to do with what I charge you for in this section. --Corriebertus (talk) 21:25, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Why do you archive threads here after TWO days !? Shouldn't you give colleagues more slack? --Corriebertus (talk) 21:33, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

The purpose of putting messages on my talk page is to convey information to me.

This is why copy-editing of two-day old messages is unhelpful and annoying, since it implies that I must spend my time re-reading stuff that I read two days before to try to work out whether the copy-editing has changed the meaning. In practice I do not have time to do this. I read them once.-- Toddy1 (talk) 06:44, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps you'd care to react again in the discussion started by you in User talk Corriebertus, section 'Citation needed (Afghan/mujahideen uprising)' (section title expanded for clarity). --Corriebertus (talk) 11:49, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

@Corriebertus: Writing {{ping|Toddy1}} at the start of the comments on your reply on your use page, is a more efficient way to achieve this.-- Toddy1 (talk) 11:44, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

I've filed a complaint on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Toddy1: obstructive/disruptive editing. --Corriebertus (talk) 11:59, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

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 looks at the bombing of Darwin; recent books by female military historians Review essay: K.e.coffman on Wikipedia's representations of the Nazi German military Op-ed: TomStar81 on the Red Baron Timeline: This month in World War I

I am using a common use computer in the NZ National Library, WEllington , NZ opposite the Defence Dept and GCSB. My view points on the T21 reflect he general consensus of RN/ RNZN on the T21. Prestons books on this topic are outdated and Antony reflects the views of the Rn naval architects and UK govt of the time who were mainly concerned with promoting the illusion that the UK was still an advanced industrial state and fighting power and therefore always favoured high tech high capability designs over simpler tech that might have worked. Your attempt to block my work in part obviously is due to the mistake of confusing me with other users who blog about conspirarcy theories on other weird medieval and cult issues of concern to the Government of Ukraine. I do however believe that I am much more qualified to write on this issue that someone from Ukraine/ Russia coming from many great naval families and more to the point focussed on the issue of the Type 21s for many years. The type 21 contined to be under consideration of Australasian navies until well into the 1970s and the Australian T21 was undoubtedly partly a NZ design as was the third option of developing HMS Otago into a frigate capable of carrying two Wessex A/S as an alt to the T81 or Leander I have undoubtedly met the officers concerned and discussed these matters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.48.175.44 (talk) 04:47, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a policy on verifiability that may be found here: Wikipedia:Verifiability. This starts off by saying: "In Wikipedia, verifiability means that other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it."

When you post information with citations that do not back up the content, it is not verifiable. Please have a look at Talk:Type 21 frigate#Problem passage with citations that do not support content.-- Toddy1 (talk) 05:11, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Dear friend Toddy1, I'll be very grateful if you'll please help me keep the Abdullah Mashhoor Kunhikoya Thangal page neutral in tone, well referenced and accurate. One editor, User:Moosathasleem, seems intend on making it a subjective and poorly referenced fan page. Could you please take a look if you have time? Thanks and best regards, George Custer's Sabre 06:18, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Dear friend Toddy1, i am Moosathasleem, from India. above talk by george is menioning about Abdullah Mashhoor Kunhikoya Thangal wrongly.. he was great and popular sufi saint. i just created thats it. user George Custer's Sabre edited the page once.. i re-edited to like previous.. i thing he is just editor who claim trying to filter islamic and pakistan articles.. i dont know what the matter he bother about this article and what he want to know more.. i ll provide whatever docs is required to keep the article Abdullah Mashhoor Kunhikoya Thangal. i not much aware about the sitations and relibele evidece to publish/.. regards moosathasleem — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moosathasleem (talk • contribs) 09:00, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Have there been any books written about him? (Note that self-published books do not count.)-- Toddy1 (talk) 18:54, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

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 looks at coalitions and logistics in World War II, and Nick-D at Australia's frontier wars Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle: Issue CXLVI, June 2018

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: Recent external reviews Op-ed: TomStar81 on a supergun of World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

I have today refuted your argument(s) in the running controversies on page People's Democratic Party of Afghanistan (PDPA), on talk PDPA. --Corriebertus (talk) 11:24, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

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: This month's external reviews Op-ed: TomStar81 on the murder of the Romanovs Timeline: This month in World War I

Shit. I apologise—I blame my poor reading comprehension on tiredness. I need to lie down! --Hazhk (talk) 23:45, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

No, real big thank you to you! we are going to try to preserve the truth, the history and its sources that there are going to be many people now and during the following decades trying to vandalize all these pages--BrugesFR (talk) 06:23, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

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 looks at a classic US official history Op-ed: TomStar81 on belated declarations of war in 1916–18 Timeline: This month in World War I

Thanks for fixing my typo on HMS Captain (1869) (and the pun). --217.155.32.221 (talk) 09:03, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you so much for pointing my error. I stand corrected. And by the way, thank you for your good work on improving the article on Lonsdale-Bryans. Some of the things were rather wrong, and your good work is much appreciated. Thank you again and cheers! --A.S. Brown (talk) 05:48, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. Cheers, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:54, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have recently shown interest in Eastern Europe. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called

page-specific restrictions

, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the

Arbitration Committee's decision here

. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

(has been about 15 months since your last alert) Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:54, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

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: Indy Beetle and Nick-D on the Katangese Gendarmes and India during World War II Op-ed: TomStar81 looks at two important treaties of World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

G'day everyone, voting for the 2018 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:35, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

G'day everyone, voting for the 2018 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:22, 15 September 2018 (UTC) Note: the previous version omitted a link to the election page, therefore you are receiving this follow up message with a link to the election page to correct the previous version. We apologies for any inconvenience that this may have caused.

Hi everyone, just a quick reminder that voting for the WikiProject Military history coordinator election closes soon. You only have a day or so left to have your say about who should make up the coordination team for the next year. If you have already voted, thanks for participating! If you haven't and would like to, vote here before 23:59 UTC on 28 September. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:29, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Re your note on my User Talk Page, I've made doubly certain that I've not been discussing anything to do with "East Europe" in accordance with the Topic Ban. I'm also assuming that discussion of the Sukhoi Su-25 airplane is not included in the Topic Ban because it's not East European. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Thanks!— Preceding unsigned comment added by Santamoly (talk • contribs) 08:49, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Of course the Sukhoi Su-25 aeroplane is included in your topic ban. If you read Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Santamoly, you will see that you made it explicitly clear that you think it is.-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:59, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

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 looks at the use of so-called "substandard" manpower in armies Interview: On the Bugle turning 150 (issues that is!) Op-ed: TomStar81 on the collapse of empires at the close of World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

Please be aware that per the documentation at Template:Geobox the use of this template for buildings is deprecated and in the process of being removed. If you have specific concerns about how the information is displayed, please let me know and I will gladly address them. If you can provide more/better information than just was much richer in information than the Infobox building template that would be helpful. What specifically are your concerns? --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 08:57, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Could we possibly have a discussion here instead of in the edit history? --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 09:01, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Trying to actually have a constructive conversation here... There is obviously a misunderstanding. The TFD you linked to was not what I was referring to. If we could discuss that would be appreciated. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 09:04, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

I am sorry for the delay in replying. I thought that the most useful place to discuss

• Whether a template should be deleted is at the TFD page Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 November 8#Template:Geobox/type/building. So I made a contribution there.
• What infobox should be used on a page are the article talk pages
  Talk:Kiev Pechersk Lavra#Choice of infobox template
  . That way more people can contribute than on a single user talk page. So I have made contributions there.

Thank you for fixing the error to the template that you accidentally introduced this morning. Toddy1 (talk) 09:58, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

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: Peacemaker67 looks at the Sydney Wars Op-ed: TomStar81 on the end of World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

Hello, Toddy1. Voting in the

2018 Arbitration Committee elections

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Nominations for our annual Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year awards are open until 23:59 (GMT) on 15 December 2018. Why don't you nominate the editors who you believe have made a real difference to the project in 2018? MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:26, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Jsi mamrd! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.217.156.22 (talk) 09:02, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

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: Recent external reviews Op-ed: Indy beetle looks at military newspapers in East Africa

Voting for our annual Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year awards is open until 23:59 (GMT) on 30 December 2018. Why don't you vote for the editors who you believe have made a real difference to Wikipedia's coverage of military history in 2018? MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:17, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

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 looks at Albert Speer Op-ed: Factotem on common problems affecting infoboxes Timeline: This month in World War I

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Death of Keane Wallis-Bennett is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. only (talk) 22:11, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

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: Recent external reviews Review essay: Nick-D on the Japanese battleship Mikasa

The Bugle: Issue CLV, March 2019

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 on US Navy aviation safety and Australian war crimes trials

The Bugle: Issue CLVI, April 2019

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: Peacemaker67, Nick-D and Hawkeye7 look at three books focussing on the World Wars Op-ed: Indy Beetle on the fall of Idi Amin

The Bugle: Issue CLVII, May 2019

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 on Australia's leadership and medical services in World War II and Peacemaker67 on Israel's targeted assassinations Op-ed: TomStar81 looks at the fate of the German fleet at Scapa Flow

The Bugle: Issue CLVIII, June 2019

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 looks at the Dambusters, and Hawkeye7 at Allied code breakers and Australia in New Guinea and Vietnam Op-ed: TomStar81 on the treaty that ended World War I

The Bugle: Issue CLIX, July 2019

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: Haweye7, Peacemaker67 and Nick-D on recent books covering the world wars

The Bugle: Issue CLX, August 2019

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 Peacemaker67 look at Italian, German and Australian forces in World War II

The Bugle: Issue CLX, August 2019

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 Peacemaker67 look at Italian, German and Australian forces in World War II

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:39, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

G'day everyone, voting for the 2019 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:37, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

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 looks at the legacy of World War II

G'day everyone, the voting for the XIX Coordinator Tranche is at the halfway mark. The candidates have answered various questions, and you can check them out to see why they are running and decide whether you support them. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:37, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

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 look at three works Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on writing a military biography

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 07:54, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Dear Toddy1, in relation to the article

Please could you use the process at

not here. Toddy1 (talk)

19:45, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXIII, November 2019

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: Willbb234 on Allied pilots, Hawkeye7 on the defence of Australia and logistics in Indochina, Nick-D on Australian commandos Op-ed: Hawkeye7 reports back on a high-profile history symposium

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Sergei Korolev, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ukrainian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:13, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

You are most welcome.

Fylindfotberserk (talk) 12:22, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm afraid, I could not understand the meaning of your message on my talk page.--Yuuhn (talk) 15:56, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Under what ID were you editing Wikipedia before you created the Yuuhn account at 11.20 (GMT) today? Toddy1 (talk) 16:35, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Please join construcitve discussion on talk pages

List_K--Yuuhn (talk

) 10:10, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXIV, December 2019

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 look at works on aspects of the Second World War and Cold War

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:26, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi Toddy. Replied to your message on my UP.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Botteville (talk • contribs) 15:14, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

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 on Jim Mattis

The Bugle: IssueICLXVI, February 2020

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 looks at a failed German counterattack in the Battle of Normandy

G'day all, March Madness 2020 is about to get underway, and there is bling aplenty for those who want to get stuck into the backlog by way of tagging, assessing, updating, adding or improving resources and creating articles. If you haven't already signed up to participate, why not? The more the merrier! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:19, 29 February 2020 (UTC) for the coord team

Muhammad fazal karim should be shifted to early scholars because he had died in 2013 Khadim ahlesunnah waljamaah (talk) 18:38, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

In Barelvi section Khadim ahlesunnah waljamaah (talk) 18:39, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

What is your opinion Khadim ahlesunnah waljamaah (talk) 18:39, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

What about my changes to barelvi Khadim ahlesunnah waljamaah (talk) 18:17, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

You messed them up.

Have a go at trying to fix them on User:Khadim ahlesunnah waljamaah/Sandbox1. That way the article is undamaged, whilst you learn how to edit an article. Toddy1 (talk) 18:19, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Who the hell u r to remove the correct information regarding present Barelvi scholar Khadim ahlesunnah waljamaah (talk) 18:20, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

It was with reliable information Khadim ahlesunnah waljamaah (talk) 18:21, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Competence is required Toddy1 (talk) 18:22, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

I do complex edits in a sandbox to get them right. So I do not see why you should not.

If you look at the sandbox you can see that there are lots of errors in doing citations. It is fiddly getting these things right. A sandbox is a good place to do it. Toddy1 (talk) 18:24, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

<ref name=oxfordrefrence> Is a misleading name for the following citation:

Bedi, Rohan, Have Pakistanis Forgotten Their Sufi Traditions? (PDF)|place=Singapore |publisher=International Centre for Political Violence and Terrorism Research at Nanyang Technological University |date=April 2006 |url-status=dead |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20131102091018/http://www.pvtr.org/pdf/RegionalAnalysis/SouthAsia/Madrassa%20_IDSS%20_%20_FINAL_.pdf |archivedate=2 November 2013 }}

- Toddy1 (talk) 18:30, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Also there should be no }} before |place=. It messes up the citation template. }} indicates the end of the template.

And yes, I know that it is difficult to get these things right. That is why we try to help you with advice. Toddy1 (talk) 18:32, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Why haven't u fix this problems with these sources Khadim ahlesunnah waljamaah (talk) 18:40, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

What r u doing Khadim ahlesunnah waljamaah (talk) 18:40, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

I have told you about problems, so that you will learn to fix them. If I fix all your mistakes, it makes it less likely that you will learn to fix them yourself.

I also try to tell you about techniques you can use to get edits right.

When you have got the edits right. I suggest that you paste the sections you changed back into the article. (That is how I do complex edits. Sometimes it takes me an hour to get things right in a sandbox before pasting pack into an article.) Toddy1 (talk) 18:51, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Let us take part of your version:

60% of Pakistani Muslims are Barelvis.<ref name=oxfordrefrence>{{citation|first1=Rohan |last1=Bedi |url=http://www.pvtr.org/pdf/RegionalAnalysis/SouthAsia/Madrassa%20_IDSS%20_%20_FINAL_.pdf |title=Have Pakistanis Forgotten Their Sufi Traditions? }}|place=[[Singapore]] |publisher=International Centre for Political Violence and Terrorism Research at [[Nanyang Technological University]] |date=April 2006 |url-status=dead |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20131102091018/http://www.pvtr.org/pdf/RegionalAnalysis/SouthAsia/Madrassa%20_IDSS%20_%20_FINAL_.pdf |archivedate=2 November 2013 }}<\ref>.The Barelvi movement in Pakistan The name derives from the [[north India]]n town of [[Bareilly]], the hometown of its founder and main leader [[Ahmed Raza Khan]] (1856–1921).<ref>''Illustrated Dictionary of the Muslim World'', pg. 113. [[Marshall Cavendish]], 2011. {{ISBN|9780761479291}}</ref>

This shows as:

60% of Pakistani Muslims are Barelvis.Cite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page).

Can you see that you have made some mistakes? These mistakes mean that you are not producing what you meant to produce. What you need to do is to go through and fix the mistakes. Toddy1 (talk) 19:59, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

1. Give me reply fast Khadim ahlesunnah waljamaah (talk) 21:49, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
2. Fast Khadim ahlesunnah waljamaah (talk) 21:49, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
3. Reply fast Khadim ahlesunnah waljamaah (talk) 21:50, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
4. On my current addition to barelvi fast Khadim ahlesunnah waljamaah (talk) 21:50, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
5. Why r u not saying abt Khadim ahlesunnah waljamaah (talk) 21:51, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
6. Hey have u slept now Khadim ahlesunnah waljamaah (talk) 21:57, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

It is rude to post six messages asking me to hurry up and review your edits. One is sufficient. If I have not reviewed after 7 days, then it is OK to post a "hurry" message.

Have you read the text of the following citation?

• "Barelvi - Oxford Reference". oxfordreference.com. Retrieved 2014-09-24.

Please quote me the sentences in it that support the claims that:

1. Barelvi is not a separate movement but a part of Ahlesunnat Wal Jamaat
2. Barelvi follow the
   Hanafi school of jurisprudence
3. Barelvi have over 200 million followers in South Asia
4. approximately 67% to 75% of the Muslims of India are Barelvi

Toddy1 (talk) 22:09, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on

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. — Hammad (Talk!) 07:05, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

A comment on this: the source says that the name was 'Abd al-Rahman b. 'Amr b. Muljam al-Muradi, not [...] al-Murabi. Suggesting that the page be moved to the spelling with "d", which is also what the target page has. --bonadea contributions talk 09:12, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Deobandi movement is facing a strong criticism due to its offshoot tabligi Jamaat . Vishva hindu parishad demanded to ban on tabligi jamaat. For its gathering in delhi during corona virus outbreak which lead to several death Phelobtimous (talk) 14:44, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

It is must to include in criticism page of deobandi movement Phelobtimous (talk) 14:46, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

With proper reference available on internet on Wikipedia Phelobtimous (talk) 14:47, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

{{Web|url=https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.financialexpress.com/india-news/coronavirus-crisis-vhp-seeks-complete-ban-on-nizamuddin-markaz-and-tablighi-jamaat/1920944/lite/}} Phelobtimous (talk) 14:51, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

It seems rude to revert anybody.How can u blame anybody for the sockpuppet of any other user.or [[who gave u this rights to revert anybody without a valid reasons,I think Wikipedia is not your father's property so stop your disruptive editing. Stop damageng the article.many users across the world can share the similar views.again don't consider Wikipedia as your father's property to edit according to you. Phelobtimous (talk) 11:25, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

stop editing Wikipedia according to your wish Phelobtimous (talk) 11:26, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

If you are having rights, it doesn't means that u misuse it Phelobtimous (talk) 11:28, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Again requested to stop your personal innervation in Wikipedia and accept the contribution from the new comers so that they can also share their view Phelobtimous (talk) 11:29, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

11:30, 8 April 2020 (UTC)~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phelobtimous (talk • contribs)

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: Recent external reviews

Faizabad is not the common name. I have never heard anyone call Ayodhya that. Ayodhya is more famous worldwide than ‘Faizabad’. You’re not even from India, so how would you know? Avikram (talk) 23:25, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

When you edited the article on

Faizabad district

, you must have seen the following notice:

Notice: please do not change Faizabad to Ayodhya in this article.

Talk page

.

If you wish to change the name of this article to Ayodhya district (or anything else), discuss it first at Talk. Good-faith changes contrary to policy will be reverted. Intentional vandalism of the article will result in warnings on your User talk page. Thank you.

There is a similar notice on the article on

Allahabad. Toddy1 (talk)

06:25, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

You are welcome.

Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:11, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Prayagraj Zone - i.e. not "Prayagaraj" and not "division" either Toddy1 (talk)

09:11, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

They have a hivemind. They would not listen to the obvious, that is Wikipedia has its own set of rules. They know one thing only, Allabad→Prayagraj. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 11:58, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Please help to make out the link correctly [5] in the artical of Battle of Borodino. Thanks depo (talk) 19:51, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

@Сергей Соковнин: Try pasting the following.

From May 1813 to the present, at least 29 ships have been named Borodino after the battle (see list of ships named Borodino).^Ru

It has a correction to the English, a correct interwiki link, and some formatting. Toddy1 (talk) 20:36, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Спасибо огромное!!! Thank you very much!!!! depo (talk) 19:39, 23 March 2020 (UTC)