User talk:Djmaschek/Archive 5
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:Djmaschek. 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. |
| Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
In appreciation
|
The Barnstar of Diligence | |
| By the authority vested in me by myself it gives me great pleasure to present you with this barnstar in recognition of the enormous number of high quality articles you have generated. It is awe inspiring to see your tally steadily increase with no drop in quality. Please keep it up. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:50, 25 November 2019 (UTC) |
Hi, I came across this statement : ..."In the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries, the family owned many castles and large residences. It's said that they owned up to 99 castles but never 100 as this would have required their personal contribution to fund the imperial army."... on the wiki page : https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pálffy_ab_Erdöd&oldid=910976523
I have no idea "how" wiki works, and was trying to email the creator of this page, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pálffy_ab_Erdöd&oldid=910976523, where he would have found this claim/statement. what historic book it might come from, etc., etc..
Sadly, after 20 minutes of surfing wiki, I still have no clue why there are no email addresses of writers here to be found.
Could you possibly help me find the right track and the right way of communication so that I could find out who wrote this page with this specific statement?
any help guiding me into the right direction would be much appreciated,
Regards,
Akos Simon email: akosimon@me.com
I am a direct descendent of the Pálffy-Daun of Erdöd family, and hence am very curious where this claim of 99 castles came from. I am not doubting it, but I never heard of it before. It would be fun to be able to see the source of this statement.
Disambiguation link notification for December 3
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Douglas's Texas Battery, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Preston Smith (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:08, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CLXIV, December 2019
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:47, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
Congratulations!
|
The WikiProject Barnstar | |
| Please accept this WikiProject Barnstar as a runner-up in the Military Historian of the Year awards for 2019. Well done! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:07, 1 January 2020 (UTC) |
The Bugle: Issue CLXV, January 2020
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:56, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
Image galleries
Before adding any more image galleries to Texas articles, please take a moment to read WP:IG. Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:58, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- I read WP:IG and see that the key sentence is, "Generally, a gallery should not be added so long as there is space for images to be effectively presented adjacent to text." Several years ago, Wikipedia urged people to take photos of places so I've been having fun photographing towns in Texas. I noticed that you removed most of the photos from a few recent articles based on the WP:IG rule. Thank you for not editing the school district articles, which I believe would be the exception to the rule. Djmaschek (talk) 05:31, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for January 24
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Louise, Texas, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Egypt, Texas (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:01, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Battery I, 1st Missouri Light Artillery
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.
A tag has been placed on Battery I, 1st Missouri Light Artillery requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from http://www.civilwararchive.com/Unreghst/unmoarty.htm. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.
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. S Philbrick(Talk) 13:50, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
The Bugle: IssueICLXVI, February 2020
|
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) 13:04, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
March Madness 2020
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
The Bugle: Issue CLXVII, March 2020
|
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) 01:51, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CLXVIII, April 2020
|
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) 05:21, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
McFarland ebooks on The Wikipedia Library
Since you also write Civil War regimental history articles, I wanted to inform you that you can get five free ebooks of books published by McFarland a year if you apply for them on The Wikipedia Library. This might be especially useful now since libraries are closed and the interlibrary loan system is unavailable. Kges1901 (talk) 16:46, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CLXIX, May 2020
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 15:03, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CLXX, June 2020
|
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) 04:21, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
Battle of Entzheim
Dear Djmaschek. On 10 March 2020 you made an edit on the article Battle of Entzheim. Your intervention is very much appreciated. You sorted out quite a number of mistakes that I had introduced and which, being a novice, I had not really understood at the time. Among others you added two Citation Needed maintenance tags. One at the end of the first and one on the end of the last paragraph of the Aftermath section. I have not yet found a quote for the first one. I agree that there is one needed. However, I feel it might not be needed on the last paragraph, which consists of a single sentence that states that the battle field is now under Strasbourg International Airport. The sentence has a link to the article about that airport. I found that one can cite Google Maps and added such a citation. I do not think that it improves the article. I suspect that the maintenance tag simply reflects the way how certain rating scripts are written that seem to check that there is a reference at the end of each paragraph as a requirement for promotion to a B-level article. Obviously, not every sentence requires a citation and there could be a blue-sky statement at the end of a paragraph. I believe that this sentence about the airport on the battlefield would be blue-sky; see e.g. the essay at WP:BLUE. – I may of course be wrong I consider myself still a novice in Wikipedia and have much to learn. Perhaps, there is a need for a citation and perhaps the type of evidence is not a reference to Google Maps that any user could have thought of without the citation. So I leave your maintenance tag in place. You might remove it eventually. With many thanks, Johannes Schade (talk) 13:23, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
Shiloh
Greetings, as you seem to have access to a large amount of Civil War literature, if you desire to assist in improving the Battle of Shiloh article in response to the concerns raised at the featured article review, it would be much appreciated. It would do credit to Wikipedia's coverage of the Civil War if the article could be kept at featured article standard. Thanks, Kges1901 (talk) 12:50, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for the vote of confidence. I recently bought Timothy Smith's "Shiloh" and the author presents the battle in an entirely different light than earlier historians (for example: The second day fighting was just as fierce as the first.). I will look at the article, but will not make any promises. BTW: Almost all of my work is B class, with only a handful of GA class. Djmaschek (talk) 18:46, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CLXXI, July 2020
|
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) 11:45, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
A barnstar for you
|
The American Civil War Barnstar | |
| Great work on creating 40th Missouri Infantry Regiment (Union), I'm personally trying to get the Missouri Confederate ones written. Hog Farm Bacon 23:48, 7 August 2020 (UTC) |
The Bugle: Issue CLXXII, August 2020
|
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) 14:29, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
I am about to assess this, but I have a couple of comments that do not affect the B level assessment, but have potential to have an impact at higher levels, if you intend to raise this article's rating:
- I have no knowledge of custom here, but is it usual to put quotation marks around the letter designation of battery/company level elements of divisions? Also because articles on this level of unit is discouraged generally, it might be useful to remark that the battery operated independently.
- You use the style [[Alexander McDowell McCook]]'s division in a couple of places. Because the unit is what is being discussed, might [[Alexander McDowell McCook|McCook's Division]] be more appropriate?
- This article has a couple of places where the sources differ. Rather than just saying "one source says A, another says B", Id suggest something along the lines of "Smith says A, while Jones says B".
- The History section's a bit long. You might consider breaking it up. Shiloh and Vicksburg suggest themselves as subheadings.
Good article. Still B as it stands. --Lineagegeek (talk) 23:47, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nominations open
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. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:04, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue Issue CLXXIII, September 2020
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:52, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
Milhist coordinator election voting has commenced
G'day everyone, voting for the 2020 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 2020. Thanks from the outgoing coord team, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:17, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Missing cites in M1841 24-pounder howitzer
The article cites "Cozzens 1997" and "Shea & Hess 1992" but no such sources are listed in bibliography. Can you please add? Also, suggest installing a script to highlight such errors in the future. All you need to do is copy and paste importScript('User:Svick/HarvErrors.js'); // Backlink: [[User:Svick/HarvErrors.js]] to your common.js page. Thanks, Renata (talk) 01:19, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
- Done. Thanks for the heads-up. Djmaschek (talk) 02:07, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CLXXIV, October 2020
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:21, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for November 2
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 3rd United States Colored Cavalry Regiment, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Egypt, Mississippi.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:43, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CLXXV, November 2020
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 15:51, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message
 | Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, 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 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
Your GA nomination of 3rd United States Colored Cavalry Regiment
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 3rd United States Colored Cavalry 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 Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:21, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Nominations for the 2020 Military history WikiProject Newcomer and Historian of the Year awards now open
G'day all, the nominations for the 2020 Military history WikiProject newcomer and Historian of the Year are open, all editors are encouraged to nominate candidates for the awards before until 23:59 (GMT) on 15 December 2020, after which voting will occur for 14 days. There is not much time left to nominate worthy recipients, so get to it! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:45, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CLXXVI, December 2020
|
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) 22:48, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of 3rd United States Colored Cavalry Regiment
The article 3rd United States Colored Cavalry Regiment you nominated as a good article has passed 
; see Talk:3rd United States Colored Cavalry Regiment for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:21, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Voting for "Military Historian of the Year" and "Military history newcomer of the year" closing
G'day all, voting for the WikiProject Military history "Military Historian of the Year" and "Military history newcomer of the year" is about to close, so if you haven't already, click on the links and have your say before 23:59 (GMT) on 30 December! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:34, 28 December 2020 (UTC) for the coord team
2020 Military Historian of the Year
|
|
The WikiProject Barnstar | |
| For being nominated for the 2020 Military Historian of the year award, it gives me great pleasure to award you the WikiProject Barnstar on behalf of the Military History Project. Thank you for your contributions this year. Eddie891 Talk Work 13:53, 31 December 2020 (UTC) |
The Bugle: Issue CLXXVII, January 2021
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 00:06, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for January 21
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Battery "F", 2nd Illinois Light Artillery Regiment, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Battle of Corinth.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:16, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
USRC Surveyor
Hi Djmaschek - I think I've incorporated all the changes you'd recommended to USRC Surveyor but let me know if I missed anything or you have further edits. Thanks again for this review! Chetsford (talk) 18:42, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Ideas for more photos: Needville ISD
Hi! I found some more ideas for photos: Needville ISD
- HQ: 16319 Highway 36 Needville, Texas TX 77461
I found there are photos of the Needville schools WhisperToMe (talk) 01:06, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for February 4
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 114th Illinois Infantry Regiment, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Joseph Johnston.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:19, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
In appreciation
|
The Content Review Medal of Merit | |
| By the authority vested in me by myself it gives me great pleasure to present you with this award in recognition of your ceaseless efforts to assess and review articles. They are appreciated. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:28, 12 February 2021 (UTC) |
The Bugle: Issue CLXXVIII, February 2021
|
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) 14:58, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CLXXVIII, February 2021
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 15:02, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
February 2021
Thank you for your contributions. It seems that you may have added public domain content to one or more Wikipedia articles, such as 88th Illinois Infantry Regiment. You are welcome to import appropriate public domain content to articles, but in order to meet the Wikipedia guideline on plagiarism, such content must be fully attributed. This requires not only acknowledging the source, but acknowledging that the source is copied. There are several methods to do this described at Wikipedia:Plagiarism#Public-domain sources, including the usage of an attribution template. Please make sure that any public domain content you have already imported is fully attributed. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 14:42, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CLXXIX, March 2021
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:56, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
April 2021 WikiProject Military History Reviewing Drive
Hey y'all, the April 2021 WikiProject Military History Reviewing Drive begins at 00:01 UTC on April 1, 2021 and runs through 23:59 UTC on April 31, 2021. Points can be earned through reviewing articles on the AutoCheck report, reviewing articles listed at WP:MILHIST/ASSESS, reviewing MILHIST-tagged articles at WP:GAN or WP:FAC, and reviewing articles submitted at WP:MILHIST/ACR. Service awards and barnstars are given for set points thresholds, and the top three finishers will receive further awards. To participate, sign up at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_History/April 2021 Reviewing Drive#Participants and create a worklist at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/April 2021 Reviewing Drive/Worklists (examples are given). Further details can be found at the drive page. Questions can be asked at the drive talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:23, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for April 11
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Wenzel Joseph von Colloredo, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Battle of Prague.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:52, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Hello,
Thank you for the B Class re-review of the above. However, I am puzzled by your failure to evaluate the article for WikiProject Aviation / Aerospace biography.Georgejdorner (talk) 03:31, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
Hello,
You were all too kind in the B Class review of the above. I have remedied those deficiencies you noted. I always take kindly to reasonable suggestions to improve an article.
Thank you for the review and the suggestions for improvement.Georgejdorner (talk) 18:10, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CLXXX, April 2021
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 02:08, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CLXXXI, May 2021
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 00:57, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CLXXXII, June 2021
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 03:06, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
GAN Backlog Drive - July 2021
| Good article nominations | July 2021 Backlog Drive |  |
July 2021 Backlog Drive:
| |
| Other ways to participate: | |
| You're receiving this message because you have conducted 10+ good article reviews or participated in the March backlog drive.
Click here to opt out of any future messages. | |
Seeking help from an expert, and validated user.
Hello. I am here writing in your page, and i apologize if this is not the best way to talk, (in any case if you ask i take the section out without need of an archive or wherever), The point is you are the creator of many good articles about the Napoleonic and Revolutionary period, (i am not an english speaker, but i edit in english if i can, because there are no many sources in Spanish to do so, so please sorry for my rustic language). I am not particulary intrested on editing on this period, but since the rules as you may know have change and now, you could not use "Desicive", "Pyrric", or even "Strategic" or "Tactical" victory, many articles are being changed from their edits, who had been present by years. Now i came to seek your help, and from the taskforce of the issue, because i had done some edits, the majority minors, and especially in the infobox, as many articles who before where considered X Tactical Victory, Y Strategic Victory have become X or Y victory or inconclusive or say nothing. Thus in a case about Quatre Bras i disagree, and it seems who an user who have much more experience didn't take it well and now, i have many of my edits reverted by this one. (majority of the latest articles from this user, are not related to this topic but to Northern Irish politics, and it seems who he doesn't like when i make some changes, saying many times who i am "pro French" or who the sources were wrong etc. (but i am not here to discuss the issue, with another usser) i am here to ask you to review, the article Battle of Ceva, who you had wroten about, in wich a month or so i maded a modification. And of course was reverted, so i want to know your opinion, because at the Battle of Ceva, the sources said who the cassualties of the Piedmontesse are not known besides who a unit suffered "150" cassualties. Yet i found a kind of "pro Piedmontese" page, who descrived the losses on the Piedmontesse and put it at "750", explaining the troops who where surprised at an early stage and taken prisioners etc. Another one and this is relatively new is the "Fall of Berlin 1806", in wich it include comanders and results, despite not being a battle, so i tried to take it out the comanders, and of course the result, changed with nothing and then with a simple, French forces ocuppy Berlin. Instead of "French Victory", despite in theory being called "Pro French", that also was reverted, by the same user. So i am asking sincerly to someone who seems to know about the issues, to take a look, and tell me what i am doing wrong and where i am doing wrong. And most important if you agree with something who i did, who now i could not edit because it will become a "editing war", Also if possible to look at the talk page on the battle of Redinha. There i have given some sources who could be validated as a french victory, but as it was becoming a kind of editing war, already, between other users, i would apreciate if the taskforce, or you in particular could just solve the situation, as my only reason is to try to mantain those articles as a kind of teaching material with some reputation and not so much the new changes and rules etc. I would sincerely apreciate if you could answer me, and do something over those articles. My most sincere and coridal regards. Yours,Nuevousuario1011 (talk) 05:08, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
- Nuevousuario1011 Here are my suggestions. Djmaschek (talk) 03:14, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
- If you are a Spanish-speaker, I recommend that you limit your edits to Spanish language Wikipedia. I can understand the comments that you wrote above, but there are spelling errors and a few grammatical errors. When you write for English-speakers, you must be very clear in the primary language. In the past, I have edited articles written by non-English primary speakers. It is tedious and time-consuming to fix frequent misspellings, wrong word usage, incorrect grammar, and awkward sentence structure.
- However, if you know of some Spanish-language sources that have unique information about the War of the Pyrenees (1793-1795), those would be welcome. This war has very little information. Most sources are French or English, and the English sources seem to be pro-French.
- If you are serious about wanting to write English-language articles, you should register your ID with Wikipedia. Right now the Nuevousuario1011 hyperlink is red.
- Regarding your changes to Battle of Ceva, I see that you removed a citation from the Piedmontese casualties listed in the infobox. Generally speaking, you should not remove cited text. It would have been better if you had done this: Casualties2=150 [citation1] to 750 [citation2]. The best method is to write and cite casualties under the Results/Aftermath section. I will look up your source.
- Regarding your changes to Battle of Quatre Bras, it is probably not a good idea for someone new to Wikipedia to update well-known battles or military persons.
- It is not for Wikipedia editors to decide who won or lost a battle. We should only write what an author wrote and cite it.
- I looked up the web page: "A Hard Place: Pedaggera". The article is very interesting. The author lists 3 sources but I have copies of Chandler or Boycott-Brown and I translated Clausewitz also. All 3 do not go into as much detail as the Pedaggera article, so the actual source for the article's information (and the very nice battle map) is unknown. I cannot find the webpage author's name and most of the listed links are no longer available. Therefore, I am hesitant to use the article as a reference. Djmaschek (talk) 04:50, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you very much for your anwer, i will take your recomendations serious.
- About the Spanish speaking wikipedia, is true who i should find it more easy to edit, but as there are so few content and many articles are only a kind of "copy", of the English ones, i feel who probably in English it is more universal, i understand the problem and that is why, besides the talk pages, i normally, made minor edits, like numbers, result, battleboxes, records, categories, etc.
- About the Eastern Pyrenees War, i would try to find something, but even the Spanish wikipedia have little to no sources, and is a conflict who is ignored largely by the Spanish sources, in favor of the more biger 1808 war, also it doesn't help who the Basilea treaty and war in some ways justify the French ocupation of Spain, thus is largely ignored. Nevertheless there are some sources, in Spanish about the late 1812 campaign in Spain,(From online but reliable sources, works by universities, in oficial pages, (of course works by the body of the universities, not by students like thesis or works etc). On the other hand many of the sources are again online ones, so is dificult who those will be considered, especially having in mind the Ceva issue.
- Regarding the casualties, i replaced the number, at the infobox, only because the source said who the cassualties are unknown, except from a particular unit, but i understand the point. Previously i had done things like that, but many times those were changed to a promedy of them or, even works by other users, who have some textual cites, where simplified because in the last times it have been a tendency to put a single cassualty figure, and most important, altought not in this case, but for example at the battle Of La Coruña, were there was textual reference saying British Victory and other saying French Victory, it have been emptied, and something similar is what i saw at Redinha, Pombal and lead me to the Quatre Bras discussion, altought so far there is only one valid source who denied a British victory.
- The modification of articles, i of course agree who being new is nor normally my place to do such modifications. Hence i normally when making them i just revert the edit to a previous one, rather than change the things. Especially as you say in the comentary when some well known battle is being challenged. However that is what surprised me, when the article was changed on the first place, i believed who there was just a kind of "problem with the reason" and i stood up probably in a wrong way.
- The work of teh editor is to write what the historian or source say, of course, but what if the result is implicit? For example a success for one side and a failure for the other, in an action, example Redinha, does not imply who the one who suceded in the battle was a victory for one side? Because many books and historians will probably not say something like ("French Victory") especially in rearguard or small actions.
- The Ceva source, yes indeed it have all the links down, that is a problem, so unless the links came back to work or could be finded i am also reticent to use them again. (of course the reason is this, and not the absence of a source on the first place),
- My following question is for example about the fall of Berlin. Should a comander be added when the city was peacefuly ocupied, and most important should it be considered a "Victory", when it's fall like Vienna Moscow or Madrid, was mainly because a previous "Victory", or political decitions, rather than a battle over the place.
- Last and no less important is who i appreciate your answer, i would try to find something on the war on the Pyrinees or Spanish sources,but i don't know how valid those would be. I would see about the ID. As i always tought it as a longshot project. My most sincere Regards, and thankyou very much.Nuevousuario1011 (talk) 19:05, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
Seeking help from an expert, and validated user. (yet again)
Hello again, i am here this time like the past one, to mention recent edits on the battle of Friedland, who had been changed, and i add some sources to improve it, the same user is again disrupting the work, i don't want more war edits, but it seems who it doesn't matter what i do, what kind of source i took "published book" "Profesor's blog, with public permision to cite", collections in the Library of the US military, avaible online, it is always the same issue. And again the problem of the "Fall of Berlin", but more than anything i would ask for your help in the "Battle of Friedland" article. I apologize again, but as this is a continuation of the previous issue, i would thank you if you take a look for the article, (not only my sources, but the sources who were used to change the previous ones). Cordially regards. And please if you can, contact me, i would have no problem in answer each question. I just don't know so many users to talk yet. Nuevousuario1011 (talk) 23:42, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
- I'm sorry that you are in an edit war with FDW777 in the Battle of Friedland article. I looked up the strength of the French in my copy of Chandler's Dictionary (p. 161) and it definitely says 80,000. I noticed in the user history that several users tried to fix it and FDW777 kept changing it back to the wrong (60,000) number. Other than that mistake, FDW777 seems to have made well-intentioned edits. I have been in edit wars before (see Louise, Texas) and it's best to avoid hostile editors and edit-war articles. Also, if you only change the infobox without adding the supporting material to the article, I predict that other editors may not like it. Again, I would advise staying away from well-known battles like Friedland. If you are willing to spend the time, find a lesser-known battle that is stub or start class and try to expand it to C or B class. Djmaschek (talk) 02:09, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
- Please look at Battle of Tournay (1794) article which I am currently working on. I've expanded this from a stub to almost B class status (it is not reviewed yet). The first paragraph under the Results section discusses strengths and casualties. In that paragraph, I cite Phipps and Fortescue which are my main sources, and also cite minor sources Bodart and Smith. The infobox does not need to be cited because all the relevant strength and casualty data is in this paragraph. This is how I do this. Others may do it differently. Djmaschek (talk) 02:22, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
- Your answer is gladly welcomed. Thankyou very much, yes war edits are horrible and i normally avoided them, but once i got into one is not limited to that article but the other user begun to take down every edit from an important one to almost unknown. However, i was the one who put 60,000 Frenchs, (because i took other sources) so i was wrong, because indeed said 80,000. However as soon as one ip user made me notice the Chandler source, i corrected it, and put 80,000 but then (FDW777) used it to roll back everything, so i put a range to include all the sources, giving in a range from 56,000 to 80,000 and the Russians from 46,000 (who he claim from one source), and 84,000 who is the highest figure. So if was wrong, because i was the one who changed it to 60,000 i apologize. But the point is many sources pointed a wide range of numbers. In this case i respected Chandler as a source and keep 80,000 but looking at other sources, Nafziger, Pigeard, etc, as well as already cited sources, the number is as low as 56,000 and no one actually reach the 80,000 troops besides Chandler, (normally are in the 70,000). However the other user (FDW777) insisted on 46,000 to 60,000 taking Chandler alone, and a source who point at 46,000 Russians. (i do not saw that source particulary reliable, because it is just a mention, but i respected it and thus i put a range of troops to include the lowest and highest estimates). The problem here is the disparity in the diferent sources. And the insistence from FDW777 who instead of correct my mistake, changed everything. So i look for all the sources, and the numbers are pretty similar. some claim 60,000 others 80,000 both for Russians and Frenchs.
- I would take a look at the battle of Tournay, who you are working on, and use that method, (actually i disliked the idea of having many sources in the infobox) but as there were already a lot, i added a few more, thus said i will try to do my best with cites and constructing a section to go more in deepth with the sources, but the ranges, i think must be keep. As in your article, when it present a wide range, however. If the article continue to being reverted to exclude some sources, or the numbers who other already cited sources said, it will become imposible to edit. And will narrow everything to one number.
- Edit or create lesser known battles is something intresting and who i had done in the begining, but normally a well known battle have more sources and is much more easy to edit. Just i want to say who Chandler is not the problem, but are the sources, who the other user excluded. I reverted the 30.000 cassualties to 20.000 cassualties on the Russian side lowest estimate, and 60.000 Russians on the field as the lowest estimate, however the problem with the other user, is who he want to revert any edit, it doesn't matter how many sources, or if i am right or wrong, he just revert everything, he even did to some of my edits, where i put as a source the oficial page of the Spanish city of Valdepeñas, as a source to the uprising leaders etc.
- I would take a look at the battle of Tournay, who you are working on, and use that method, (actually i disliked the idea of having many sources in the infobox) but as there were already a lot, i added a few more, thus said i will try to do my best with cites and constructing a section to go more in deepth with the sources, but the ranges, i think must be keep. As in your article, when it present a wide range, however. If the article continue to being reverted to exclude some sources, or the numbers who other already cited sources said, it will become imposible to edit. And will narrow everything to one number.
Please take my most sincere apologize, especially for bringing up those problems with other user. But any comentary or correction, sugestion from you will be sincerely welcomed, as this answer is. Just who the problem was not Chandler, and if it was, it is corrected anyways. Cordially regardsNuevousuario1011 (talk) 03:57, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
- Djmaschek, you said
I looked up the strength of the French in my copy of Chandler's Dictionary (p. 161) and it definitely says 80,000. I noticed in the user history that several users tried to fix it and FDW777 kept changing it back to the wrong (60,000) number. Other than that mistake, FDW777 seems to have made well-intentioned edits.
While in the past I have mistakenly reverted random IPs that changed the figures without explanation, once I saw the figures were wrong I reverted to the correct ones. And it is important to note exactly which editor introduced the deliberate error in the first place, Nuevousuario1011 on 21 December 2019 (including the Chandler reference which does not support their change), and they have also reverted corrective attempts to fix their original incorrect edit. So please don't think it's a case of Nuevousuario1011 attempting to correct my mistake, as if they hadn't added false figures to start with none of this would have occurred. FDW777 (talk) 07:52, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
- @Djmaschek:: the answer who i gave, does not question Chandler, neither about my previous edits, i simple used other sources, but i didn't take Chandler out. In spite of the constant pressure from FDW777. To make me lool like a vandal, the thing here is when someone told me i was wrong, i change it. Does that mean bad faith?, furthermore i continue adding sources, and taking look at those. Chandler reference is not on play here. However there is the problem, the other user, besides reverting edits without another reason, than "that edit was reverted" (by him). I presented some sources. Those sources, did not replace neither ignored the other sources, now the others are also included. But the other user didn't like them. So reverted the entire edits, even inline citations. So far besides an already existing source, i give three different sources. One of them from the (Public collection) of Military historian, Nafziger, The source cleary said more than 70,000 Russians took part. Yet there are an insisntense from the user FDW777, to said who the source give 55.000 Russians or so. However, that is a dubious criteria to interpretate the source. As it cleary ignore all the detached units, who took part on the battle. The other source is from a mainstream book, who state an army of 84,000 Russians attack en masse... Lannes troops, eventually Napoleon forces shown up and 56,000 troops took part on the battle with other 10,000 arriving late. The next source is from a university profesor, public article, who break down the numbers very early. At the end of the article, it said furher reading and links to sources, who did not nesesary say the same. But again those are "Further reading" links. Now there are so many profesors, military historians, mainstream historians, who are wrong? Because if not the numbers should be add. with a minium and a max one, with further discussion on the initial paragraph. However for that the sources must be respected. It is not crazy what i ask, i just ask to respect the sources, and for time to properly edit the article without meddling from a user who is only intrested on reverting my edits, and seek for any mistake to justify it. And of course never apologize, and never retract, something who i lamentably does, and is now take as a sign of weakness and unreliability.
- Also intresting is the user ustification to mantain some things without a source. like at the Fall of Berlin,
- Now maybe it seem strange but i am looking fowards to have a kind of suport, for my edits regarding the issue. If something is not good, okay, if something is good, okay. But not this stalkish game from other user. So the point here is i always am at the service of the comunity. I totally understand your desire to keep at the sides of those articles and disputes, but as there are a second user here atacking, the sources, not just me, i would ask if you could tell if the range is aceptable, and if more than a single source is acepted, especially since the other user contacted here for the same, except to bash my job rather than anything in particular. Please if you want talk to my page, or at the article talk, i have no problem, Cordially regardsNuevousuario1011 (talk) 17:30, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
One of them from the (Public collection) of Military historian, Nafziger, The source cleary said more than 70,000 Russians took part
. Either you are being intentionally dishonest, or you lack the competence to edit this encyclopedia. There is the Nafziger Russian order of battle. He details the following.- Left as 17,000 infantry, 3,550 cavalry
- Right as 13,200 infantry, 8,800 cavalry
- Reserves as 11,400 infantry, 1,050 cavalry
- Detached from army as 2,200 infantry, 7,600 cavalry
- The total excluding the detached units is 55,000. Apparently you don't know what detached means. Even if they are included, that would add 9,800 to the 55,000. 55,000 + 9,800 is not
more than 70,000
The next source is from a university profesor, public article, who break down the numbers very early
. I've already addressed this as well. This is the article you refer to. It doesn'tbreak down
any numbers at all, he gives claimed strengths of 71,000 French and 77,000 Russians. It cites three references for the entire article, they appear at the bottom. They are.- French Order of Battle for Friedland: 14 June 1807 gives a French strength of 75,000-80,000, and a Russian strength of 46,000.
- Napoleon Guide: Battle of Friedland gives a French strength of 80,000 and a Russian strength of 60,000 (although apparently saying 40,000 men were actually involved)
- The War of Wars: The Epic Struggle Between Britain and France: 1789-1815 by Robert Harvey gives a French strength of 80,000 and a Russian strength of 60,000
- None of those supports the figures he claims in his article. It's a big problem if his figures completely contradict the only references he cites, especially when he offers absolutely no explanation as to why his figures are different. Any competent editor would be capable of understanding this problem, that you are not capable is the problem. FDW777 (talk) 18:09, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
Please stop! It looks like I'm sponsoring an edit war on my own talk page. I'm sorry that you two are having this disagreement. I cannot resolve your dispute, and I do not have the power or the desire to declare a winner and a loser. I am only one of many Wikipedia contributors. To me this dispute appears trivial because nobody (I hope) questions the fact that the French defeated the Russians at Friedland. We are only arguing about numbers, which is a fairly minor issue. It seems to me that one way to resolve this would be to add a Strength section at the end where everyone's favorite strength numbers could be written down and cited. I have given a lot of good-faith advice on my talk page to Nuevousuario1011, but I have no more advice to give. Please continue this discussion on a different page. Thank you. Djmaschek (talk) 03:09, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
Page feedback/advice
Hello Djmaschek. I'm sorry to do this on your talk page, but I don't know how to do it another way--please feel free to scrap it. I appreciate the feedback received on my recent submissions for evaluation, particularly on the page for Alanson Merwin Randol. Randol's history is a pet-project of mine, and I have a passion to get it right. I took your advice in adding an expanded introduction section based on the criteria I found on the MilHist page. I am constantly improving my sources and details as I find them, since I am working on the 1st U.S. Artillery more broadly. Can you provide any specific advice on how I might go about improving the article to the GA criteria? It would be much appreciated. Thanks very much. Radar488 (talk) 21:45, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
- Radar488: It's really good enough to submit it for GA class review. (Follow the instructions carefully.) When it is reviewed, you will receive a list of recommendations. You may follow these, or if you disagree, make your argument as to why you think you should not change it. Good luck. Djmaschek (talk) 01:24, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
- Djmaschek: I assume you mean to follow the article submission instructions carefully, and I will read-up and do so. Maybe after another run through my citations. Thanks. Radar488 (talk) 01:57, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for July 19
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Jean-Baptiste Olivier, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Battle of Fleurus.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:56, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CLXXXIII, July 2021
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:29, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
Bayou Fourche order of battle
Djmaschek, Just curious to know if you are aware that the troops who "actually participated" in the Battle of Bayou Fourche were just a small fraction of the units engaged in the Little Rock Campaign (which stretched from Helena to Little Rock?) The reason I am asking is that in February of 2020 the Bayou Fourche Order of Battle was expanded to include forces engaged in the Little Rock Campaign but were never at Bayou Fourche (minor cavalry battle in which neither infantry nor Sterling Price participated). Lieutcoluseng (talk) 00:12, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
- Lieutcoluseng: I added a few words to the introduction ("The only fighting occurred when"). Hopefully this will clear up any confusion between the full orders of battle for both sides and the units that actually were engaged in the fighting. I prefer to include the entire order of battle including units which were unengaged. I leave it up to you if you want to rename the page to "Little Rock campaign order of battle". However, the introduction would probably need to be updated to reflect the change. Djmaschek (talk) 02:44, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
Djmaschek: Thank you for the kind (and timely) reply. Lieutcoluseng (talk) 14:53, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CLXXXIV, August 2021
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 15:48, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nominations open
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. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:58, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for September 4
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 27th Texas Cavalry Regiment, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Battle of Franklin.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:53, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
Stephen B. Oates's Confederate Cavalry West of the River has a few facts about Whitfield's Battalion/27th Texas Cavalry Regiment. It says the battalion had a strength of 339 at an unclear point in 1861, that the 27th had 1,007 men when it crossed the Mississippi in 1862, and that it part of Douglas Cooper's wing at the Battle of Chustenahlah in late '61 but was unengaged because McIntosh attacked without Cooper. I can add this to the article if you'd like. Hog Farm Talk 19:54, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
- @Hog Farm. Thanks for the update. I found a source (Monaghan) that placed the 4th Texas at the Battle of Round Mountain, so I added that. Monaghan doesn't mention if it fought at Bird Creek, though it is likely. It was still a battalion at Pea Ridge. One source stated that 8 companies were added in "late 1862". I assumed that the augmentation occurred before Iuka and Corinth, but if Oates gives a strength of 1,007 before it crossed the Mississippi, then it happened right after Pea Ridge. Please add the battalion/regiment strengths and cite. Thanks. Djmaschek (talk) 04:21, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
- Added! Hog Farm Talk 04:39, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
- @Hog Farm. I removed Round Mountain and the Monaghan ref because the 9th Texas Cavalry Regiment was originally named Sims' 4th Texas. That was the unit that served in Cooper's brigade. Your added data is still there, but I moved one of the sentences under the Formation section. It makes sense that the 1,007 figure represents the augmented regiment. Thanks. Djmaschek (talk) 20:36, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
- Thankfully Oates is clear enough on the strengths that it's identifiable with the right unit - the 339 is attributed to "Whitfield's Bn." under the command of J. W. Whitfield, while the 1,007 is identified as being for the 27th Reg. also under J. W. Whitfield. Oates's statement about Cooper's column is Cooper, reinforced with John W. Whitfield's Texas battalion, would ride up the north side of the Arkansas and get in the Indians' rear It then goes on to say that Cooper's column was unengaged in the ensuing battle of Chustenahlah; this is stated to occur after the battles of "Round Mounds" (which is apparently how Oates refers to Round Mountain) and Bird Creek, so it looks like it would have been Sims' unit at Round Mountain. Hog Farm Talk 02:26, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- @Hog Farm. I removed Round Mountain and the Monaghan ref because the 9th Texas Cavalry Regiment was originally named Sims' 4th Texas. That was the unit that served in Cooper's brigade. Your added data is still there, but I moved one of the sentences under the Formation section. It makes sense that the 1,007 figure represents the augmented regiment. Thanks. Djmaschek (talk) 20:36, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
- Added! Hog Farm Talk 04:39, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nomination period closing soon
Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are still open, but not for long. 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! No further nominations will be accepted after that time. Voting will commence on 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:42, 10 September 2021 (UTC)