User talk:Johnvr4

Welcome!

 * }

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 17:10, 28 November 2016 (UTC)


 * sorry about this. i cannot figure out why you are so intent on getting the "no books" thing in - but in any case you have no consensus on the talk page for that, but you keep inserting it. again, sorry. Jytdog (talk) 17:15, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Yet another misrepresentation of the facts. The talk page quite clearly states that there is concensus but without the clarification I requested on what has concensus.Johnvr4 (talk) 17:29, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The issue is really simple. You don't have consensus for the edit, but you keep making it.  I posted to the noticeboard because you seem dedicated to getting it in, regardless of opposition.  That is the definition of edit warring. Jytdog (talk) 17:30, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Consensus was determined by the quality of the arguments as all counter arguments lacked quality.Johnvr4 (talk) 17:46, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * As one of the participants you are not in a great place to assess the quality of arguments, are you.  Look John, the right way to proceed when there are disagreements is WP:DR, not continually making the edit.  I have no more to say here; you are probably going to be warned or maybe blocked.  We can talk more after the EWN case is sorted. Jytdog (talk) 17:50, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I was able to determine 2/3 of the concerns about my edits were completely made up with zero basis in reality. It is obvious that the other 3rd of the concerns lacked any support or reason.  It wasn't that difficult of a determination to make. Why would it?Johnvr4 (talk) 18:16, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Direct link with comments: WP:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive331 Johnvr4 (talk) 15:37, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions alert

 * John, I realize you have been alerted about this before, and it's not my intention to pester you. But since the earlier alert was in 2014, you might reasonably have forgotten it. Bishonen &#124; talk 17:18, 28 November 2016 (UTC).
 * Thanks for the reminder. For years several editors kept reinserting garbage from Chemtrail update personal website into that article repeatedly. . I repeatedly called it vandalism.Johnvr4 (talk) 17:53, 28 November 2016 (UTC)


 * There was even a warning from an editor user:Second Quantization who went out of his way to protect idiotic content of the conspiracy website source and prevented the only editor that recognized what was happening (Me) from fixing it while every other involved editor on that page at that time seemed hell bent on reinserting the dubious material they would not verify while saying I was simply edit warring.
 * Each editor on the noticeboard had the same opinion and also repeatedly called it edit warring while failing to recognize the root of the issue which was BS content from a conspiracy site. Vandalism may have been too strong a term as I misinterpreted intent rather than the result.
 * The fact is that the other involved editors absolutely won that "edit war" but they looked really bad doing it when I showed these editors had been reinserting that dubious content for many years. The comment here may be a bit WP:pointy but this explanation will continue each time and every time the issue is brought up because not one editor verified the source themselves and I was the one held accountable for their ineptitude. The archive will be always available for every involved editor to refer back to in hindsight if an editor takes issue with my synopsis. I had a faulty mouse when I typed the notice board responses. Johnvr4 (talk) 00:53, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Note
Johnvr, it seems that you have a longer term goal of getting the history of how the conspiracy developed into the article. Pounding away on this book thing in a way that is garnering no support, is digging yourself a big hole. It is useful to be strategic - don't lose sight of the forest for the trees. Jytdog (talk) 01:31, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the input. That goal has it's own talk section and sandbox which you were kind enough to help me with.  Please come back to the talk section on it.


 * "The book thing" was an edit that I felt was very highly unlikely to be challenged. It looks like I was wrong somehow but as of this edit, no one has explained how.  If this is how my edits to only change a few words are going to be received, we may be in for a long policy-based discussion.  It's obvious that we could all get a whole lot done towards improving the article with some constructive criticism and discussion and compromise.  So, please stop fighting and come on out of your trench.  This isn't a war.  Let's talk about it sensibly. Johnvr4 (talk) 01:57, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Red Hat draft
I've made some notes about my reactions to your draft at my talkpage. Honestly the article doesn't hang together as it is; there are too many barely-related subjects in it (in my view, eg there's no need for a separate section about Japanese research involvement, merely one sentence in some relevant section.) Buckshot06 (talk) 19:39, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The J-research was part of the link to Okinawa in the Korean War BW allegations. I had moved some of it to my sandbox2 and other parts to Allegations of biological warfare in the Korean War and condensed some more. You are correct in that it will need more condensing. Assertions that Red Hat chemicals came to Okinawa without the knowledge of Japan's policy makers was the initial purpose for the section after as with similar to the assertions about knowledge of US nukes.  Harris tied that together with the subsequent US research leading to Project 112 and also with insects and crops.  Johnvr4 (talk) 03:04, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Recent edit to Operation Red Hat
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that you removed some content from Operation Red Hat without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; I restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! CAPTAIN RAJU ( ✉ ) 20:19, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Red Cap
Why don't you split out Red Cap as a completely separate article? Happy New Year Buckshot06 (talk) 16:29, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I may need to that at some point. I am not sure how it everything fits together with a solid distinction between Red Hat and Red CAP, alleged "Waterfall," and Project 112 given the descriptions in the limited sources available and I can't seem to find the actual published articles from Vietnam or in Sweden.  I currently only have the transcript of interview and a final draft copy of the Marlowe article.  Given the controversy over OP Tailwind which did briefly mention but did not address Cambodia allegations and also the DTC test (Project112) there is that the Project 112 name was still sort of classified during the Tailwind dispute (I still need to verify that), I am not sure how a stand-alone Red Cap article would go over at this point and it may be premature to move it. I'll need more help with the MOS but I've been doing some rearranging in the organization of the draft and hope that it will make a bit better sense when I'm done and the parts that obviously don't belong will stand out. Johnvr4 (talk) 17:25, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

February 2017
Your recent editing history at Beacham Theater shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Dirk Beetstra T C 15:01, 6 February 2017 (UTC)


 * User:Beetstra I already warned you about an edit war. You can't come back and warn me in revenge. Johnvr4 (talk) 15:15, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Wrong interpretation, this is not revenge, this is WP:3RR, a bright line. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 15:16, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * You violated 3RR when I first warned you and 3RR does not apply to correcting mistakes. Clearly you are mistaken given the edit summaries of the entry and discussion on your page. Johnvr4 (talk) 15:19, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * 3RR does not apply to correcting mistakes That's simply incorrect. Could you please self-revert and work to find someone that agrees with your viewpoints about the links? --Ronz (talk) 15:26, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * No, I did not violate 3RR, I removed once, you reverted, I reverted again. This was not a mistake, it was a reasoned removal in accordance with our policies and guidelines.  That may be an edit war, it is not 3RR.  You are now really at the verge of 3RR.
 * I suggest, per Ronz, that you revert yourself and then find consensus for the inclusion. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 15:33, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Are you counting my good faith efforts to change the actual links as Reverts for 3RR? Wasn't the sub-page that the links were pointing your concern?  Johnvr4 (talk) 16:00, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm hoping you will put aside the need to try to find ways around 3RR, and instead try to gain consensus. --Ronz (talk) 18:18, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * This was my mistake as 3RR does in fact include edits and reverts to different material in the count. Johnvr4 (talk) 18:03, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at Beacham Theatre. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page:. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Ad Orientem (talk) 20:34, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Do not continue to reinsert material that has been challenged by multiple editors w/o talk page consensus. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:35, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

At this point you seem unable to acknowledge that no one agrees with your perspective, and that consensus is unlikely to change. I suggest you move on, as your repeated dismissals of others' comments are difficult to see as good faith efforts to work collaboratively and constructively with other editors. --Ronz (talk) 16:49, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Put forth a quality argument. That is all.  Johnvr4 (talk) 16:52, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I was in the process of removing my comment when you responded.
 * I didn't notice the closure at COIN, and don't want to be seen as piling on. My apologies. --Ronz (talk) 16:54, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
 * No problem and thanks for the apology. Can you please understand I am not intending to promote and am receptive to modification of each link or removal per policy concerns? There was a logical reason for each link and perhaps the policy was not well understood. Let's get this done and move on. We are arguing about BS. I self-reported to Coin to clear my name.
 * For the offline archives of material would the creation of a list work? Johnvr4 (talk) 17:08, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I am not intending to promote I didn't intend to convey that interpretation. SOAP problems, at least those that don't result in a quick block/ban/etc, aren't about whether or not anyone is trying to promote anything but rather the difference between content that is encyclopedic in nature versus content that is "propaganda, advertising and showcasing". Sometimes it's difficult to distinguish. In this case, I'm not clear what source even verifies what related content there is in the article, so it's difficult to judge, but almost impossible to make a strong case for inclusion. --Ronz (talk) 17:25, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll rephrase. The addition of the rollo art pic did not promote rollo. The replacement link for the whole piece did not promote anything either.  That particular link does not verify anything. It is Ferguson, Jason; Le-Huu, Bao (July 2, 2013) Dance dance revolution that verifies.
 * Then and now: Orlando’s legendary EDM culture is a companion to the cited source and provides reader with reliable info about the subject that can't otherwise be used in the article because of copyright.
 * Note: I am not trying to bypass WP:EL nor abandon my previous arguments with the suggestion to create a list. WP:LWA (WP:LWA) The primary purpose of external links from Wikipedia articles is to provide users with sources of additional reliable information about the topic.
 * My opinion and my previous editing was make the direct link to the rollo art pic as that would in my opinion gave the reader the most (but not all) the info with the least amount of clicks while still retaining all the links to the rest of Then and now: Orlando’s legendary EDM culture as compared to this link to the whole piece .  Johnvr4 (talk) 18:01, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Link to external links discussion: WP:External_links/Noticeboard/Archive_19 (closed) Johnvr4 (talk) 18:50, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Orlando's Summer of Love
An article that you have been involved in editing&mdash;Orlando's Summer of Love&mdash;has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Ahecht (TALK PAGE ) 17:49, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi Ahecht, I've added a crap load of sources to review for notability. We probably do not need all of them at this time so I will leave it in your capable hands to whittle them down and merge/redirect if that is the correct path going forward. I also was not sure of the title.  Thank you for your help.  Johnvr4 (talk) 18:01, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Air defense interceptors/Genie
I've reviewed every source you propose for the paragraph below, and still cannot find any mention of air defence interceptors. Which of the four sources you cite has this wording?
 * In the event of mass air penetration by an enemy attacking Okinawa, air defense interceptors stood ready to scramble with nuclear warhead tipped missiles that were kept on alert status. Buckshot06 (talk) 17:13, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi Buckshot06, thanks for the message. since i did not see it after a quick look, "Genie" was probably just a statement of fact but possible syn as it was a very simple process of elimination~the nukes that F-100 & F-106 carried.
 * "Interceptor is mentioned here (#16 on p.6-7). it would be "#4 CDI" in your message and I had just added it to the entry (probably just as you left your note). I also added some more support for other contested material which I hope is now sufficient. Johnvr4 (talk) 17:24, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
 * There are two problems with using that CDI source (apart from listing four refs, three of which don't support the sentence). 1) we're not certain that the base in question was Okinawa (which is why me and Hohum keep removing that other paragraph). 2) You've converted 'could carry nuclear-armed missiles' into *did* carry nuclear-armed missiles. The CDI source says that the interceptors 'could' carry nuclear-armed AAMs. Your phrasing in the article has always been along the lines of 'nuclear-armed interceptors *stood* ready for scrambling' -- implying that they *did* carry the weapons. You need a source for nuclear-armed interceptors standing ready for scrambling on Okinawa, and until you provide that, I've remove the paragraph again. Buckshot06 (talk) 17:33, 19 March 2017 (UTC)


 * We don't need to be certain about Okinawa as the section is titled suspected! and that is why I'll keep putting it back in...


 * I did not convert could to did. Do not make me pull out quotes!  I don't have time for such silliness.  No one does.  If you cant or won't read the sources, I'll keep putting it back in.  An edit war will ensue and your failure to read sources or discuss until now...and assertions (like those above) about the alleged lack of a similar passage in sources will be your huge problem. So I'm going to formally warn you now.


 * Stop and review the sources that you've said you already reviewed. If you had done so, we would not be having this discussion!


 * "Alert" (armed, fueled, sitting on apron, with a pilot sitting in the seat or nearby) and the nuke bunkers and hangers for the alert interceptors are still at Naha airport. ::::Johnvr4 (talk) 18:10, 19 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I have reviewed the sources. Nothing says that nuclear-armed interceptors were sitting alert at Naha; that's why I talked about could vs did from the CDI source. I've gone as far as I can by finding the squadrons and the aircraft involved (16th and 82nd FISs) and putting a sentence in. 'Suspected' simply does not cut it on Wikipedia; if it's not verifiable it shouldn't be here.
 * What's your personal involvement with this? I'm intrigued; how do you know the hangers are still there - or were there in the first place? Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 18:25, 19 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Anyone traveling to the Naha airport can see it of can look on goolge earth and see it in plain sight or they could use their device to verify Naha Air Base was the interceptor base back then and that the Japanese are still there on alert. Or to it could be used to look at one of the cited sources that says F-100 and nukes on Okinawa... Apparently you are the only one who cant do that. Still!
 * You've stated a few times that, "I have reviewed the sources" and that the support is not in there~ nonsense!
 * I've repeatedly warned you that you really must review those sources before making that assertion again. Your assertions now imply a certain lack credibility and your lack of competence with this material and reading the verifiable sources supporting it is painfully obvious.
 * I took out Naha but I could put it back and add Kadeda and South Korea too! I guess I'll just have to put those all quotes in here so other every other editor can see what happened with these totally false assertions and all those faulty edits based on them for the rest of forever. Johnvr4 (talk) 19:03, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

"US military went on full alert deploying F-100 fighters armed with nuclear weapons from Kadena AB on Okinawa to Kunsan, South Korea as well as preparing for strikes against Mainland China from all bases."

"With this in mind, in 1954 the U.S. brought hydrogen-bomb armed F-100 fighter-bombers to its key hub in the Pacific, Kadena Air Base in Okinawa — the first of thousands of nuclear weapons that it would station on the island before their removal in 1972 (see accompanying stories)."

"1950s and 60s F-100 Super Sabre served as primary interceptor...could carry nuclear capable air-to-air missiles. Was carrying one on Jan 18, 1959 at one of four Pacific bases (&Okinawa etc.)....on a reveted hardstand...ground alert configuration...weapon on left wing"

"In 1954, the U.S. brought hydrogen-bomb armed F-100 fighter-bombers to its key hub in the Pacific, Kadena Air Base in Okinawa — the first of thousands of nuclear weapons that it would station on the island before their removal in 1972." Johnvr4 (talk) 22:35, 19 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for these Johnvr4. Clearly 'interceptor' isn't referenced. I will remove the words 'interceptor' etc, which are not tied definitively to Okinawa, and substitute 'hydrogen-bomb-armed'. Buckshot06 (talk) 04:50, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Just a temp edit to say I found 2 refs for found genie and will modify and update in morning. One ref is called "umbrella" I think Johnvr4 (talk) 05:30, 20 March 2017 (UTC).


 * "Contingency plans existed in 1967 for deployment of the Genie air-to-air missile to Japan. Although the Genie missile is dual-capable, the documents clearly identify the missiles that would be deployed under these contingencies as nuclear missiles. This represents the first association of nuclear-armed Genie missiles with Japanese deployment. The details of the contingencies under which the missiles would be deployed remain classified." This source talks all about alert status --even after 1972 in Japan!


 * "The Genie in Wartime would carry a nuclear warhead... Forty-one Hoosier-based airmen are, knocking "enemy planes" out of the Skies above the Gulf of Mexico with explosive accuracy to prove they are defenders from sneak air attacks. The 41 career airmen, members of the 319th Interceptor Squadron F-102 Delta Daggers, F-104 Star Fighters and F-10O Super Sabers. Fliers of these planes came to the meet from such distant USAF bases as Naha AFB, Okinawa."


 * For "interceptor" please see interceptor aircraft, scrambling (military), Ground-controlled interception, North American F-100 Super Sabre, F-106, F-104, or 319th Fighter Interceptor Training Squadron all of which use the word interceptor without any of the qualms or issues you are having with using it.


 * I'm going to move this discussion to the subject talk page. Other editors are complaining that reverts are taking place without discussion. Johnvr4 (talk) 14:06, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Discussion Moved to Talk:U.S._nuclear_weapons_in_Japan%27s_southern_islands

Verifiabilty
Hi Johnvr4. I wanted to make sure that you understand that content in Wikipedia must be verifiable in reliable sources. You restored this unsourced content, but you failed to include source citations. I'm going to be trimming some additional unsourced content from the article (see talk page), and I would like to make sure that we are not in conflict on that front. Please let me know if you have any questions. - MrX 🖋 20:54, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * You will note that after that restore, I did in fact add references. I didn't add the Death video sentence but I did re-add it as I don't have any reason to doubt that an Orlando band filmed their video there and a source is probably out there so I restored it with the tag. I don't really care about metal but I do care about verifiability. I just haven't taken the time to look for a source for it. I thought that I added a source for the reggae acts but its not there.  I'll have to add those.
 * As for needed sourcing and deleting content, please mark where you think sources are needed and wait, there are dozens of sources to sort through (please see the talk page and links). If you'd like clarification on anything, please don't hesitate to ask me. If you are at all interested in this subject, I could use some help writing a similar article in my sandbox52 Thanks, Johnvr4 (talk) 21:31, 21 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Addendum, I've reverted. I added a few reggae sources and will add some more (I've run out of free Sentinel articles).  There's a "documentary" about the making of metal band's video, that confirms the claim as true but it needs a RS.  John Johnvr4 (talk) 21:58, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks for adding the sources. As I mentioned on the article talk page, my main concern is the section that already has a lot of detailed content with several citation needed tags. If you are working on sourcing that sections, I'll hold off, but I wouldn't want to leave it in that state for too long.- MrX 🖋 23:15, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, as you see I'm working on another one in my sandbox52 on the Florida breaks scene and will be reviewing those sources too. The citation needed tags lets me know to be on the lookout for the source. It may be a while to get through all of the sources.  I haven't even found copies of some of them yet. I appreciate your efforts to improve it! Johnvr4 (talk) 23:31, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

The authenticity of one of your photos is highly questionable
Hi Johnvr4,

I found out by coincidence that there seems to be a confusion with the incinerator ships Vulcanus I and II. The former was used to burn the remainings of Agent Orange after the Vietnam War. You uploaded a a photo and claimed that it shows the Vulcanus I during Operation Pacer HO. As I wrote in the talk-section of the article about the ship, the photo is most likely not depicting the Vulcanus I. To understand my point, please compare the two photos and. Your photo is most likely depicting the Vulcanus II, which was built years after Operation Pacer HO in 1982. A model of the latter can be seen in this photo

62.216.202.201 (talk) 00:43, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

October 2022
Hello, I noticed that you may have recently made edits while logged out. Wikipedia's policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow the use of both an account and an IP address by the same person in the same setting and doing so may result in your account being blocked from editing. Additionally, making edits while logged out reveals your IP address, which may allow others to determine your location and identity. If this was not your intention, please remember to log in when editing. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 19:54, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:09, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nominations open
Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election have opened. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination 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 will commence on 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:05, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:41, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Voting for the WikiProject Military History newcomer of the year and military historian of the year awards for 2023 is now open!
Voting is now open for the WikiProject Military History newcomer of the year and military historian of the year awards for 2023! The the top editors will be awarded the coveted Gold Wiki. Cast your votes vote here and here respectively. Voting closes at 23:59 on 30 December 2023. On behalf of the coordinators, wishing you the very best for the festive season and the new year. via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:56, 22 December 2023 (UTC)