This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Military history: British / European This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles Associated task forces: /  British military history task force European military history task force

I'd like to join the BATUK I'm 25yrs old Currently in Nairobi Please advice. 105.163.194.14 (talk) 04:13, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

lol --BulgeUwU (talk) 04:57, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can I get an opportunity to work with batuk 197.248.101.137 (talk) 10:30, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

One user has made some pretty large and sweeping edits to the page that we need to discuss. In this version of the wiki you can see the section titled "Supporting the local economy and population" which they created. Every citation either links to a blog belonging to the British government/MOD or a twitter account belonging to the British military, and even then many are very poorly cited. Can get get some reliable secondary sources instead of directly quoting what the BATUK has said in their own public relations outlets as though it ?

Also, many citations this same user has made come from a site called "Forces Net", but I can't see what makes this a reliable secondary source. It looks rather dodgy. The History Wizard of Cambridge (talk) 18:04, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the material that has come straight from primary sources but I am not aware of any reason why "Forces.net" should not be accepted as a reliable source. Dormskirk (talk) 18:14, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It goes even deeper. I ctrl+F on some of the paragraphs that "@Militaryfactchecker" wrote, specifically under the header "Exercise Askari Storm". I did this because I thought that many of the sentences he wrote read as though they were a press release. Well it turns out that's because Militaryfactchecker has been copy & pasting entire paragraphs from the sources they cited with little attempt to paraphrase, passing it off as their own work. Below is one example.

What "Militaryfactchecker" wrote: Click here for changelog

This sophisticated system improves the quality of training and increases the results obtained.

About 10,000 British troops train in the East-African country every year enhancing the skills of the Armed Forces when dealing with arid environments, vital for the military success of previous deployments such as Operation Telic, the British military operations in Iraq, and operations in Afghanistan.

What the source says, with differences struck through: Click here for original source

This sophisticated system improves the quality of training and increases the results obtained.

About 10,000 British troops train in the East-African country every year enhancing the skills of the Armed Forces when dealing with arid environments, vital for the military success of deployments such as Operation Telic, the British military operations in Iraq that started in March 2003, and operations in Afghanistan.

Additionally, as though it couldn't get any stranger, if you scroll down the changelog I cited, he did this while deleting edits critical of the BATUK, including rape allegations. This is by far the first run-in I have had with "Militaryfactchecker", as he has a habit of editing pages about the British Army, removing anything deemed too critical, and replacing it with paragraphs designed to show the UK military in a more positive light. The History Wizard of Cambridge (talk) 18:56, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Update: After posting this, "Militaryfactchecker" went straight to my talk page to vandalise it with lyrics to a song praising the Ulster Defence Association and Ulster Volunteer Force. What a weirdo. The History Wizard of Cambridge (talk) 19:31, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Hi BulgeUwU, I would strongly encourage you to take a breath of fresh air, and relax. Wikipedia shouldn't be a place that generates anger or hostility. While some users disagree with article content, we all need to remain level-headed and press forward (I am not accusing you of doing the contrary). That being said, my few encounters with you have been you repeatedly reverting edits (not just mine), in locations where you have added a decent amount of content. I am adding a note here in hopes that you will further familiarize yourself with WP:OWN and WP:GOODFAITH.

You add lots of content to a variety of articles—no doubt about that. But just because you have done so does not mean that you own the article. Others are free to edit as they choose (as long as they abide by WP guidelines/policies, obviously). But when others edit or partially revert your edits, it's not time to start an edit war or get defensive."

BulgeUwU / now History Wizard of Cambridge since being banned and made to change their name - is very clearly biased and anti military. Militaryfactchecker (talk) 19:40, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Militaryfactchecker is back with his fourth or fifth sock account, now going by the name of PINAC9, and is continuing his mission to wipe wikipedia of any mention of Murder of Agnes Wanjiru. Tagging a few editors who are familiar with him, @Novem Linguae and @Nythar .

Can we please for the love of god get some protections on some of the relevant pages? He's been targeting me and the same pages for over a month with countless socks and I feel like I've spent more time fighting his harassment then actually editing wikipedia. The History Wizard of Cambridge (talk) 00:54, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@The History Wizard of Cambridge. Sure, I'll take a look. What page names please? You can also request protection through the normal channels anytime via WP:TWINKLE -> RPP (Request for Page Protection), or WP:RFPP directly. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:37, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Agnes Wanjiru, Duke of Lancaster's Regiment, and the British Army Training Unit Kenya are the three key ones that need protections. I wasn't aware of TWINKLE so thanks for showing me this. The History Wizard of Cambridge (talk) 01:40, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I semi-protected British Army Training Unit Kenya for a month since it had multiple non-autoconfirmed socks in the edit history. The other articles only had 1 sock in the edit history, and the preferred way the community likes to deal with that is to block the sock rather than protect. Hope this helps. Feel free to ping me in the future. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:48, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@The History Wizard of Cambridge: thanks for the ping. Both the account you mentioned and 109.157.159.121 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) have been blocked, and their edits reverted. Please do notify me again if you find more socks. Nythar (💬-🍀) 01:56, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]