User talk:Peacemaker67

ACR advice

Black Terror (ship) - It appears to be about to pass GAN. My one concern is with the bit about Smith's dissenting hypothesis. Is the material worked in well enough to attempt ACR, or is this a subject where I'd be best waiting out further research? Hog Farm _Talk 05:00, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Hmmm, interesting. I'll take a closer look tomorrow, but you might want to fix "Not wanting Indianola to be repaired and enter Confederate service like Indianola" in the lead just for the GAN. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:02, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

G'day Hog Farm. Having had a look, I wonder if the article is actually giving too much weight to Smith's theory, and perhaps it should just be in a note. Check my summary here against your knowledge, but it seems to me that a lot of authors accept that Black Terror was the fake boat used to cause the destruction of Indianola. I haven't got access to them, but Barnhart and Hearn apparently accept that Porter decided to use a fake to bluff the Confederates, and it seems that Miller, Shea & Winschel, Legan, Barnhart and the NHHC roughly agree on her construction. The circumstances of Indianola's destruction seem consistent between sources other than Smith and are apparently corroborated by contemporary newspaper reports, and Smith appears to be the only one questioning whether Black Terror was the fake that caused it. Barnhart in particular seems authoritative and closely focussed on this incident, and Miller is highly respected. Have there been any reviews of Smith's book? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:45, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

My train of thought in giving that weight to Smith is that of the sources, only Smith and Chatelain specialize in the naval warfare aspect. The review I've found for Joseph Brown and His Civil War Ironclads states If it sailed on the brown water of America's Western rivers during the Civil War and flew the Stars and Stripes of the Union Navy, Myron Smith more than likely knows about it. He's also published The Timberclads in the Civil War through McFarland, The CSS Arkansas through McFarland, as well as Tinclads in the Civil War and The Fight for the Yazoo, August 1862–July 1864 through McFarland as well. For Black Terror, I pieced together the Smith material from the previews on Amazon and Google books, although I'd try to get ahold of a physical copy before sending it through FAC (which will be difficult; it's about 3x what I give myself for monthly book purchasing budget on Amazon and it looks like there's only two publicly-held copies in the entire state of Missouri. The publisher is apparently part of the Wikipedia Library, but I've never been able to figure out how McFarland works on there). This is an 1863 newspaper referring to Black Terror as the second ironclad, but it also includes a length description of the Indianola affair, without saying what the first one was for. Hog Farm _Talk 05:45, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

I definitely think you need a copy of Smith before progressing this any further. Not knowing what level of detail is provided in the various sources, I suggest trying to make it clearer which sources say what about this aspect when you are providing the sequence of events. ie if other sources state there were two fake ironclads, then perhaps some sort of intro sentence would be good before the chronology starts, like "Sources vary on whether there were two ironclads, and whether Black Terror was the first or second sent downstream, and its intended purpose. <then detail which sources support which version of events, closely citing them>" Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:55, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

A belated thanks

I wanted to express my personal thanks for your kind words during my July RfA. That I am entrusted by editors I admire makes me stand up a bit straighter I think. My first few months have been interrupted by personal concerns but I'm here for the long haul. Sometimes I think I want my last ever talkpage edit to end "castle of arrrggghhh...." and then four tildes. You know how much respect I have for your efforts; please call on me if I can help or if you see me with my pants down. I'm sometimes blind to myself. That's why I keep friends close. Proud to call you one. BusterD (talk) 17:49, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

You are welcome, BusterD! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 20:42, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

SAGE Journal article

Hi Peacemaker67! I'm not sure why the email didn't go through, but I've uploaded it here temporarily. If you could download it as a local copy and let me know, then I'll delete it from my end. DanCherek (talk) 00:25, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks DanCherek! Done. Not sure what is going on with the email. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:50, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Promotion of Yugoslav minelayer Zmaj

Congratulations, Peacemaker67! The article you nominated, Yugoslav minelayer Zmaj, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.

This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) via FACBot (talk) 12:09, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Ian! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:19, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Invisible Barnstar
		For your valued work in the July 2021 GAN Backlog Drive, which, in a single month, helped to reduce the backlog by nearly 50%. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:06, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Cheers! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:07, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

September 2021

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Serbian Volunteer Corps (World War II). This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

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

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Kosmar6314 (click to talk to me) 08:21, 22 September 2021 (UTC)