User talk:Kges1901/2019/January

Archives

2018 Military Historian of the Year

		2018 Military Historian of the Year
		As voted by your peers within the Military history WikiProject, I hereby award you the Silver Wiki for sharing second place in the 2018 Military Historian of the Year Award. Congratulations, and thank you for your efforts in 2018. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:02, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, Kges. Thanks for your efforts in 2018, and all the best for 2019! Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:05, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2018 Year in Review

		The WikiChevrons
		For your work on 15th Tank Corps, Soviet cruiser Admiral Nakhimov (1969), Soviet cruiser Kronstadt, Soviet cruiser Admiral Isakov, and 2nd Red Banner Army you are hereby award these WikiChevrons. Congrats! TomStar81 (Talk) 19:18, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

		The Soviet Barnstar
		For your work on 15th Tank Corps, Soviet cruiser Admiral Nakhimov (1969), Soviet cruiser Kronstadt, Soviet cruiser Admiral Isakov, and 2nd Red Banner Army you are hereby award the Soviet Union Barnstar of National Merit. Congrats! TomStar81 (Talk) 19:18, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

		WikiProject Ships Barnstar
		For your work on Soviet cruiser Admiral Nakhimov (1969), Soviet cruiser Kronstadt, and Soviet cruiser Admiral Isakov you are hereby awarded the WikiProject Ships Barnstar. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:18, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CLIII, January 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 Albert Speer
Op-ed: Factotem on common problems affecting infoboxes
Timeline: This month in World War I

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) 23:58, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations from the Military History Project

		The WikiChevrons
		On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the WikiChevrons for October to December 2018 reviews. MilHistBot (talk) 01:06, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vietnam base photos

Great work adding all those base photos, they really improve the pages. Thanks! Mztourist (talk) 05:11, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

warheroes.ru website in citations

I found the discussion that went against the use of warheroes.ru as a source I can't help but notice that 1. There was very little discussion in the first place 2. The rejection of it in large part due to the language it is published in and the language of the sources 3. The rejection of it based in large part by users on the grounds of not being able to verify it;s contents due to the language barrier (with the lack of trying to find a Russian-language Wikipedian to access the accuracy of the contents), among many other issues.

I intend to present my argument something like this: I have found warheroes.ru to be much more reliable than many other sources that are allowed in Wikipedia articles. Some people may have been confused and thought it was a self-published source or a Wikipedia transclusion after Nikolai Ufarkin and Andrey Simonov, two of the websites writers, donated their articles under a CC-BY-SA licesnse via OTRS so the material could be used directly on Russian Wikipedia, like this. I happen to have copies of the Russian encyclopedias of Heroes of the Soviet Union from the 1980's, and have seen many times that warheroes does not repeat errors from them but corrects them and mentions that the official Soviet biography had such error. (For example, the Soviet encyclopedia incorrectly said that Irbaykhan Baybulatov was a Kumyk, but he was actually a Chechen, and that was all noted in the website. (A classic case of de-valuing the merits of Chechens in WWII after the Aardakh). Information on warheroes.ru can be easily checked against scans of official documents on pamyat-naroda.ru, and I have yet to find any inaccuracy in the prose of award lists on the website. And death dates on the website are correct as based on official death certificates as opposed to OCR-scans of old encyclopedias that often result in seeing many typos. So, while a few English speaker with less than an L-1 understanding of Russian and no access to any Russian print sources of any kind might not have been able to access the website as verifiable in a brief discussion, it is safe to say that the content on the website is verifiable and accurate - based on a long-term assessment of the website's content and comparison of it to various primary sources, wartime newspaper clippings, Soviet encyclopedias, official documents, memoirs, and other information. (Also, the coordinator/owner of the site does not write any articles, so again, not "self-published" - and the writers often perfect edit others articles.)

Think it will be enough to convince Parsecboy? He clearly has very minimal knowledge of Soviet+Russian history, it's been hard to explain some things in the past. I don't want to let a language barrier and the fact that one user don't have certain books be used as an excuse to blacklist an entire site, especially since the website is far more accurate than many other sources like essays and the official books that kept on changing the story from the Soviet era or even simply described executed people as "dead day.month.year." It appears that the blacklist was informal anyway, and not officially listed at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. (Either way, I think it should be listed there as "Generally reliable" there - can you help it achieve such status?)--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 02:00, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Warheroes was never considered unreliable in general, it was just considered to be not high quality enough for A-class. Sources such as warheroes are still ok for B-class, for example, but tend to raise questions on reviews for higher assessment levels. I would advise you against making comments about Parsecboy as he was just raising a point that had come up earlier, as you can see from the discussion. To fulfill WP:RS at a high quality level I've generally found that websites need to have editors that are published experts in the relevant field, so at least Andrey Simonov (being a published author)'s entries can be considered to be high quality RS.Kges1901 (talk) 00:30, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of No. 2 Squadron RCAF

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article No. 2 Squadron RCAF 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 Ed! -- Ed! (talk) 16:21, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of No. 2 Squadron RCAF

The article No. 2 Squadron RCAF you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:No. 2 Squadron RCAF for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ed! -- Ed! (talk) 17:01, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of No. 3 Squadron RCAF

The article No. 3 Squadron RCAF you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:No. 3 Squadron RCAF for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ed! -- Ed! (talk) 17:01, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Soviet destroyer Sposobny (1970)

On 14 January 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Soviet destroyer Sposobny (1970), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Soviet destroyer Sposobny (pictured) was designed to survive a nuclear explosion? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Soviet destroyer Sposobny (1970). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Soviet destroyer Sposobny (1970)), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

– Amakuru (talk) 00:01, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Soviet destroyer Storozhevoy

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Soviet destroyer Storozhevoy 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 Ed! -- Ed! (talk) 16:01, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Soviet destroyer Storozhevoy

The article Soviet destroyer Storozhevoy you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Soviet destroyer Storozhevoy for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ed! -- Ed! (talk) 16:21, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]