User talk:Otr500/Archive 3

The Bugle: Issue CXII, July 2015
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) 22:35, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 30
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Cuckolds Light, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page First-order. 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) 09:32, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Done

Please take a look at ...
Wikipedia_talk:Harassment and just above it. It concerns the bold edit you made to WP:Harass.

BTW, nice to meet you. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 20:01, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you, and nice to meet you as well. I have been working 12 hour days this week but will likely be off this weekend and will be able to look things over more closely. Otr500 (talk) 05:10, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

High drive?
Hi, can you help clear up a few things about high drive tractors?


 * Is this a Caterpillar thing or now shared with other makers? The Continuous track and Caterpillar_D10 articles seem contradictory. Do they have to license it from Caterpillar?


 * Why is the drive sprocket forward of the rear idler? I see the advantage of lifting the ground-running sprocket up off the ground shocks, but this was long established for military chassis with either front or rear drive. Why did Caterpillar move it towards the middle? Is that a defining part of high drive?

Thanks Andy Dingley (talk) 13:01, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello Andy, Thanks for your message. I had to stop and save where I was at because I had not cleared my cache in a long time and had too many browsers and tabs open, even for my gaming laptop, and it was freezing up. I just got logged back on.
 * Can you be specific of the apparent conflict so we will be on the same page? The high drive was specific to Caterpillar, inherited from both the companies that merged with it's debut, and I imagine that (haven't looked yet) under the United States patent law at the time (changed in 1994) that would have been 17 years. Until I find different any "crawler" tractors that "might" have been built with high drive before around 1990-1992? (would have to look at the high drive patent date) would have to have been under some patent agreement. There are "many" manufactures running high drive now. Now that I am back on I will look at both articles, and research some more. Thanks for your comments, --- Otr500 (talk) 22:52, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXIII, August 2015
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) 11:46, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Leo Frank GA
Hi there, just want to let you know that I finally got the Leo Frank article to a GA review. Although it's after the centennial of his lynching, I thought it would be good to get a review in. Here's the review page: Talk:Leo_Frank/GA2. Tonystewart14 (talk) 05:13, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

The Center Line: Summer 2015

 * —MediaWiki message delivery (talk) delivered on behalf of Imzadi1979 05:23, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXIV, September 2015
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) 05:09, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

September 2015
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=681921800 your edit] to Germanic peoples may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 11:55, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * or the Egg|talk page]])|url=http://www.imperialteutonicorder.com/id43.html|date= September 2015 }}.{{About|Germanic peoples as an ethno-linguistic group|the term Germanic as used in reference to
 * does the vowel length (contrast with inscriptional Garmangabi (UK) and Garma Alise, G-257) . Others have proposed a Germanic etymology *gēr-manni, "spear men", cf. Middle Dutch ''

Robert Dollar
Under Construction since 3:38 pm, 25 September 2010, Saturday (4 years, 11 months, 29 days ago) Xb2u7Zjzc32 (talk) 19:52, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * LOL --- US government style progress. Otr500 (talk) 23:04, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history coordinator election
Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 29 September. Yours, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:21, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

The Center Line: September 2015
  Volume 8, Issue S1 • September 2015 • About the Newsletter
 * Happy 10th Anniversary!

1=

• USRD through the years

• A goal for success

• From the first spinning cogs to controlling the power of the moon 1=

• Article assessment over time

• How to measure a WikiProject's load

• Conflict over article titles 1=

• Arbitration case closes

• Collaboration

• Our valued contributors

 Archives • Newsroom • Full Issue • Shortcut: WP:USRD/NEWS
 * —delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Imzadi1979 (talk) on 23:58, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Drafted article: Pembina Territory restored as Pembina Region

 * I became involved in a deletion discussion of "Pembina Territory" that was deleted but moved to my draft.


 * When the deletion discussion began the article appeared to be a stub that likely could (or would) not be improved, titled under the wrong name, and if I remember correctly not sourced. I expanded the article to at least "start class", referenced it far better than hundreds of other articles, presented evidence that the information was historical, encyclopedic, and therefore warranted on Wikipedia. I did not know (but found out) that I could appeal the decision but it was moved to draft and that seems a viable alternative as I was rushed to make improvements in a short time. I do think I did a pretty good job, and felt that would have been considered in the decision. The only other editor responding (after improvements) agreed (seemed to me) but had concerns over the capitalizing of "Region". I didn't get to discuss that with the editor (with reasoning I presented concerning other like articles) as the article was drafted and redirected.


 * Information:


 * The region was part of an area that belonged to what became Canada then Minnesota. The Treaty of 1818 solved the Canada issue but all that did was separate the history. When Minnesota became a state the area was again thrown into unincorporated status and this was not solved until North and South Dakota became states. Pembina, ND was considered the administrative seat of the area but after 1818 (until 1823) it was considered to be in Canada which left the area without even a town. The issue was not solved until March 2, 1861 with the creation of the Dakota Territory. This means that from 1818 (the time from when the Brisish/Canadian history became separated, until the time from March 3, 1849, until May 11, 1858 (the Minnesota Territory]] and then until 1861, the area was populated but not represented and this would be 34 years. The history did not stop so it should be covered.


 * This does not even account for the fact that the region, from a geographical point of view (to be addressed), never failed to exist but was politically separated between two countries.


 * Aside from all the above I can show where other articles; Republic of Indian Stream (unsourced but I will look into it), Oregon Country, and Provisional Government of Oregon exists and so should this article. The "Treaty of 1818" is far too broad to try to include specific information from this article and will just likely result in article content battles.


 * Add to that the fact that the other editors that weighed in on the deletion discussion did so at the beginning, before I became involved, and only editor replied after the fact.


 * The "Pembina Region" of the US, actually unlike the Pacific Northwest ("Though no agreed boundary exists") is defined with boundaries.


 * The bottom line is I became involved to decide if an article should be deleted or not. Instead of just looking at what was evident (there at the time) I looked more closely and made improvements. I would actually have thought that would have been enough to stop the request with a move to the discussed name. In a short time the article was improved and had more references than the "Treaty of 1818", that the article it was redirected to.


 * I changed the article name and moved the article to main-space. This may not have been the correct approach so I am recording this for any future discussion. Otr500 (talk) 17:11, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXV, October 2015
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) 21:46, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 19
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Frawley Ranch, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page CVC. 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) 09:31, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Done.

Thank you...
...for silently placing those two barnstars on my page :) Myname is not dave (talk/contribs) 13:50, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 3
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2005 Gujarat Flood, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Anand. 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) 10:46, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Done.

The Bugle: Issue CXVI, November 2015
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) 03:25, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:45, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

The Center Line: November 2015
  Volume 8, Issue 4 • November 2015 • About the Newsletter

1=
 * Departments

• Assessment roundup

• Portal selected articles and pictures

• KML Corner 1=
 * Features

• Constructing a road junction list

• WikiConference USA 2015

• The Junction template and you

• Harnessing map archives 1=
 * State and national updates

• State updates

• In other project news...

 Archives • Newsroom • Full Issue • Shortcut: WP:USRD/NEWS
 * —delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of on 22:59, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Nominations for the Military history WikiProject historian and newcomer of the year awards now open!
On behalf of the Military history WikiProject's Coordinators, we would like to extend an invitation to nominate deserving editors for the 2015 Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year awards. The nomination period will run from 7 December to 23:59 13 December, with the election phase running from 14 December to 23:59 21 December. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:04, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXVII, December 2015
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) 05:06, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 25
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Demographics of Europe, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Macedonia. 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) 10:40, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Done.

MfD nomination of User:Otr500/new article name here
User:Otr500/new article name here, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Otr500/new article name here and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of User:Otr500/new article name here during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. North America1000 05:11, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 3
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Johnstown flood of 1977, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mineral Point. 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) 09:01, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Already done

Disambiguation link notification for January 10
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Victor Heiser, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Plague. 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) 09:13, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Done.

RfC announce: Religion in infoboxes
There is an RfC at Template talk:Infobox concerning what What should be allowed in the religion entry in infoboxes. Please join the discussion and help us to arrive at a consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:38, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXVIII, January 2016
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) 11:23, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

1997 Red River flood listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect 1997 Red River flood. Since you had some involvement with the 1997 Red River flood redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Anomalocaris (talk) 09:48, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 26
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Articulated hauler, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Komatsu. 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) 15:19, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Done.

The Bugle: Issue CXIX, February 2016
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) 14:14, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 4
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bulldozer, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Komatsu. 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) 11:33, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXX, March 2016
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) 12:15, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

DAB
Just FYI, it's unlikely that your extended comment at WP:Village pump (policy) will be noticed and "counted" if you don't also add a short keep or delete !vote to the !voting section at WP:Village pump (policy). — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  22:38, 26 March 2016 (UTC) Thanks---for the reminder. My sister had a water leak pouring water under a new $6000.00 floating floor --and on a weekend --so I had to go---and I just got back. Otr500 (talk) 03:37, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXI, April 2016
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) 01:38, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 4
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of lighthouses in China, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Qingyi. 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) 10:24, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXII, May–June 2016
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) 12:05, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXIII, July 2016
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) 12:44, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

PB articles
If you ever PROD / AfD any Playboy Bunny articles, please ping me -- I'd be happy to vote "delete". If every one of them has an article, that's ridiculous non-encyclopedic. This is not the space I track myself, but would support any trimming there for sure. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:45, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Two years ago there was a mess there. I was accused having moral issues on an encyclopedia that is uncensored, and attacked for attempting to make improvements. I did have problems but it was that there was so much over-coverage, redundant coverage, and circular coverage that it is ludicrous, and the articles were screwed up. There were arguments that because there were no actual articles but lists that BLP didn't apply. There are List of Playboy models, List of Playboy Playmates by birthplace, by month, by year, by decade, List of Playboy models, List of Playboy videos with zero references, Lists of women where the lists are listed all over again, and Category:Playboy lists placed in "See also" sections.


 * The main problems I had (have) were 1)- Articles were blue links but were redirects to lists that would redirect to other lists so were circular, 2)- Lists would have 12 entries, with an |"External links" section in the body of the article under each entry, and an "External links" section at the end. When I started cleaning these up per Manual of Style/Layout I was hit with "Removing valid references, whether in an EL section or otherwise, is almost always a bad idea.". After I deleted EL links in the article body it was reverted with the summary "Nothing there justifies your removal of ALL external links here.", but another editor didn't think I was wrong.
 * Articles have the lists of lists in "See also" sections. Many of these have been corrected but with hundreds of links there are still many not corrected.
 * I would like to think I helped effect some changes but it was a battle and still not finished but at least better. Otr500 (talk) 05:33, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXIV, August 2016
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) 07:58, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXV, September 2016
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) 13:27, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election
Greetings from the Military history WikiProject! Elections for the Military history WikiProject Coordinators are currently underway, and as a member of the WikiProject you are cordially invited to take part by casting your vote(s) for the candidates on the election page. This year's election will conclude at 23:59 UTC 23 September. For the Coordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:01, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXVI, October 2016
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) 14:19, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Attri clan
Please sign your comment at the AfD discussion. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk •&#32;mail) 05:02, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Caste/clan lists
Talk:Dantusliya - do not do this, please. You appear to be enthusiastic but lacking in clue when it comes to caste stuff and it will be a disaster. It has been tried before and invariably just creates a shedload of problems. - Sitush (talk) 01:36, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

I also refer you to Talk:Birring, which is a section you seem to have been creating all over the shop. I think you are going through a list of articles mentioned in a recently closed mass-nomination AfD. It isn't particularly helpful: fix it, tag it or nominate it. Many of us have hundreds of these articles watched and it becomes repetitive to check in and see the same truism. - Sitush (talk) 01:41, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I extended you a damn courtesy, and you reply being a friggin jerk. Jeesh, think you are doing a good thing and some bottom feeder just has to be an ass. I don't have all these articles watched and was looking at them. If there was some substances fine, AND--- but I thought I would be courteous. I can see where that got me.
 * You just want the crappy one line, non-referenced junk on Wikipedia no matter what. A procedural close was granted and it is now very plainly obvious you just wanted to sweep things under the rug. I was looking over the articles to see what was what, what might be needed, and maybe find someone that might be interested in collaborating on suggestions. Now you can just defend them or fix them yourself. Hell dude, if you are being bothered then unwatch the damn things, simple as that. You don't have to worry, I will not ping you again.
 * PS: I don't have to know a damn thing about castes, tribes, sub-castes, Upajati's or anything else. That is the reason to have good quality articles, notable as shown by multiple reliable sources, and when that is not provided, look at other options. I am actually against mass nominations but now I think I may explore this option. You have a nice day since I am not going to let you mess mine up. Please just reply to the forthcoming AFD's as you will almost surely not provide anything worthwhile, and you defending one line, one sentence articles tagged since 2011 with no references, as notable, should be interesting. Otr500 (talk) 02:17, 15 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Er, you have just demonstrated that you really don't know much about the subject area or, indeed, me. We all have to start somewhere, sure, but nowhere was I acting like a "jerk". You will need a much, much thicker skin if you're going to be involved in such articles, and if you do something retaliatory now then beware of WP:POINT. - Sitush (talk) 06:16, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXVII, November 2016
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) 11:31, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject United States/The 50,000 Challenge
--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:39, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXVIII, December 2016
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) 14:09, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Voting for the Military history WikiProject Historian and Newcomer of the Year is ending soon!
Time is running out to voting for the Military Historian and Newcomer of the year! If you have not yet cast a vote, please consider doing so soon. The voting will end on 31 December at 23:59 UTC, with the presentation of the awards to the winners and runners up to occur on 1 January 2017. For the Military history WikiProject Coordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:00, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

This message was sent as a courtesy reminder to all active members of the Military History WikiProject.

The Bugle: Issue CXXIX, January 2017
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) 23:07, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Blast from the past
I concur with your assessment that graveyard sites are not reliable sources, other than to confirm birth and death dates, and as stub class material to initiate research.

I have stumbled on your five year old tags at James Barbour (lawyer) in my linking names of the Virginia Constitutional Convention of 1850 Chart of Delegates to biography articles. Where none exist I have been creating start articles on delegates who were also members of the General Assembly, or elected to another Convention, whether Virginia Constitutional Convention of 1829-1830 or the Virginia Secession Convention of 1861.

As I add additional information to the James Barbour (lawyer) article from my David Lloyd Pulliam source, “Constitutional Conventions of Virginia”, I wonder if I might simply remove the genealogy list information from the article as encyclopedic as a matter of wp:mos? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:10, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello, I actually tagged the article with plans of returning. Somehow it fell off the radar with other things going on. I would suggest that you use your editorial discretion in making article improvements. I will not object and if I see something of concern will comment on it. I do have some suggestions. "IF" you plan to remove any content I would make sure it is not covered "somewhere" in a reliable source first, or some assurance that a search is exhaustive. Certain information on some of the sites we do not deem "reliable" are not necessarily false, or even inaccurate, it is just that the information is from sites not properly vetted, or with user supplied information considered not reliable by consensus, and just "may" be inaccurate. When there is a possibility of inaccurate information, because of questioning of the source, I would tend to see if content exclusion can be implemented without article harm. If this happens I would place the material and source in a section on the talk page for future checking and use a good edit summary for the reasoning along with "See talk".
 * I am not a deletionist by nature but like to see "accurate" information since this is an encyclopedia right? When you have an acceptable source you can move "Find a Grave" to an "External links" section, because that is where it belongs, as well as any other links not considered "reliable", if you don't mind. The link to the Beckham Family Tree should not be in the body of the article at all. I think it is far better to have less "reliably sourced" information than clearly possibly wrong, distorted, or mistaken information. If you are not sure of content that "may" be accurate, or covered somewhere, tag it as "citation needed" if moving or remove a source would leave content unsourced.
 * As a note: I glanced at your profile and am impressed. Since you are a teacher I can appreciate that you apparently have a love for books. I had a lot of books (nowhere near 500) that were lost in a house fire. Some of them like Harper's Encyclopedia of United States History, or the 22 volume 1960 World Book Encyclopedia, may not be replaceable. I kept that on a shelf in the front room. It looked good and was great for comparing information now as opposed to then. Editorial bias can sometimes clearly be seen because of political, religious, or even just changing perceptions. It was disheartening and I never started rebuilding. If I had so many as to be a concern (to my wife) I would spend an allotment on a controlled climate storage room (just a thought), then you would not have to "lose" any by upgrading or considering them an excess over a limit, unless you are attempting to control some "collection abuse syndrome", sometimes referred to as hoarding by some people, --LOL. Anyway, good luck and have a blast, Otr500 (talk) 21:31, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Good Article review?
Is there any way I could persuade you to take on the Good Article review for Virginia Conventions? The nine constitutional conventions and four revolutionary conventions are daughter articles to that main article, and the start bios I've been writing are links supporting each Chart of delegates. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:10, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I have only reviewed one article thus far and yesterday I was presented with a challenge. My gaming laptop went on the blink and I am temporarily using a smaller, slower (much slower), and aged laptop, until I arrive at a solution of repairing or replacement. With the addition that I am working 60 hour weeks this presents me with additional challenges.
 * As I weigh my options I will take a cursory look at the article and let you know. Otr500 (talk) 04:46, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Infectious Diseases Society of America copyright problem
I have paraphrased content you added to the above article, as it appears to have been copied from http://www.idsociety.org/Forming_the_Society/?id=32212254910, a copyright web page. All content you add to Wikipedia must be written in your own words. Please leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions or if you think I made a mistake. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:06, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Article class assessment

 * I have seen far too many articles artificially elevated in class assessment. I saw there is a bot, and was involved in some communication, concerning automation of this, sort of class project matching, to "B-class". I have decided this is a detriment to the entire classification system. I realize I will likely be in some minority, as this will more than likely just be a "new direction", but I can now see absolutely no advantages.
 * I suppose many editors just don't get involved in article classifications but any editor that looks at a "Start class" article, or possibly "C-class", artificially elevated to B-class" should leave a note on the talk page, reassess the article, or start a discussion on the article talk page or the project(s) page. Otr500 (talk) 03:33, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Higher promotions
I recently ran into higher elevated articles, some A-class and some FA class, that are being force-fed into promotions. These articles have found a following that does not care about silly policies and guidelines, nor valid criticism. FA class is reputedly the "best-of-the-best" Wikipedia has to offer and would arguably, and in actuality, be hard pressed to be a good candidate for "B-class". If any list article is found to be "A or FA-class" with critical issues, just leave them alone because there is an agenda to promote certain articles regardless of the state. Otr500 (talk) 11:51, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Red links in FLCs
Dunno what you have against redlinks in Featured-level articles and lists, but there's nothing in the criteria for either that bans them and WP:REDLINKS actively encourages them in all articles. That said I do agree with you that the circular redlinks in the recent KC winners list promoted to FLC should have been fixed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:05, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments. My issue arises when links are placed in an article without any future plans for a possible article (notable) with little or no reliable sources. When a majority of names in a list contain circular blue links back to the same page, and 13% are red linked (from one of the featured list articles), and a search does not show notability, that is overdoing it and should be questioned. I do use red links sparingly, especially if the name shows reliable sources and looks promising for a future article (or I consider creating one), but I do not advocate using many of these, or fill up a page with them, as more than a few does not look good or serve a purpose. At the very least, in a discussion for any article for promotion, this should be considered and discussed.
 * A quick look for an example would be List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (G) (a randomly picked A-class article), that states 380 awards made to servicemen whose last name starts with "G", and of those in the list what I counted (counted one time and subject to error) was 240 red linked which is better than 60%. These red links are subject to editorial decisions, but should be used for "links that will be created soon or that an article should be created for the topic because the subject is notable and verifiable".


 * There are 57 names (counted one time and subject to error) that are blue links that link back to the article. That amounts to over linking in one instance and improper linking (didn't look if there might be some exceptions) in the other, of around of 297 names which is a whopping 78%. It probably doesn't matter on C-class and below, However, at a point in the promotion of an article to higher classes, this should be considered during reviews, as it is certainly part of the Manual of Style concerning overlinking of both blue and red links. Thanks, Otr500 (talk) 06:50, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The only time that redlinks actively count against an editor nominating an article or list is for Featured/Good topics where the whole idea is focused on complete coverage of said topic. And that's only for articles that should be included in the topic, not for redlinks inside the individual articles. Otherwise, you're telling an editor to assume responsibility for creating new articles to turn redlinks into bluelinks anytime they want an article promoted above B class, which is placing far too much weight on redlinks as a negative thing when they're actually WAD. I really don't care if a Featured list or article is studded with redlinks or not as they're a reminder that they're missing articles that are probably worth adding. I think that studies have found that readers are more likely to start editing when they see a redlink that they can start than to expand an existing article.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:05, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * WOW! And to think there are actually editors that support those silly policies and guidelines. I wonder why they don't just do away will all of them then there wouldn't be a need for editors to attempt to defend them or spend time following them. Otr500 (talk) 02:46, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * WOW!! To think that there are actually editors who disagree with Wiki policies and guidelines!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:08, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXX, February 2017
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) 04:45, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

March Madness 2017
G'day all, please be advised that throughout March 2017 the Military history Wikiproject is running its March Madness drive. This is a backlog drive that is focused on several key areas:


 * tagging and assessing articles that fall within the project's scope
 * updating the project's currently listed A-class articles to ensure their ongoing compliance with the listed criteria
 * creating articles that are listed as "requested" on the project's various task force pages or other lists of missing articles.

As with past Milhist drives, there are points awarded for working on articles in the targeted areas, with barnstars being awarded at the end for different levels of achievement.

The drive is open to all Wikipedians, not just members of the Military history project, although only work on articles that fall (broadly) within the military history scope will be considered eligible. More information can be found here for those that are interested, and members can sign up as participants at that page also.

The drive starts at 00:01 UTC on 1 March and runs until 23:59 UTC on 31 March 2017, so please sign up now.

For the Milhist co-ordinators. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) & MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:24, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 10
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Dewey W. Wills Wildlife Management Area, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Black River. 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) 10:44, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXXI, March 2017
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) 23:20, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 22
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.


 * List of Louisiana Natural and Scenic Rivers
 * added links pointing to Spring Creek, Blind River, Trout Creek and Ten Mile Creek

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:53, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Done. Otr500 (talk) 00:18, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Paige Brooks
Thanks for your very concise summary at Articles for deletion/Paige Brooks, I'd left a similar but much more poorly worded request for an explanation on the talk page of the relister. User:missalusa has actually been blocked as a sock or meat puppet but not sure if it was appropriate to raise that in the discussion. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 11:46, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

All article titles and content

 * Your welcome. Sometimes editors that might be passionate about a subject or article seem to advance either "I can't here you", or "I can't understand what you mean" or give a straw man reply. In many discussions I have seen many debates where an editor staunchly defends a position totally against several policies and guidelines and clear consensus. Sometimes editors seems to want to get into discussions just to test community consensus. Local consensus or project consensus does not over-ride broad community consensus.
 * I was guilty of misunderstanding on an article title I spent a lot of research time on and put in verifiable content that was thrown out by a title change concerning a silly little "rule" about being concise over the persons real name. Wikipedia sometimes uses concise to create a Wikipedia given name and I didn't understand this. Now that I do have more understanding I still have to battle sometimes because editors want to rename articles too precise that creates vagueness, and are passionate about it, or use and overuse parenthetical disambiguation. Even seasoned editors should re-read Simplified ruleset now and again.
 * When we (editors) debate an issue it seems a guarantee that someone will play the Other stuff exists card (also other content exists that is actually listed as arguments to avoid in deletion discussions). This is actually a good essay that gets stretched to the other realm for arguing "inherent notability" that is also "arguments to avoid in deletion discussions". Sometimes "other stuff exists", especially in the context of inherent notability, simply because of consensus by silence. This form of consensus is only valid until someone objects and inherent notability exists at the pleasure of consensus, provided there are independent reliable sources, which will determine if there is notability by association. The key words here are "independent" and "reliable sources" and all articles require this criteria for both subject title and content. "Neutral point of view (NPOV), Verifiability (V), and No original research (NOR)" are core content policies (along with being bold) that are just as important for article titles. Then there is the the often used Ignore all rules. This is a simple "rule" (policy), if you will, that is often misunderstood, and attempts to misuse it are abundant even when good faith is evident. In simplistic form it would seem to entice chaos. It is however, constrained by consensus. This is a word with a previously undefined meaning (an attempt at defining), many times misunderstood (or "wikilawyered") to just mean the larger "count". Wikilawyering is a term often associated with attempts at disrupting Wikipedia. This is actually only true when such tactics are generally applied with an apparent lack of good faith and, sometimes using the Wikipedia undefined "smoke screen" tactic. Almost all editors might use a form of Wikilawyering, that may involve sincere good faith, to try to "win" a debate or argument. The bottom line is that consensus determines inclusion and local or project consensus has been found not to over-ride community consensus.


 * A reason for the "hard fighting" to keep many of these non-notable subjects is because broad community consensus has in fact limited what is perceived as "inherent notability", with many of these not surviving deletion discussions, but there are exceptions, and this is just not one of them as evidenced by a lack of reliable sources.

Blocked editor
The blocked editor is not of importance, as the fact that his (or her) name is stricken out is proof, and his comments will be ignored.

Consensus
An editor that makes a drop-in or "flyby" !vote, especially when comments are questioned by other editors with no reply, are just as likely not to be counted. Trying to throw out a "smoke screen" that certain editors comments be discounted, because policy was not pointed out, when that editor has used per such and such editor, or used a non-link reference to a policy, will just as likely be counted. It would be much easier if policy was linked to, even if it was redundant, to stop the Wikilawyering on that point.

A note
The community has largely agreed that certain subjects, concerning beauty pageant contestants that have won national titles, does earn a spot for article title consideration, that is still very much dependent on reliable sources. The contested WP:BIO1E criteria, that is often argued against as not relevant when there are two to several non-notable or trivial bit-parts, commercials, or other such things such as local baby diaper contests, of which I do not count towards notability nor do many other editors, can only really be used to disclaim BIO1E if consensus determines some such trivial mention or multiple mentions in aggregate does add to notability. This is where Wikilawyering is used the most, adding up a high school or regional local win, add a totally non-notable bit-part in a commercial, or even movie, or that the subject has traveled with some local coverage to another location, and present that this is proof that BIO1E is not relevant. If something is non-notable it should not be counted. This is why other editors, including me, state that when there is one regional win, mostly subjected to only local coverage, and a laundry-list of "nothing notable", or even one national win preceded by a regional win, there is still only one instance of notability. We must also remember that notability is not fleeting, or easily lost in time, and one instance of notability will simply be a "one hit wonder". Otr500 (talk) 10:49, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXXII, April 2017
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) 23:50, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

The Center Line: Spring 2017
  Volume 9, Issue 1 • Spring 2017 • About the Newsletter

1=
 * Departments

• Assessment roundup

• Portal selected articles and pictures 1=
 * Features

• Commons and Wikidata revamp

• Route logs for junction lists

• Finding friends at the DOT

• This space for rent 1=
 * State and national updates

• State updates

• In other project news...

 Archives • Newsroom • Full Issue • Shortcut: WP:USRD/NEWS
 * —delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of on 01:04, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

AFD for Gary Denniss

 * This is no doubt not the correct location for me to address this, but I cannot find the right tab. I am asking you, Otr, to help me save my article called Gary Denniss. You gave some very encouraging comments last week for keeping it, but now there is BearCat on there who is highly critical and clearly wants to trash it.  Can you please put in a positive vote for this week.  This is week #2 of decision-making, because there was no consensus week #1.  Katsheron (talk) 14:44, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Reply: Katsheron, there is nothing wrong with seeking comments on a talk page in this manner. It is not considered any form of !vote stacking to have such discussions because we both have weighed in. There is a protocol to ping any editor named in some separate discussion.
 * When an article is brought to an AFD many of those leaving comments, and what we call a !vote, consider many things. Title name, which concerning notability involves looking at references and searches. References that might be acceptable for content but not necessarily towards notability. While I gave allowances that 38 books would count towards notability, providing they are not self-published, I also consider the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. This would be a reason to perform a before search. Some editors use a more narrow interpretation of notability, and this is not bad or wrong, certainly when involving a BLP, and some even dig just a little deeper.
 * I have given my opinion of a regional author of 38 books, several of them I have since noted are self-published, and encyclopedia notability is marginal. Unless there is some clear evidence we must assume good faith and respect the opinions of other editors, not as attempts to "trash" a particular article but their view on suitability for inclusion on Wikipedia. At present there is a chance it could pass but if not you can seek to get it userfied for future work. As for "other stuff existing": I am not a fan of trying to include all information in the world using this as a rationale. I say this as more of an inclusionist rather than a deletionist but there are "MANY" articles on Wikipedia that simply do not belong. Otr500 (talk) 10:13, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXXIII, May 2017
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) 03:02, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXXIV, June 2017
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, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

This is to inform you that an attempt is being made to overturn an RfC that you voted on
This is to inform you that an attempt is being made to overturn an RfC that you voted on (2 RfCs, actually, one less than six months ago and another a year ago). The new RfC is at:

Village pump (policy)

Specifically, it asks that "religion = none" be allowed in the infobox.

The first RfC that this new RfC is trying to overturn is:


 * 15 June 2015 RfC: RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion.

The result of that RfC was "unambiguously in favour of omitting the parameter altogether for 'none' " and despite the RfC title, additionally found that "There's no obvious reason why this would not apply to historical or fictional characters, institutions etc.", and that nonreligions listed in the religion entry should be removed when found "in any article".

The second RfC that this new RfC is trying to overturn is:


 * 31 December 2015 RfC: RfC: Religion in infoboxes.

The result of that RfC was that the "in all Wikipedia articles, without exception, nonreligions should not be listed in the Religion= parameter of the infobox.".

Note: I am informing everyone who commented on the above RfCs, whether they supported or opposed the final consensus. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:21, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

This is to inform you that an attempt is being made to overturn an RfC that you commented on
This is to inform you that an attempt is being made to overturn an RfC that you commented on (2 RfCs, actually, one less than six months ago and another a year ago). The new RfC is at:

Village pump (policy)

Specifically, it asks that "religion = none" be allowed in the infobox.

The first RfC that this new RfC is trying to overturn is:


 * 15 June 2015 RfC: RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion.

The result of that RfC was "unambiguously in favour of omitting the parameter altogether for 'none' " and despite the RfC title, additionally found that "There's no obvious reason why this would not apply to historical or fictional characters, institutions etc.", and that nonreligions listed in the religion entry should be removed when found "in any article".

The second RfC that this new RfC is trying to overturn is:


 * 31 December 2015 RfC: RfC: Religion in infoboxes.

The result of that RfC was that the "in all Wikipedia articles, without exception, nonreligions should not be listed in the Religion= parameter of the infobox.".

Note: I am informing everyone who commented on the above RfCs, whether they supported or opposed the final consensus. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:31, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXXV, July 2017
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) 07:34, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

pics for historic sites in Louisiana
Hey, can you get pics for St. Paul Baptist Church-Morehead School and another site in National Register of Historic Places listings in Allen Parish, Louisiana? And Allen Parish Courthouse has a pic but needs a better one. There are some gaps in Beauregard and Vernon parishes too. I just noticed our old discussion at Talk:National Register of Historic Places listings in Louisiana, so you oughta have the rest of the pics by now... :) By the way, I have recently found my way to National Register documents for all of the Louisiana listings, so I could help develop the articles' content too.   Happy 4th of July! -- do  ncr  am  01:26, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello, I don't mind any help. I went on 12 hour days, 6 days a week, but may go back to 10 hour days this week. I had a ton of pictures, down-loaded them and put a new card in the camera storing the one with pics. My laptop died and we moved so I am trying to find them. I bought a multi-card reader so I can retrieve them. I hope I can because I have been in the Elizabeth Hospital Building several times as well as the Allen Parish Courthouse. I also have pictures of a unique jail in Kinder that is still standing. I did take several pictures of the Morehead School and I will look for them as soon as I can. Otr500 (talk) 05:49, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you very much.

The Bugle: Issue CXXXVI, August 2017
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) 13:38, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXXVII, September 2017
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) 23:32, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

2017 Military history WikiProject Coordinator election
Greetings from the Military history WikiProject! Elections for the Military history WikiProject Coordinators are currently underway. As a member of the WikiProject you are cordially invited to take part by casting your vote(s) for the candidates on the election page. This year's election will conclude at 23:59 UTC 29 September. Thank you for your time. For the current tranche of Coordinators, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:39, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXXVIII, October 2017
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) 23:42, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Mia Malkova
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Mia Malkova. — usernamekiran (talk)  (pings not coming in, not going through) 06:51, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXXIX, November 2017
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) 13:29, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Autopatrolled granted
Hi Otr500, I just wanted to let you know that I have [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=rights&page=User%3AOtr500 added] the "autopatrolled" permission to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the autopatrolled right, see Autopatrolled. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! — xaosflux  Talk 16:42, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I will take extra steps to enure right is protected. I do think it might have have some effect on my editing because to me it is a right of trust. With that in mind I created Joyce Wildlife Management Area. Again, thank you, Otr500 (talk) 21:53, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

2017 Military Historian of the Year and Newcomer of the Year nominations and voting
As we approach the end of the year, the Military History project is looking to recognise editors who have made a real difference. Each year we do this by bestowing two awards: the Military Historian of the Year and the Military History Newcomer of the Year. The co-ordinators invite all project members to get involved by nominating any editor they feel merits recognition for their contributions to the project. Nominations for both awards are open between 00:01 on 2 December 2017 and 23:59 on 15 December 2017. After this, a 14-day voting period will follow commencing at 00:01 on 16 December 2017. Nominations and voting will take place on the main project talkpage: here and here. Thank you for your time. For the co-ordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:35, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXL, December 2017
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) 11:16, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

 * Thank you very much, and I wish the best to you and yours, HAPPY HOLIDAYS!!!!

User group for Military Historians
Greetings,

"Military history" is one of the most important subjects when speak of sum of all human knowledge. To support contributors interested in the area over various language Wikipedias, we intend to form a user group. It also provides a platform to share the best practices between military historians, and various military related projects on Wikipedias. An initial discussion was has been done between the coordinators and members of WikiProject Military History on English Wikipedia. Now this discussion has been taken to Meta-Wiki. Contributors intrested in the area of military history are requested to share their feedback and give suggestions at Talk:Discussion to incubate a user group for Wikipedia Military Historians.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:30, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Seasons' Greetings
...to you and yours, from the Great White North! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:49, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you, and Seasons' Greetings to you and your's, from the deep south. Otr500 (talk) 17:11, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXLI, January 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) 13:15, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXLII, February 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) 07:16, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Third Ward
Hi! I saw this edit at Yates High School.

The actual political subdivision Third Ward doesn't exist anymore, but by Third Ward I meant the modern day Third Ward community, which doesn't have the same area/boundaries as the historic political subdivision did. See: Third_Ward,_Houston WhisperToMe (talk) 16:27, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello, and thanks for the message. What we have here is a confusing mess concerning the Wards of Houston and some related articles. These were "political geographic districts" (historic) that became City Council districts but as stated did not exactly follow the previous political division. The Greater Southeast Management District (GSMD) includes what is now the "Third Ward Community" among others. Maybe someone will take an active interest in a "reforming" of these related articles including Yates High School. This "B-class" article has a terrible lead and a "History" section that includes pre and post-desegregation subsections. A problem is that the subsections wander all over the place. Desegregation certainly had a beginning with the Civil Rights Movement (1954–1968) but why stigmatize the school with such pre and post designations while being generally vague and confusing.
 * The current link in the Yates article does point to the "historic" area. The link you provided (Third_Ward,_Houston) is equally confusing as written because the section bounces from an opening description that could be current or historic, to "historic", then to current, then back to historical content. I would think someone would edit and do away with the "Cityscape" section changing to a "Boundaries" section with Historic (or political) and current subsections reflecting the "community". This would allow linking to a relevant area. I think the term "Cityscape", like landscape, townscape, or even urban landscape, is more often presented from the view of art anyway. Otr500 (talk) 02:07, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedback!
 * As per Wards_of_Houston my understanding is that the wards never transitioned into city council districts, but were abolished as political units entirely. Wards of Houston covers the actual wards (political units) while Third Ward, Houston covers the modern-day community called the Third Ward, etc. those places evolved from the actual wards, but today are unofficial entities.
 * I stand by the "pre-/post-segregation" subsections for the historically segregated black schools. They changed dramatically after desegregation because talented black students no longer had to go there and no longer had to live in those neighborhoods. Read this article on Wheatley High School and how it changed. A good quote:
 * "Then the magnet programs drew the most ambitious students off to other schools. If some of Wheatley's greatest alumni from the Fifth Ward were in HISD today, chances are they would have no incentive to attend Wheatley. Ruth Simmons, who went on to become the first black president of Smith College, was a theater enthusiast, and would probably attend the High School for the Performing and Visual Arts, as would such great jazz musicians as Arnett Cobb and Illinois Jacquet. Barbara Jordan would undoubtedly be drawn to the prelaw program at the High School for Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice. And Mickey Leland, who pretty much goofed off in high school? You wonder if he would have become the leader he became if he had not been exposed to the mix of students he passed through Wheatley with in the early '60s."
 * I agree that many of the leads need work, and I'll have to look into the "cityscape" section (by that I mean the boundaries and composition of the neighborhoods themselves) of Third Ward, Houston. Composition will be better.
 * WhisperToMe (talk) 09:14, 14 February 2018 (UTC)


 * In Third_Ward,_Houston note "historical" is used in two different contexts. "The definition of the Third Ward as of 2004 differs from the definition of the historical Third Ward political entity." and "...due to historical reasons she adjusted the western boundary to Almeda Road and the southern boundary down to MacGregor Way." - The second does not refer to the original political wards while the first does. The second is about cultural history. WhisperToMe (talk) 11:46, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Wow! I guess it will take some creative writing to make sense of that. Otr500 (talk) 01:18, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * It is kind of strange that the "meaning" of the Third Ward shifted from an actual political unit to an unofficial community. Perhaps the sources will help clarify things.
 * "Pride lives on in Houston's six historical wards" by Jeannie Kever, Houston Chronicle, 2004: "Most people here have heard of the Second Ward, the Third, Fourth and Fifth Wards — geographical designations based upon Houston's early form of municipal government. But few really know how they came to be or even where the boundaries are. Nowadays, the wards are a social and cultural phenomenon, only loosely geographically defined and with no bearing on how our civic leaders are elected."
 * "Top 10 Restaurants in the Third Ward" by Katharine Shilcutt, Houston Press, 2013: "Note: The Third Ward is defined as southeast of Highway 288/59, southwest of Interstate 45, west of Highway 5/Calhoun and north of Wheeler/Blodgett. However, for the purposes of this post, the southern boundaries have been extended to MacGregor Way and the western boundaries have been extended to Almeda for historic reasons." - She doesn't specify what the historic reasons are.
 * WhisperToMe (talk) 01:35, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXLIII, March 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) 10:36, 12 March 2018 (UTC)