Archives

#1: Jun 2017—Dec 2018 #2: Jan 2019—Nov 2019 #3: Sep 2020—Aug 2021 #4: Sep 2021—Dec 2021

I've arranged the archives as follows:

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

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

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

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

I endorse Dormskirk's statement.

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

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

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

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

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

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:19, 6 January 2022 (UTC)reply

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Coldstreamer20, last month you created a new Template:British Army Special Forces. The template is largely a duplication of the existing Template:United Kingdom Special Forces. Why is there a need for two templates? The only difference I see is that the Army Special Operations Brigade, the Ranger Regiment and the Future Commando Force are included in the new template. These units are described as "special operations forces" distinguishing them from "special forces". The term special operations forces is used interchangeably with special forces. Countries use either term to describe these units. Special operations forces is a re-direct and wikilinks to the special forces article. I have not seen these new units officially described as "special operations forces" but rather as "special operations-capable".¹ The Special Boat Service and Future Commando Force are not British Army. Why can't the existing template be modified to include special operations-capable units? --Melbguy05 (talk) 06:50, 12 January 2022 (UTC)reply

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I archive all my pages, so the issue was fixed, but he got two different pages (Sandbox 5 and the Sandbox/Royal Navy Structure in 2020) mixed up. I've got a detailed archive of every single page (major) which I have ever created and thereby am able to replenish all of them and update, etc if needed. Cheers, Coldstreamer20, feel free to chat here or see my made pages! 23:37, 13 January 2022 (UTC)reply

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

Request reason:

Uhm.. Hi there @JJMC89:, for some reason your bot just blocked me for reverting edits for icons on a sandbox? It was my understanding that the icons are fine if they aren't in the mainspace. I can revert my edits and remove the icons, but I wasn't aware I couldn't use them even in sandboxes. If need be I'll appeal this block since I didn't understand I couldn't use it in my sandboxes (sorry for saying that a million times). I'll remove the icons since that was my mistake, apologies about that. To be honest I wish you had given me a warning and where to view the issue, since I didn't know I couldn't use them on sandboxes even. Sorry for the inconvenience. Look at it now, I didn't see until just now about the part regarding "Restrictions on location. Non-free content is allowed only in articles (not disambiguation pages), and only in the article namespace, subject to exemptions." Cheers, Coldstreamer20, feel free to chat here or see my made pages! 18:15, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Decline reason:

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

Request reason:

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

Decline reason:

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  @Dronebogus: can you post a specific quote from policy that you are relying on here? Just repeatedly linking wp:fringe/wp:profringe is not particularly helpful. - wolf 05:17, 11 February 2022 (UTC)reply Zdroj:https://en.wikipedia.org?pojem=User_talk:J-Man11
  Text je dostupný za podmienok Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License 3.0 Unported; prípadne za ďalších podmienok. Podrobnejšie informácie nájdete na stránke Podmienky použitia.

  ---