User talk:Chaosdruid/Archive 19

GOCE December 2019 Newsletter
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:05, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Daphne Caruana Galizia
If you wish to hat or delete that TP discussion I have no objection. We all make mistakes. 🌿  SashiRolls t ·  c 20:56, 6 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Never mind, at this point you should not delete anything. 🌿  SashiRolls t ·  c 12:34, 7 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)

Your behaviour at User talk:Anthony22
If you're unaware that calling another editor an "authoritarian goon" is a personal attack, then you need to increase your self-awareness.

Anthony22 has had a long history of making mistaken, idiosyncratic edits to articles. My own interactions with them include: User talk:Anthony22, where I warned Anthony22 about changing from en-gb to en-us on an article that is clearly marked in the wiki-text. Here's the diff and the edit summary: "changed organisations to organizations. This is the English Wikipedia, and articles are United States by default, not Great Britain". That's a complete and deliberate breach of WP:ENGVAR, applied with a self-righteous arrogance that is guaranteed to alienate other editors. Now tell me that he was right in your opinion and I'll know what I'm dealing with.

Not only that, but the next day, Anthony22 decided that it was wrong to use gender neutral pronouns and re-cast a gender neutral sentence into one that implied divers are male. Anthony22 has no clue about the use of "singular they" and decided that according to their own self-established rules of grammar, the article had to be changed. So now tell me that Anthony22 was correct to change an article to potentially offend half our readership.

The problem is not that Anthony22 makes mistakes; it's that they have a very limited understanding of grammatical nuances and Wikipedia conventions. Even when told about them, they tend to double down and insist they are right, and you are enabling that behaviour by encouraging Anthony22 to believe they are right. They were community banned from doing copyediting for their behaviour and you don't get to decide that the community is wrong, especially on the basis of your examination of a handful of recent edits. So back off. You're not part of the solution; you're part of the problem, and the sooner you realise that, the better. --RexxS (talk) 22:24, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Re: "Please continue on my talk page, I just need to know how I am supporting disruptive behaviour, and how I made a personal attack. This is not sarcasm, I just do not understand."


 * "You come over as some authoritarian goon Macon, trying to stifle anti-communist propoganda [sic] !!" is a clear personal attack against me. Please apologize. I do not believe that you were not aware that those words were a personal attack.


 * "I have a friend with Apergers [sic] who just cannot adapt to Wiki and it's community, it's a shame." implies that Anthony22 has Asperger syndrome and that this is the reason he cannot adapt. Unless you know of a place where Anthony22 has self-identified as having Asperger syndrome that is a personal attack. Please apologize. It is also a slur against all Wikipedia editors with Asperger syndrome, the vast majority of whom "adapt" just fine.


 * "Your statement is ridiculous, intolerant and very annoying" is a personal attack. Please apologize.


 * "It is obvious you do not care about the editor that I am trying to help" is, in my opinion, the most vicious and nasty of your personal attacks -- far worse than calling me a goon or a communist. I demand an apology.

Regarding how you are supporting disruptive behavior, your long list of "good edit" comments encourages Anthony22 to believe that their good edits (nobody has ever disputed that many of the edits are good; the problem is the bad ones mixed in) means that they can ignore their topic ban. That is clearly encouraging more of the bad behavior that got them blocked and discouraging them from composing an effective unblock request that shows that they understand what they did wrong and that they won't do it again. "I am right and everyone at ANI was wrong" is not the kind of response that leads to an unblock. The best way you can help Anthony22 is to stay away from them.

THINK CAREFULLY BEFORE YOU HIT THE PUBLISH CHANGES BUTTON ON YOUR REPLY.

If your response contains further personal attacks or claims that making good edits means that it is OK to violate a topic ban, the discussion will then be about your behavior and what we should do about it. You are free to disagree with anything I just wrote, but you would be well advised to disagree in a calm, civil, and collegial manner. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:06, 2 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I do disagree with most of it.


 * I am allowed to have an opinion, and I felt attacked. I thought that attack WAS ridiculous.


 * I DO have a friend with Aspergers who DOES have issues and cannot adapt to Wiki - in other words, "Anthony, if you do NOT have Aspergers (etc.), then you have no excuse."


 * I was trying to help an editor IMPROVE and to encourage them to change so they could return to the fold in the future, and to point out to them that, though they thought they were good, they were missing some important point, as oyu mentioned, the nuances were not understood.


 * To tell someone they are "coming over as a goon" is NOT a personal attack, perhaps they did not intend to be so ascerbic, perhaps they did not mean to be so authoritarian, I don;t know, I was simply pointing out that was how I felt I was being treated, not Anthony. THat was why I felt I was personally attacked, and that was what I was responding to. I too, felt I deserved an apology, I was simply responding to the perceived attack. If the first message had been on my talk page, asking me to quietly withdraw, or had been less agressive, we would not be here now.


 * I was very involved in GOCE for a few years, and I felt Anthony could be helped. I now see that the community feels he cannot be helped.


 * I do agree I could not possibly have know your intentions, so for my "Ridiculous, intolerant" comment, I apologise. Chaosdruid (talk) 12:16, 2 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the apology. One minor correction: while some here think that Anthony22 cannot be helped, I am not one of them. I still believe that if they ever come to an understanding of what they did wrong and why they were blocked they will be able to appeal the block and have it lifted per WP:ROPE. I would be very happy if that were to happen. What I (and at least one other person) are trying to tell you is that what you wrote to them was pretty much the perfect message to reinforce their "I have made many good edits so it is OK for me to repeatedly violate my topic ban" attitude and to prevent them from ever come to an understanding of what they did wrong and why they were blocked. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:40, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Cool


 * I did, however, point out to them that they HAD made some serious errors, and that their nuanced understanding needed workingon - hence my advice on reading the essay and notes, and the advice to seek help from GOCE


 * I also tried to encourage them to engage in discussion more, and advised him them to be more laid back on his their expectancy of action.


 * They seems to expect answers and action within hours, rather than the truth - it can take days for replies on active pages, and on inactive pages it can take weeks and months to get replies sometimes.


 * Thanks for taking the time to chat here about it all Chaosdruid (talk) 23:25, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The history of User talk:Anthony22 is chock-full of attempts to help Anthony22, all of which were completely ignored except when they were defiantly rejected. Over a number of years, many experienced editors have wasted substantial amounts of their volunteer time trying to help Anthony22. That is time that could have been better spent improving the encyclopedia, and there comes a time when reasonable editors say enough is enough. I submit that you have been speaking – quite verbosely – from a position of relative ignorance on this issue. The next time you're tempted to take up the banner of an indeffed or banned editor, my suggestion is to ask yourself how much you really know about the history of the issue.What you don't seem to understand is that Anthony22 will ignore the negative parts of your comments and seize upon the positive parts as further evidence of the complete wrongness of the community vis-a-vis their contributions. Thus your comments only served to reinforce the victim stance that is a large part of the problem, and therefore were the opposite of helpful to anybody – including Anthony22. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  03:04, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Hmmmm. I am a little confused now - is this people piling on ME to see "the error of my ways"? If so, please, back off. The "verbose" comment is a personal attack - I will use as many words as I see fit.

I am aware of the more recent history, and read through the last three admin "actions" (ANI etc.). I am also aware of the bad points of Anthony22, having interacted with their edits in the past, on David Koresh, Alan Turing, and some other articles - from a few years ago, up until Feb this year.

I am also aware of things like this absolute nightmare of created pages, and of their reluctance to discuss. I am, however, not "taking up the banner of an indefd or banned editor", as if I am some simpleton.

You all need to calm down, and understand that you are all at defcon 4, I am not. I was not involved with the ANIs, nor the bannings, nor the conversations that got you all so riled up.

I cannot believe that Anthony will ignore the things I have said that are negative. I have to believe that Anthony is redeemable, and can change, and that they will fix themselves. Why? Because that is the very definition of tolerance. I am NOT a supporter of Anthony, just a balanced individual who has no vested interest in anything other than retaining good editing without all the drama - whichever side of this current battle the drama comes from.

Now, drop the stick all of you, he is banned, and I am sick an dtired of this tirade of being told off and threatened with blocks for speaking my mind to an editor who could not even edit and is unlikely to return. I had interactions with them in the past, and I felt that their good work was being lost to Wiki and could be redeemed with just a little "you did well, but you cannot talk to people, without that you are lost to us" - If you cannot see that is what I was doing, then go back and read it all again. Chaosdruid (talk) 14:52, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

P.S. I am also aware that Guy Macon and yourself, Mandruss, have tried for a long time to help them - for example, I read the comments form June 2018 where talks of help being offered seemed to peter out as no one had enough free time, or were willing enough to give it, or to put the steps in place - and Wiki suffers a lot from this because we are volunteers - did anyone even bother to take up the steps you had worked out with that admin? I don;t know if they did, but I feel if they had at that point, things might have been different. It's an encyclopedia, not a social venue or care-home, we just made someone homeless due to inaction a year ago, or two years ago. The fact that people said "it's gone on for years" said it all really - maybe we were all a little too kind back then. Chaosdruid (talk) 15:10, 4 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Re: "is this people piling on ME to see "the error of my ways"? If so, please, back off". Yes. Your "ways" were indeed in error and it appears that you don't see the error of your ways. Which is fine; just don't do it again and it won't matter whether you don't do it again because you have seen the light and now understand that you are making the problem worse or whether you don't do it again because, even though you are convinced you were right you would prefer to not be blocked. Either way is fine just as long as you don't do it again. For some reason nobody liked my suggestion that we arrest people in the middle of the night and ship them off to reeducation camps in Siberia. Go figure. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:00, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 * No, I did NOT make an error - I made what I think was a reasoned and balanced appeal to a good editor to stop being silly, and follow the rules.


 * There were peopl ewho were adamant that the editor could NOT be helped, and that anyone who even suggested that they might NOT have made mistakes was worse than them - and must be told that and hammered into submission.


 * I am not submitting - you have your opinions, I have mine, NONE of this is objective, in that you cannot even demonstrate that your suggestion of me "I don;t know what I am saying, something about if a then x or b then y, and whicever whatever something of nothing".


 * Everyone prefers not to be blocked, but having made ONE COMMENT, THAT WAS IT


 * I did not expect anyone to comment, just that the editor would read what I had said, take it on board, or ignore it.


 * Once again, I stopped becuase I had finished talking to them, the rest of it was you lot having a go at me for daring to "encourage them" (a subjective opinion not a fact) and encourage them to what? edit responsibly? so i asked them to do tha, told them where they had gone wrong, two cases where they rthought they were right and I showed them they were wrong, and that they need to follow the rules.


 * SO yes, I encouraged them to sotp editing, go away, read iup on grammar and copyediting, reach out to GOCE for advice and guidance when they return after their block, and to try and learn from the situation and accept that the community is as important as the editing.


 * Simples, you decided I was AGF when in fact YOU were telling me off as if I knew I had done something wrong when it was just the opinion of people and not fact, the fact was I was telling an editor to behave - thqat you did not understand that is NOT my fault. Chaosdruid (talk) 21:42, 19 December 2019 (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)

Books & Bytes – Issue 37
 The Wikipedia Library Books & Bytes

Issue 37, November – December 2019 
 * #1Lib1Ref
 * Wikimedia and Libraries User Group

Read the full newsletter On behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:09, 1 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)

GOCE March newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:52, 18 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)

Issue 38, January – April 2020
 The Wikipedia Library Books & Bytes

Issue 38, January – April 2020 
 * New partnership
 * Global roundup

Read the full newsletter On behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --15:57, 29 April 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)

GOCE June newsletter
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 15:46, 5 June 2020 (UTC).

Books & Bytes – Issue 39, May – June 2020
 The Wikipedia Library Books & Bytes

Issue 39, May – June 2020 
 * Library Card Platform
 * New partnerships
 * ProQuest
 * Springer Nature
 * BioOne
 * CEEOL
 * IWA Publishing
 * ICE Publishing
 * Bytes in brief

Read the full newsletter On behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:12, 11 June 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)

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)

The Black Hole (2016 film) moved to draftspace
An article you recently created, The Black Hole (2016 film), does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of " " before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Celestina007 (talk) 00:21, 20 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I have no idea why you ignored the "Under Construction" template, so I have reverted your move.


 * Similarly, you marked the article as a "requested review" - I did NOT request a review, you got a bit .... well, a LOT ... ahead of yourself there in all aspects of your decision to move the article.


 * Next time, maybe look at the article, think "Oh, there is an under construction template, so I'll manke a note and come back in two days and see if it is still needing workl"


 * THEN - just add the template. THat will stop you getting bad press from annoyed editors who might feel you overstepped into arrogance. Chaosdruid (talk) 03:40, 21 July 2020 (UTC)


 * PS note that the message banner you twinkled into my talk page, even says "Information that can't be referenced should be removed" - NOT "Information that ISN'T referenced should be moved" - I even wonder if you actually understand the processes you are using.

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)

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)