User talk:Keith Johnston

Welcome!
Hello, Keith Johnston, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful: Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! Fiddle  Faddle  18:50, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Introduction and Getting started
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

Your submission at Articles for creation: Draft:Kingmaker (play) (June 28)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please read the comments left by the reviewer on your submission. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved. . Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Fiddle  Faddle  18:49, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=User_talk:Keith_Johnston Articles for creation help desk] or on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Timtrent&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=User_talk:Keith_Johnston reviewer's talk page].
 * You can also get real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Draft:Kingmaker (play) concern
Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Kingmaker (play), a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 02:05, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Kingmaker (play)


Hello Keith Johnston. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled "Kingmaker".

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply and remove the  or  code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by one of two methods (don't do both): 1) follow the instructions at WP:REFUND/G13, or 2) copy this code:, paste it in the edit box at this link , and click "Save page". An administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing.  T K K ! bark with me! 21:31, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Causes of World War I. 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. Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; 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. Jim1138 (talk) 08:04, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
 * 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.

Please format your talk
Would you please format your talk on talk:Causes of World War I per Help:Using_talk_pages? The format does not make it clear who is responding to whom. There is unusual formatting with equal signs about "==". Also ref: wp:talk page guidelines and Help:Using_talk_pages Thank you Jim1138 (talk) 08:24, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either: This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
 * 1) Add four tildes  ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment; or
 * 2) With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button (Insert-signature.png or Signature icon.png) located above the edit window.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 19:18, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 21
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Causes of World War I, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Triple Alliance. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:14, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either: This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
 * 1) Add four tildes  ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment; or
 * 2) With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button (Insert-signature.png or Signature icon.png) located above the edit window.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 17:04, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Editor assistance
Hi SilkTork I have been editing the wikipedia page on White Privilege. I have been accused of bludgeoning on the talk page.

I have concerns that the habitual editors of this page are not neutral. That they are editing in a way to avoid or neutralise criticism by engaging in original research, denying RS and are not interested in improving the article by including legitimate criticism of the theory. Given the controversy surrounding the topic I need to absolutely keep on the right side of the rules, perhaps I can take your advice and you can advise if I am maintaining my objectivity? Keith Johnston (talk) 22:06, 24 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for getting in touch. I have looked over the article, and the discussions on the talkpage. I can understand your frustrations. However, the rationales and explanations on the talkpage regarding what you have done and continue to want to do are in line with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and have been presented to you in a collegiate manner. I can understand the thinking in your argument for wanting to use the YouTube piece, that the video shows a notable figure, Jordan Peterson, speaking on the topic of white privilege. However we use "verifiability, not truth" on Wikipedia, which means that it doesn't matter if Jordan Peterson spoke to you in person (or via a video on YouTube), what we require is the material has been published by a reliable source. The idea is that Wikipedia summarises the most notable pieces of information, and we use reliable sources to decide what is notable, rather than the opinion of an individual editor. If a reliable source prints and comments on what Peterson said, then we can use that. But what we can't do is have an editor, such as you or me, listen to what he says, and decide that it is important. I suspect that there will be sources out there which will have commented on that video, but you would need to take care to check the reliability of those sources. For example, while the Daily Mail is a well known British newspaper, we don't regard it as a reliable source.


 * As regards wanting to put a criticism section in the article. As has been pointed out, we do discourage those. And I am unsure why you wish to have one, when the article is already well balanced with criticism. Have you noticed that it's there in the lead, and in the Contrasting concepts sections. It appears to me that the article is currently doing a good job of presenting all aspects of the topic. I had not heard of the concept prior to you getting in touch with me, and I find the article has given me a fair, balanced, and helpful overview of the topic, including the criticisms it has received.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  23:16, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

3RR
Your recent editing history at Google's Ideological Echo Chamber 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.

You're up to at least three reverts.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:01, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * good luck with that Keith Johnston (talk) 06:29, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * You should have heeded this warning rather than dismiss it. S warm   ♠  17:16, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

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. The thread is Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Thank you. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:09, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

August 2017
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule. 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. S warm  ♠  17:16, 9 August 2017 (UTC)


 * This is fair. I accept I have trangressed the rules here.  I will be more careful in the future.Keith Johnston (talk) 06:56, 10 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Keith. That's all we want to hear! I've gone ahead and unblocked you early. Please refrain from any reverts on that article for the remainder of the 24 hour period, as to avoid unnecessary drama. Regards, S warm   ♠  08:18, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Google Request for Comments
You have started a Request for Comments on the Google memo. You say that the discussion has petered out, but a Request for Comments is not primarily a vehicle for discussion, but a vehicle for the statement of opinions and reasoning that will be reviewed by an uninvolved closer after the RFC has run for 30 days. Just wait. The opinions are running heavily in the direction of Oppose, but there may be many more participants by 9 September. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:01, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks I will wait. Nevertheless I am not persuaded by an argument about the number of opinions, only by the strength and validity of the arguments.  I note the Wkipedia's guidelines on consensus state: "In determining whether consensus has been reached, administrators should not consider their own views about the idea, merely if all viewpoints have been examined through the vigorous debate criterion listed above". There must be vigorous debate on the arguments.Keith Johnston (talk) 23:07, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

White privilege
— Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 12:48, 23 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Im confused by this. This message does not correspond to the page under dispute, nor a dispute I am engaged in.  Can you explain the purpose of this message?Keith Johnston (talk) 13:05, 23 August 2017 (UTC)


 * You asked about the relevance of these sanctions to "our debate" concerning White privilege. First, I'm not engaged in a debate. Second, you keep citing opinion columns about... post-1932 politics of the United States. I hope the connection is clearer. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 13:06, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Im sorry its not clear. I am interested in debates about RS and their relevance, not misdirection and threat.  Please engage constructively on the talk page  - not here - and I can understand your issues.Keith Johnston (talk) 13:19, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

July Crisis reference problem
Hi, in this edit you introduced a reference to "Clark (2013), p. 466" but no such work is listed. Please could you fix this? Thanks, DuncanHill (talk) 18:52, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

White privilege, again
Trawling the internet every month for a few opinion columns that have bad things to say about "white privilege", adding them to the article, then challenging other editors to describe their specific objections to that month's sources is a waste of everybody's time. You've started multiple discussions, including an RfC. At this point, you're merely being tendentious and disruptive. Please stop yourself or I will take action to stop you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 01:00, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

@Malik Shabazz Thanks, I can see now that at no point do you have any evidence to contest these RS. You have no arguments that any wikipedia editor can support, you are a bully and you give me strength to continue. Thank you and bless you.Keith Johnston (talk) 09:58, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Request for mediation
Your request for mediation, filed here, was sufficiently malformed that our administration bot did not pick it up. I've reformatted your request and am waiting to make sure that the bot recognizes it before going forward to determine whether it initially meets the prerequisites for mediation. For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 20:40, 3 December 2017 (UTC) (Chairperson)

White Privilege and Wikiedia consensus in general
When I asked on the DRN talk page about my close, I was actually not asking for continued discussion of the issue, but as to whether I had been properly diplomatic. It now appears that you are answering the questions for me, and I think that I may have been more diplomatic and patient than was necessary. By responding to a meta-question by continuing to bludgeon the dispute resolution process, you confirmed why the other editors don't think that moderated discussion will be useful, and just showed that it appears that you are being tendentious. I see that you have already been cautioned about persistent refusal to accept consensus on another topic, the Google memo, and you seem to be doing the same on "white privilege" also. Please pause, and consider that if saying the same thing twice doesn't persuade, then saying it five times won't either. You are setting yourself up for sanctions because both of the topics involve American politics (since 1932), an area subject to discretionary sanctions. Sometimes it isn't useful to keep making the same points, or a series of closely related points, over and over and over again. Maybe I was too diplomatic in closing that thread, because you didn't get the message that I tried to tell you that consensus is against you. You are forum shopping. Maybe you have used up your fora. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:35, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I see this is a recurring issue for you. As and others said, it appears you are being tendentious. Moreover, your insults and casting of aspersions are not acceptable.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 20:12, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * User:Keith Johnston - See my comments at Talk:White privilege. Do you really want to push the other editors into going to Arbitration Enforcement?  Robert McClenon (talk) 01:02, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

(talk) Thanks I would make three points:

Firstly, its is difficult to take your critical intervention seriously when you admit you have not read my comments. Secondly, the timings of your intervention is poor, since Greyfell and I are having a useful and potentially constructive discussion. Your intervention threatens to skupper this. Thirdly, and most importantly, my defence is Wikipedia guideline: "Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy." It is not a numbers game, so I do not accept your implicit assertion that because consensus was against me on creating a Critique section that I no longer have the right to suggest further interventions now and forever more. Your argument is essentially a ban on me ever making any further interventions, whatever the merit of the individual arguments - and this is disproportionate, unjust and is not supported by wikipedia policy.

Many of the editors comments are just assertions not backed by argument or they are insults. I note you have not objected to the "Don't feed the animals" sign posted next to my earlier post. Others are inconsistent. If you read my interventions you will see above all I am seeking is consistency and quality argumentation. This means that opinion pieces are allowed or not allowed, you don't get to cherry pick left wing ones and ignore conservative ones. Furthermore academics are either allowed or not, that doesn't mean excluding academics who are critical.

I assume you are working on the assumption that I am vexatious - and I am sure experienced editors see lots of vexatious cases, so this makes sense to me - but please do me the honour of reading my interventions before being critical of them. Keith Johnston (talk) 13:30, 31 January 2018 (UTC)


 * User:Keith Johnston No, no, no. I am not working on the assumption that you are being vexatious.  I am working on the assumption that the other editors think that you are being vexatious.  I did observe that you were definitely being vexatious at the beginning of December 2017.  As a result, even if you and User:Greyfell are having a constructive discussion, it is very likely that the other editors will assume that you are not being any more constructive than you were seven weeks ago.  I am not really that interested in the article in the first place, but I have been editing Wikipedia long enough to know that editors who start out by being vexatious often continue to be vexatious, and I don't think that it is fair for you to criticize the other editors for assuming that you are likely to waste their time.  So I suggest that you and User:Greyfell collaborate on a proposed addition to the article on your talk page or their talk page, where you don't bother the other editors whom you have already bothered.  When the two of you think that you have developed something worth consideration, try another Request for Comments.  The other editors might still not be interested, but that is the course that is least likely to wind up being reported to Arbitration Enforcement.  I am not working on the assumption that you are being vexatious, but on the observation that you were vexatious, and that the other editors think that you are still being vexatious.  In the meantime, go and work at Greyfell's talk page.  Robert McClenon (talk) 17:08, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

talk Its not clear to me that working exclusively on Greyfell's talk page this will be helpful. I am already in a dialogue with another editor and its seems likely that, even assuming that I can come to a consensus with Greyfell, other editors not part of the discussion might object, possibly because they do not understand the logic that we have achieved through debate. Its worth emphasising that I am having these wider debates on the talk pages and I am not trying to force edits. I'd also ask you to bear in mind that, unlike (I imagine) vexatious editors, I rarely make assertions without backing up my claims with RS. I think the current debate is useful. Its limited to one paragraph and its not abstract. I'd like to see where it goes. Keith Johnston (talk) 17:06, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Copyright problem on Nicky Gumbel
Sone of the material you included in the above article appears to have been copied from the copyright web page http://www.virtueonline.org/england-meaning-life-reverend-nicky-gumbel. Copying text directly from a source is a copyright violation. Unfortunately, for copyright reasons, the content had to be removed. Please leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions or if you think I made a mistake. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:00, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Threading comments on talk pages
Quick note on the logistics of discussing things on Talk pages, which are essential for everything that happens here.

In Talk page discussions, we "thread" comments by indenting (see WP:THREAD) - when you reply to someone, you put a colon in front of your comment, which the Wikipedia software will render into an indent when you save your edit; if the other person has indented once, then you indent twice by putting two colons in front of your comment, which the WP software converts into two indents, and when that gets ridiculous you reset back to the margin (or "outdent") by putting this in front of your comment. This also allows you to make it clear if you are also responding to something that someone else responded to if there are more than two people in the discussion; in that case you would indent the same amount as the person just above you in the thread.

Please be aware that threading and signing are fundamental etiquette here, as basic as "please" and "thank you", and continually failing to thread and sign communicates rudeness, and eventually people may start to ignore you (see here).

Alert
S warm  ♠  15:35, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

 Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 07:51, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Your comments at Talk:White privilege show that you are still failing to assume good faith
You are accusing the editors of being a cabal and of bullying, all without providing any evidence. You've had advice from various editors such as User:SilkTork, User:EvergreenFir, and User:Robert McClenon, all senior editors with many thousands of edits more than yours (indeed over 240,000 edits more than you've made). You aren't going to get any changes made if you aren't able to work with others. Doug Weller talk 14:08, 4 September 2018 (UTC)


 * talk thanks, have you read the previous discussions? I stand by my statements and am quite happy to support them by reference to previous debates if you thought it would be useful.  That page is a disgrace as are a number of its editors who are deliberately obscuring critique.Keith Johnston (talk) 17:00, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Based on this comment, I'd recommend reviewing WP:BATTLEGROUND.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 17:25, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks (talk) my preference would be to talk about the reliability and importance of RS critiquing the theory of white privilege.Keith Johnston (talk) 17:58, 4 September 2018 (UTC)


 * User:Keith Johnston - Let me add another comment. I told you more than six months ago that, if you have already said something twice, you cannot expect that saying it five more times will be persuasive.  What I can see you are doing and have been doing is saying the same thing over and over again.  I also said that I wasn't really interested in the original topic, the content issue.  If you are saying that there is politically correct left-wing position on the topic, I largely agree with you, but that isn't relevant to the conduct issue, which is that you are being tendentious and are ignoring consensus.  Consensus was established a year ago August with an RFC.  If you think that consensus has changed, there has been sufficient time for another RFC, but only if you will let it be discussed in a more orderly fashion than the way you have been bludgeoning the process recently.  You are in the minority here, and sometimes discretion is the better part of valor.  (You and I are also in a demographic minority in the world, and trying to play a reverse racism card in a very international community isn't likely to work.)  Since you clearly are not willing to accept consensus, I suggest that you find some other topic, such as sports, to edit about, because you will soon be told that you can't edit white privilege or its talk page any more.  If you want to change the consensus, go ahead and start another RFC; a year has elapsed.  Just don't demand that everyone who states their opinion has to justify it to you.  Robert McClenon (talk) 21:59, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Robert McClenon thanks. Do you believe that losing an RFC on the principle of a criticism section invalidates proposing further critique in the body of an article?Keith Johnston (talk) 08:00, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * User:Keith Johnston - It would depend. If by critique you mean the same criticisms as would be in a criticism section, then you would be on the edge.  In that case, if you merely propose the critique, then you should expect that you are likely to be told, "We already discussed that and said no.  Move on".  If you instead edit the article to insert the critique without prior discussion, then you can expect to be reverted and warned, and 3RR wouldn't apply to the other editors but would apply to you because you would be trying to force your edits against consensus.  The most serious problem with your conduct has been that you have been ignoring and disregarding consensus, and editing against consensus can result in sanctions such as topic-bans.  If you aren't sure whether a particular edit or proposed edit is consistent with consensus, then it is better to leave it alone.  Editors have frequently wound up being topic-banned, blocked, or even banned for ignoring consensus or pushing their luck.  Robert McClenon (talk) 11:42, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I strongly caution not insulting the other editors by suggesting that they are acting as a cabal or are bullying you by force of numbers. Even if there is a cabal, it isn't a good idea to insult and antagonize the other editors.  If you really think that there is a conduct issue by the other editors, read the boomerang essay and take your case to WP:ANI, Arbitration Enforcement, or the Arbitration Committee, knowing that you are putting yourself at risk also.  Don't just re-argue a decided case by stating the same thing five or ten times with new insults.  Robert McClenon (talk) 11:42, 5 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Robert McClenon thanks, this is useful.  On your second point I take the point and I shall endeavour to try harder.

The first point I am going to need help in understanding more fully to avoid future aberrant behaviour. On building consensus I am guided in particular by these wikipedia guidelines "in determining consensus, consider the quality of the arguments, the history of how they came about, the objections of those who disagree, and existing policies and guidelines. The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view. The arguments "I just don't like it" and "I just like it" usually carry no weight whatsoever." I quote the guidelines not because I think you don't know them, rather I am sure that you do, but so that you understand my thinking.

I should make it clear I don't now make edits on the White Privilege page. I always make proposals on the talk pages because I understand that introducing critique is controversial and requires thorough discussion of the quality and relevance of the RS.

I need to understand more about the objection to introducing critique. Yes, I do mean critique that might be included in a critique section if there was one. But I am not arguing for a critique section. That ship sailed with the RFC. But I remain confused if your saying that I could be subject to sanctions because I am proposing any critique. That line of thinking would suggest that, after the RFC, no critique could be included ever. Is that what you are suggesting? (genuine question, not rhetorical).Keith Johnston (talk) 21:17, 5 September 2018 (UTC)


 * You may have some good points to make, Keith, but while you are prodding people and insulting them, you are unlikely to convince them of your ideas because instead they will be reacting to your hostility. We don't require people to be polite and friendly, but we do ask that they refrain from hostility. The reason for this is not just so that we can work without being distracted by behavioural side-issues but so that people can share ideas and make critiques of articles in a productive manner and so advance those articles. If you feel you have genuine ideas regarding how to improve the White privilege article please do so without making negative comments regarding other editors. Put forward your ideas and your evidence for those ideas in a neutral manner. You may manage to convince others that your ideas are an improvement, or you may not. But at least you will have given it your best shot. Wikipedia is not perfect. We have millions of articles that are imperfect in one way or another. But we keep moving in the right direction, and slowly, but by bit, articles do improve. If you can't make an improvement to this article, then shrug it off, and move on to another article that would benefit from your attention. If you are unable to do that, then you may find yourself growing increasingly frustrated to the point where you either give up on Wikipedia altogether, or you start getting sanctioned as your frustration bowls over into uncivil behaviour. SilkTork (talk) 09:17, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, (talk, sage advice.Keith Johnston (talk) 09:45, 5 September 2018 (UTC). I'd like to draw your attention to the latest discussion,  - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:White_privilege#Criticism_of_the_Invisible_Backpack - which has been summarily closed by an editor with the statement:

"There is not and never will be a consensus to insert material from this source. Wikipedia is not a WP:BATTLEGROUND, so please stop wasting the time of people who actually care about the project. – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 17:55, 5 September 2018 (UTC)"

This statement is quite unusual, bearing in mind that Quillette is a reliable source used in other wikipedia articles, and the idea that there "never will" be a consensus on using Quillette is not for that editor to decide. Its certainly not an argument and to me falls under the "I just don't like it" category, and as such "carries no weight whatsoever". I have never seen a discussion summarily closed in this way. Keith Johnston (talk) 21:17, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * If I may jump in? Everything in Wikipedia starts with sources.  They are the foundation. That means, that your understanding of how the community thinks about sources, is essential, as is your understanding of how the community generates content from sources.   Does that make sense? Jytdog (talk) 21:35, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Jytdog Thanks, thats very useful and I quite agree. Relevance, reliability and accurate summary of sources is foundational. Most other argumentation is just hot air. Keith Johnston (talk) 21:49, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, I am glad you agree. So ....when you write "Quillette is a reliable source", this shows that you misunderstand how the community thinks about sources. I can explain that, if you like. Jytdog (talk) 21:55, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Jytdog yes thanks for taking the time, I'd appreciate that.Keith Johnston (talk) 22:18, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * If somebody says "X is a reliable source" an experienced Wikipedian is left hanging....waiting for... "for Y".  Reliable for what, is an essential part of how the editing community thinks.
 * Per WP:DAILYMAILRFC for example (the close of which is worth actually reading), the DM is unreliable for finding facts about the world, generally. However, it is reliable for sports coverage, and reliable of course for what it says.  But overall, we just said "generally prohibited" and set aside those things it is actually reliable for, because there is far too much crap in it.
 * That opens up something about how the word "source" is used here. It means: a) the publisher;  b) the specific piece; c) its author.  The editing community shifts among these three all the time, and not always carefully.  It can be hard to follow.  So The Daily Mail (the publisher) is considered generally unreliable, even though there are pieces in it (like sports reporting) that are actually reliable. (not touching on the author thing now).
 * Going to the other end of the spectrum -- articles that are actually reported news pieces in The Wall Street Journal (publisher), are RS for facts about the world (pieces and publisher; not dealing with author here). That is not ambiguous. The WSJ (and the New York Times) each have a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy."
 * The Wall Street Journal and NYT also have editorials and analysis pieces; the editing community generally considers these to be opinion pieces and these pieces are only reliable for the author's opinion. (see WP:RSOPINION) Not for facts about the world.
 * In a situation where somebody wants to add content to WP about someone's opinion or thoughts about something, the "who cares" issue frequently comes up. The world is full of opinions and ideas, so how does the editing community adjudicate whose opinion deserves WP:WEIGHT in WP, by being stated  in WP at all?  (that is a real question, that I am asking you to think about).  This is where author comes into it.  We ask - does the author have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy and we also think about whether they are important in the world or not.  Paul Krugman is a nobel laureate economist who writes opinion pieces in the NYT; people would have  a hard time saying his opinion doesn't matter when it comes to economics; his opinion about oh, classical music?  A different story.
 * So turning to Quillette. As far as I can tell, it is, per its about page, a sort of edited blog, aimed at giving a platform for people to express ideas.   So it is an essay/opinion site.  Not a place to find "accepted knowledge", but a place to find people's ideas.  Yes, a piece in Quillette is probably a reliable for the ideas of the author, of a given piece.  It will come down to the piece and the author.
 * The question is also going to be inevitable - "why does some specific author's opinion expressed in Quillette, matter''?"
 * To persuade others (and as Robert McClenon noted above, you do have to persuade others) you would need to be able to bring actual RS, showing that William Ray's opinon on the issue of white privilege is WP:DUE (in other words, that it deserves WP:WEIGHT). Sources showing why his opinion on white privilege is important.
 * So there you go. That was probably too long.
 * If it is helpful, you might want to read:
 * WP:CLUE (probably the most important piece in Wikipedia space, for understanding how Wikipedia actually works)
 * User:Jytdog, where I try to pull together what all the policies say about how we work here, and why, with a focus on the kind of sources the editing community respects and uses the most.
 * User:Jytdog/How where I have tried to lay out the mission of WP, and how this place works, what the key policies and guidelines say, and how the policies and guideline make Wikipedia possible.
 * That is a lot I know, but if you don't understand the foundations of this place, you are going to keep stumbling and wasting your own time, and that of others as well. That is good for nobody.
 * If you want to add critical content to the White privilege page, you are going to have to bring very high quality sources that other editors can only respect, and generate content from them carefully, hewing closely to all the policies and guidelines. I have helped transform some of the most contentious articles here.... slowly, carefully, after having done a shitload of reading from very high quality sources.  (doing that work changed me as well.  Letting yourself really listen to sources, changes you.  That's another reason to engage with high quality sources and take them in the deepest.  Understanding where a given field deposits the "accepted knowledge" it creates, is the first step).
 * ooo, way too much. sorry. Jytdog (talk) 23:27, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Jytdog This is very helpful and I shall reflect upon this. Thanks so much for taking the time to write this. Keith Johnston (talk) 06:47, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * You are welcome. By the way, in this discussion you have consistently not threaded your comments.
 * This is something you obviously don't think is important (since you have been ignoring it) but in Talk page discussions, we "thread" comments by indenting (see WP:THREAD) - when you reply to someone, you put a colon in front of your comment, which the Wikipedia software will render into an indent when you save your edit; if the other person has indented once, then you indent twice by putting two colons in front of your comment, which the WP software converts into two indents, and so on. And when that gets ridiculous you reset back to the margin (or "outdent") by putting this in front of your comment. This also allows you to make it clear if you are also responding to something that someone else responded to if there are more than two people in the discussion; in that case you would indent the same amount as the person just above you in the thread.  I hope that all makes sense. And (you already have this part down) at the end of the comment, please "sign" by typing exactly four (not 3 or 5) tildas "~" which the WP software converts into a date stamp and links to your talk and user pages when you save your edit.  Threading and signing, are how we know who said what to whom and when.


 * We are all aware that this unwieldy, but this is the software environment we have to work on. You will notice that anybody else who is experienced, does this.


 * Please be aware that threading and signing are fundamental etiquette here, as basic as "please" and "thank you", and continually failing to thread and sign communicates rudeness. This is probably part of why people are getting fed up with you; it is sort of the same cloth as neglecting to learn how we actually build content here, yet pushing and pushing for the content you want....  Jytdog (talk) 16:25, 8 September 2018 (UTC)


 * talk Great thanks Keith Johnston (talk) 15:39, 9 September 2018 (UTC)


 * unrestrained and foolish. You learned exactly nothing from our exchange above and are heading full steam for a TBAN. Jytdog (talk) 13:57, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, thats kind. Keith Johnston (talk) 14:04, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I closed those discussions but they are drawing you offsides. If you want to continue heading over the cliff, that is your deal. Jytdog (talk) 14:19, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Ill give you some time to reconsider your understanding of what a "productive discussion" on a Wikipedia talk page actually is. Jytdog (talk) 14:25, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * can you explain why you thought it was OK to close and archive active discussions? I'm confused at your high-handed behaviour. Keith Johnston (talk) 14:30, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I did, in the edit notes and closing notes and the specific note I left on the talk page. I believe you wrote your remark above before you read that. Jytdog (talk) 15:25, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't think its productive. The editors making contributions need some guidance. You can see from my comments back to them I am encouraging them to make specific suggestions backed by RS. This is, in fact, what you are also suggesting. In that sense we agree, but I disagree that your approach will encourage these editors. In fact I believe it will put them off. Assume good faith and give them an opportunity to make a constructive contribution. Keith Johnston (talk) 15:31, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to Milhist!
G'day Keith Johnston, and welcome to WikiProject Military history! I'm looking forward to seeing your work on military history articles. If you'd like to sign up for our monthly newsletter, The Bugle, you can do so here. It is an excellent way to get a feel for the project. Once you are happy with any article you've worked on, you can ask for a re-assessment of it at WP:MHAR, where you may also get some constructive feedback, often from others working in a similar area. You might also like to enter any such articles in our monthly article writing contest at WP:MILCON. If you have any questions about the project, feel free to contact me on my talk page anytime. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:35, 6 October 2018 (UTC) for the project coordinators

The Bugle: Issue CL, October 2018
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) 07:00, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Googles ideological Echo Chamber
I got busy with other things, if you add a couple of references to what I wrote and put it up and let me know then I will support you. This will be strongly opposed by people hostile to Damore, because the memo speaks for itself to any sensible reader. The truth is indeed POV. So expect a fight. Tuntable (talk) 07:07, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Research Project
Hi Keith Johnston

I'm an anthropology student doing an online research project on wikipedians and their motivations and ideals for writing and editing wikipedia pages. I was wondering if you would be interested in answering a few questions I have - sort of like a small online interview.

Best Karoline Husbond (Student at University of Texas Austin) Karohusb (talk) 23:47, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

sure, Karohusb (talk) just let me know. Keith Johnston (talk) 00:20, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Great, thank you so much! I have few questions, but please feel free to change them if you don't feel they apply.
 * - How long have you been editing on wikipedia?

About three years.
 * - How would you define your define your position on wikipedia? (new user, administrator, or something else)? and what are your primary activities on wikipedia (editing, creating articles etc)?

Relatively inexperienced editor


 * - What is you guiding ideals for editing and writing wikipedia articles?

Find reliable sources (RS), summarise them accurately and weave them into the narrative of the article. Engage in constructive dialogue with other editors.


 * - How do these ideal shape your activity on wikipedia?

I try and find the best sources and I am open to those who disagree with me. In the end the strength of argument is more important than weight of numbers.


 * - What does it mean, to you, to live up to the ideal of neutrality in writing/editing on wikipedia?

Ist is essential to let the sources speak for themselves. My views on a particular subject matter are irrelevant. All that matters is that I have identified the appropriate RS and summarised it accurately.


 * - How do you ensure that you live up to this ideal?

We are all human so sometimes we get snarky. Try not to mock other editors or stray fro the point. Take a break if its getting too hot.


 * You can reply on my talk page or on ka28456@utexas.edu whatever suits you!

Thank you very much for your time - Karohusb (talk) 01:03, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Friendly Request
Hello Keith Johnston. I was wondering if you are still active, and if so if you would take a look at a rename request I started for "Trump Family Separation Policy". I hope it is not inappropriate to ask, and I am not asking for you to agree with me, I just want to hear your opinion on the matter as someone who seems to have run into the same issues as I have been with editing on contentious pages. Thanks Doniboy71 (talk) 07:59, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLI, November 2018
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) 09:40, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Nominations now open for "Military historian of the year" and "Military history newcomer of the year" awards
Nominations for our annual Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year awards are open until 23:59 (GMT) on 15 December 2018. Why don't you nominate the editors who you believe have made a real difference to the project in 2018? MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:26, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLII, December 2018
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) 10:34, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Voting now open for "Military historian of the year" and "Military history newcomer of the year" awards
Voting for our annual Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year awards is open until 23:59 (GMT) on 30 December 2018. Why don't you vote for the editors who you believe have made a real difference to Wikipedia's coverage of military history in 2018? MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:17, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLIII, January 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) 23:58, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLIV, February 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) 12:19, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLV, March 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) 11:00, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLVI, April 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) 21:59, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLVII, May 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) 11:04, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLVIII, June 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) 13:07, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLIX, July 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) 12:01, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLX, August 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) 09:41, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLX, August 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) 09:42, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Backlog Banzai
In the month of September, Wikiproject Military history is running a project-wide edit-a-thon, Backlog Banzai. There are heaps of different areas you can work on, for which you claim points, and at the end of the month all sorts of whiz-bang awards will be handed out. Every player wins a prize! There is even a bit of friendly competition built in for those that like that sort of thing. Sign up now at WikiProject Military history/September 2019 Backlog Banzai to take part. For the coordinators, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:18, 22 August 2019 (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. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:38, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Milhist coordinator election voting has commenced
G'day everyone, voting for the 2019 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:37, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXI, September 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) 09:17, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election half-way mark
G'day everyone, the voting for the XIX Coordinator Tranche is at the halfway mark. The candidates have answered various questions, and you can check them out to see why they are running and decide whether you support them. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:36, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXII, October 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) 12:40, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXIII, November 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) 21:44, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions notice for post-1932 American politics and living or recently deceased people
Doug Weller talk 16:14, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Doug Weller talk  I see you going around doing this to editors you disagree with. what does this mean, exactly? what, exactly, are you suggesting i do or not do? Because if there is no precise suggestion then this is just a tactic that i could interpret as bullying. You are not a bully, are you Doug?Keith Johnston (talk) 12:35, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * If you think I am misusing alerts you can take me to WP:ANI. I routinely give alerts to new editors in these editors whatever their views may be. If you think I've missed someone who was eligible for an alert, all you have to do is suggest them to me. As for what the alert means, it means what it says. There can be no precise suggestions and when we (note I was on the committee that sets three for four years) crafted these sanctions we never thought there could be. Stick to our policies and guidelines, including civility and assuming good faith, and you'll have no problems.  Doug Weller  talk 12:54, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks Doug Weller  talk that's more useful than you can know. My initial concerns was, since we had disagreed on a matter of argument, you might be sending me a vague threat. That would be important since its backed up by your status as a longstanding editor. Of course that would not be appropriate so I see now that this was not the case.  Nevertheless its heartening to debate an experienced editor, as you will be familiar with the rules on NPOV, reliable sources and the need to weave in criticism absent a criticism section. I'm sorry we don't agree on how to conceptualise white privilege but I'm sure your satisfied to see I always use the talk pages and produce what I like to think are reliable sources. Please, if you have any specific concerns about my behaviour, ones that I can act upon, I'd be happy to discuss. I'm sure we are both pleased that a broader range of views is now being heard thanks to the recent NPV noticeboard. Wikipedia is a good and fair system when we act in good faith.Keith Johnston (talk) 13:12, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Just to clarify, alerts are good for only one year, editors shouldn't get more than one a year (although that happens in eeror) and if they've been involved in a discussion at WP:AE or sanctioned that's considered the same as an alert. And you can self-alert vis DS Aware. Doug Weller  talk 14:03, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks Doug and are you an enforcing administrator in this context? Keith Johnston (talk) 20:06, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes where I am not WP:INVOLVED. Doug Weller  talk 21:27, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Do you consider yourself WP:INVOLVED? Keith Johnston (talk) 21:55, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Re: White privilege
Hi Keith, we encountered each other on another user's Talk page when you made a WP:3O request that I felt could not proceed, because the disagreeement is being handled via NPOV Noticeboard and looks more complex than would be appropriate for Third Opinion. I thought it would be better to bring any ongoing conversation we might have onto your Talk page.

I did promise to look into the issue and see if I might contribute anything useful to the discussion. I've done the first part of that, but really find myself at a loss as to whether I can actually assist. I find the article in question, and the contemporary social-science conceptual framework it derives from, so impenetrable that it is hard to know where to begin. I'm sad about that, because I have a hunch that there is very fuzzy thinking masquerading as fact-based discourse, which would be unfortunate. This note is just to let you know my current position, and to say that I expect I will find myself drawn more towards topics I think I can say something constructive about. FrankP (talk) 21:12, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, you are not alone. I suspect some of the power of the modern social-sciences derives precisely from that impenetrability. Once again thank you for your time. Keith Johnston (talk) 21:40, 16 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) 12:48, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

January 2020
It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote—in order to influence Talk:White privilege. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Thank you. Note that pinging people may not be literally leaving a message on their page but it is notifying them of a discussion, and you apparently chose only those you hoped would agree with you. Doug Weller  talk 17:35, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the warning, which is noted. If I have engaged in canvassing then I have done so unwittingly and these posts were made to demonstrate that things have changed in the last thee years. As you were able to notify the other involved editors in a timely fashion I believe no harm has been done.Keith Johnston (talk) 13:18, 17 January 2020 (UTC)


 * No, I did not "notify the other involved editors". You cherry-picked editors you hoped would agree with you, I notified all the editors who took part in an RfC and have edited this month with no regard for their views. Doug Weller  talk 20:01, 17 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Ambox notice.svg There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Guy (help!) 19:51, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Topic ban
Per this discussion, you are now subject to an indefinite topic on White privilege, broadly construed. Please see WP:TBAN for what this means. You can appeal this sanction any time at WP:AN, but you'll have the most success in appealing it if you wait at least six months and demonstrate a history of constructive edits in other topics. If you have questions or concerns, you can ask me or another administrator. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:31, 19 January 2020 (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)

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)

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)

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)

DRN Volunteer Roll Call - Action Required
There has been no roll call since November 2017 so with that said, it is time to clean up the volunteer list. Please go to the Roll Call list and follow the instructions. If no response is received by May 30, 2020, it will be assumed that you no longer wish to participate and you will be removed as a DRN volunteer. Thank you for your attention to this and for helping Wikipedians in their dispute processes. Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of CVU Member \ Chat Me Up at 12:08, 16 May 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) 04:22, 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 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) 02:05, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue Issue CLXXIII, September 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) 12:52, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Milhist coordinator election voting has commenced
G'day everyone, voting for the 2020 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2020. Thanks from the outgoing coord team, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:17, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXIV, October 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) 12:21, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXV, November 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) 15:51, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Nominations for the 2020 Military history WikiProject Newcomer and Historian of the Year awards now open
G'day all, the nominations for the 2020 Military history WikiProject newcomer and Historian of the Year are open, all editors are encouraged to nominate candidates for the awards before until 23:59 (GMT) on 15 December 2020, after which voting will occur for 14 days. There is not much time left to nominate worthy recipients, so get to it! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:45, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXVI, December 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) 22:49, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Voting for "Military Historian of the Year" and "Military history newcomer of the year" closing
G'day all, voting for the WikiProject Military history "Military Historian of the Year" and "Military history newcomer of the year" is about to close, so if you haven't already, click on the links and have your say before 23:59 (GMT) on 30 December! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:34, 28 December 2020 (UTC) for the coord team

The Bugle: Issue CLXXVII, January 2021
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) 00:06, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXVIII, February 2021
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) 14:59, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXVIII, February 2021
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, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXIX, March 2021
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, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

April 2021 WikiProject Military History Reviewing Drive
Hey y'all, the April 2021 WikiProject Military History Reviewing Drive begins at 00:01 UTC on April 1, 2021 and runs through 23:59 UTC on April 31, 2021. Points can be earned through reviewing articles on the AutoCheck report, reviewing articles listed at WP:MILHIST/ASSESS, reviewing MILHIST-tagged articles at WP:GAN or WP:FAC, and reviewing articles submitted at WP:MILHIST/ACR. Service awards and barnstars are given for set points thresholds, and the top three finishers will receive further awards. To participate, sign up at WikiProject_Military_History/April 2021 Reviewing Drive and create a worklist at WikiProject Military history/April 2021 Reviewing Drive/Worklists (examples are given). Further details can be found at the drive page. Questions can be asked at the drive talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:25, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXX, April 2021
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) 02:09, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXXI, May 2021
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) 00:57, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXXII, June 2021
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) 03:06, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXXIII, July 2021
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) 12:30, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXXIV, August 2021
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) 15:48, 28 August 2021 (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. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:58, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nomination period closing soon
Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are still open, but not for long. 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! No further nominations will be accepted after that time. 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) 02:43, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history coordinator election voting has commenced
Hey y'all, voting for the 2021 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2021. Voting will be conducted at the 2021 tranche page itself. Appropriate questions for the candidates can also be asked. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:39, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXXV, September 2021
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) 13:59, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election voting period closing soon
Hey y'all, voting for the 2021 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche will be closing soon. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2021. Voting will be conducted at the 2021 tranche page itself. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:32, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXV, October 2021
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) 12:52, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXVI, November 2021
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) 11:26, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Survey about History on Wikipedia (If you reside in the United States)
I am Petros Apostolopoulos, a Ph.D. candidate in Public History at North Carolina State University. My Ph.D. project examines how historical knowledge is produced on Wikipedia. You must be 18 years of age or older, reside in the United States to participate in this study. If you are interested in participating in my research study by offering your own experience of writing about history on Wikipedia, you can click on this link https://ncsu.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_9z4wmR1cIp0qBH8. There are minimal risks involved in this research.

If you have any questions, please let me know. Petros Apostolopoulos, paposto@ncsu.edu Apolo1991 (talk) 15:01, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXVII, December 2021
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) 13:10, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXVIII, January 2022
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) 09:45, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXVIV, February 2022
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) 22:23, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXVII, March 2022
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) 09:14, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXVIII, April 2022
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) 22:23, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXCIII, May 2022
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) 15:55, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXCIV, June 2022
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) 11:43, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXCVI, July 2022
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) 20:28, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXCVII, August 2022
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) 08:58, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXCVIII, September 2022
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) 21:31, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXCVIII, October 2022
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) 15:38, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXCIX, November 2022
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) 10:32, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CC, December 2022
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) 12:55, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 201, January 2023
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) 19:45, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 202, February 2023
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) 23:26, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 203, March 2023
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) 21:29, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 204, April 2023
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) 21:29, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 205, May 2023
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) 11:34, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 205, May 2023
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) 08:05, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 206, June 2023
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) 18:30, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 207, July 2023
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) 19:57, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 208, August 2023
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) 11:28, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 209, September 2023
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) 21:36, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 210, October 2023
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) 19:25, 6 October 2023 (UTC)