User talk:TParis/Archive 16

Clarification? re:AE
Hi TP. What do you mean to say with " Those asking for sanctions messed the 'last chance' up." -- Do you mean to say that is responsible for TTAAC's personal attacks and battleground treatment of other editors? Have you looked at TTAAC's edit summaries and talk page rants since that warning? I know you are a man of reason and temperament so I wonder whether  your words at AE fully expressed your thoughts? SPECIFICO talk  21:02, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm sure I expressed my full thoughts, but I can see how they're confusing. No, I do not believe that TTAAC was or has ever been provoked.  I maintain that we each are responsible for our behaviors.  What I will say is that Casprings took to AE without a strong case and wasted a 'last chance' conclusion at the last AE.  Now, Casprings has made this look like a cry wolf situation.--v/r - TP 21:06, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * There ya' go TP. Right on. Thanks. I knew I must have mis-read you. I am going to try to put together a few diffs to add to what Casprings provided, particularly given Sandstein's advice that once an AE thread is closed, the clock resets. If you're so inclined, you might offer the same clarification on the AE page. Then again, I may be the only one who didn't get your point. Cheers.  SPECIFICO  talk  22:45, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I went to the WikimediaDC Conference 3 months ago in San Diego. The last day there was the night of the last presidential debates.  Would it surprise you to know that 99% of the people were cheering for Hillary?  That's not an overstatement.  I only knew of two people who were not HRC supporters.  Me personally, I would've been happy if a third candidate could've been there but I'll just keep on dreaming.  My point is that one of those two people were in tears because of how rude and unwelcoming everyone else had been that night.  The attitudes and behaviors of the masses were overwhelming and awful.  It was very hostile to conservatives - no safe space policy mattered when it came to conservative thought.  I had even mentioned the possibility of this hostility beforehand during one of the Slack planning chats and I was shot down and the plan to air the debates on the projector went ahead. What if I told you I feel this hostility every day on Wikipedia?  You've seen my behavior the last few months, I've certainly been battlegrounds and hostile myself.  You say that TTAAC is very disruptive compared to everyone else.  Have you considered the possibility that TTAAC is as disruptive as everyone else's disruption put together?  It's tough being the outsider and the only way to get heard is to be as loud as the echo chamber.  Why do you think BLM was blocking highways?  Why do you think feminists have sit-ins in colleges and universities?  Why do you think that feminist group in Russia protests topless?  When your voice is being drowned out, disruption is the only way to bring attention. I'm not saying that TTAAC's behavior is forgivable or acceptable.  Nor am I saying it is provoked.  I even hold myself responsible for my own behavior these last few months.  What I am saying is that I understand it.  I'm not going to go fall on my sword for TTAAC.  If I'm going to put my name on the line for an editor, it needs to be an editor that has displayed exemplary behavior.  I either haven't found such an editor, or such an editor doesn't need me.  Either way, when the time is right, when the person is right, I'll make my case that there is unfair treatment.  For now, I'm just going to try to share my experience and hope others understand.--v/r - TP 22:58, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heartfelt and clear reply. You earn the respect of the community for exactly that kind of thoughtful expression, even when you are feeling frustrated or worse. What's unfortunate about TTAAC is that he spends energy on personal attacks and soapboxing that needs to go to editing content. I won't speculate why that is, but it does disqualify him from fruitful participation. I've told him that nobody wants to see editors blocked or banned, why would we? It's a loss of potential resources for the community. But for whatever reason, some editors choose that outcome for themselves.  After so many warnings, he's on the brink -- Dennis Brown told him so. It took me a while to learn how this community works.  Interesting that the editors I tangled with as a newbie are mostly site-banned.  That's what seems to happen eventually when editors are "nothere".   I'm sorry to hear your account of the conference.  In particular, this public display was incredibly disrespectful of the community. A Wiki conference is not a group of friends getting together to have a beer and watch the game.   I don't think that it's 99 to 1 in the community as a whole, but maybe there was some selection bias in that event.  At any rate, the problem with TTAAC is not that he's trying to be heard, but rather that he's shouting personal nonsense that can be heard but doesn't contribute anything to WP. I think he just doesn't get along with other people.  SPECIFICO  talk  23:19, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Wow. So you don't think that the diffs I added or the ones that others added to the AE thread demonstrate disruptive editing? How has he helped improve the articles? He has only provided a role model to half a dozen other editors who are following his model of attack and POV rather than collaboration. That's exactly what DS are intended to prevent. Dozens of other editors take one look and walk away without contributing in these areas. SPECIFICO talk  02:31, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I find the first diff to be not only not disruptive, but to be an accurate observation on the to-date implementation of ARBPOL. TTAAC clearly feels the hostility here the same as I do.  I handle it with more grace - usually.  And I only handle it with any resemblence of grace because I feel some responsibility to the community as an admin.  If I didn't have the bit, I might've been a bit less cordial.  The first VM edit really doesn't impress me any.  So, TTAAC said that if VM reinstates an edit, his intentions as a POV pusher will be clear.  What's your point?  I'm certain there are dozens of POV pushers in the political articles and they aren't all conservatives.  2nd diff, I can only assume the language part must be what you're concerned about?  If not, it's so meh as for me to think you're slinging mud.  Third edit is the only substantial one out of the three.  As for the Bob comment, TTAAC is absolutely right.  Not including a comment by Putin responding to the claims of Russian involvement would've been clear POV pushing.  Should be sanction-able POV pushing IMHO.  The first diff for you, I really can't see what you're complaining about, that comment is straight forward.  I'm just not going to keep going.  Your evidence doesn't contain anything except for the single VM name calling.  Your diffs have only worked to remind me that a bias does exist.  That the Bob diff and your first Specifico diff both were straight forward and you've taken them to be attacks, I feel like you should take them as evidence that you may be letting your perspective influence your judgement.--v/r - TP 02:53, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * And the edit comments? Very helpful. Policy: Comment on contributors, not content! :).  Some editors are simply unable to function in a social setting.  That doesn't mean they can't have their own blog where their imaginations can run wild.  If the DS are not enforced against TTAAC and the others who follow his example, there'll be an ARBAP3 to deal with this. That's what happened at ARBAP2.  I guess that's how these things work.  SPECIFICO  talk  03:19, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * You're killing me SPECIFICO. I'm in the process of moving and I've been on my phone and tablet this whole time.  I havent checked the edit comments.  If the problems are in the edit summaries, then that explains the 'meh' aspect of your diffs that I was unimpressed with.--v/r - TP 03:23, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I've now read the edit summaries for every single one of those diffs. He hasn't left any, let alone any disparaging ones.  Furthermore, I read the rest of the diffs.  The last one by you, you were rightly called out for misrepresenting what you were doing.  Regarding the AE case, you mine as well list a frivilous AE case against TTAAC posted by Casprings in your evidence because that's what we have.  And the final VM one is a decent diff of piss poor behavior, but (and) frankly I agree with it.--v/r - TP 03:29, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * <>> WHA?? SPECIFICO  talk  04:00, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Check your different. There are no edit summaries --v/r - TP 04:08, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It took about 5 reads to realize I'd missed that line.--v/r - TP 07:39, 10 January 2017 (UTC)


 * "reply to|Sandstein His user page is not within the topic area".-- Yes it was. American Politics. SPECIFICO  talk  04:54, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * His user page is a page within the scope of American Politics? That's quite a stretch of the DS to make that apply.--v/r - TP 05:09, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * He's clearly published BLP violations and NOTHERE political advocacy indexed to Wikipedia on that page. Anyway, I just dropped by to say that I thought it was really beneath you to make your recent equivalence between anything I have done and TTAAC's creepy unprovoked obsession with me, based apparently on a 4+ year history that exists only in his own thoughts.  I was stumped when he first ranted about this, but checked and found that we'd both briefly edited the Paul Ryan page in my first 2012 newbie days on WP, just before TTAAC got page banned for his misconduct there. Then there was no interaction for 4 years, but for some reason I was so memorable to him that he refers now to a "long history" or something like that, which you are endorsing by repeating it with absolutely no evidence.  Nobody shoud be making aspersions without evidence on WP, but for an Admin to do that is particularly unfortunate.  Please don't jeopardize your credibility in so pointless a way on something that's not even relevant to the thread.  Thanks, and good luck with your move.  I know that's a lot of work.  SPECIFICO  talk  15:00, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * TParis is the admin that temporarily topic banned me from Paul Ryan pending the outcome of an RfC, and might well recall that it was largely over a misunderstanding, in which I restored negative material about Ryan I had previously argued against on the talk page in the interest of reaching a compromise. In my edit summary, I explained: "TP (TParis) made it clear that the page need not be frozen. I'm well-known to be against this, but let it be." TParis then corrected me on the relevant policies: "I didn't say the material was acceptable, I said that the initial edit by Homunq wasn't exactly warring. However, when it was disputed, that brought it back into the WP:EW arena. I hate to ban over misunderstanding, but edit warring cannot be tolerated." That four year old incident is a very weak basis indeed to insinuate a pattern of disruption on my part. The rest of SPECIFICO's comment is largely accurate; SPECIFICO did indeed leave an overwhelming negative impression for routinely misrepresenting sources—and engaging in over-the-top WP:SYNTH and WP:BLP vios—when I first encountered them at Peter Schiff in 2012, and I was dismayed to see the same pattern of behavior when our paths crossed again last fall. SPECIFICO was also more prone to personal attacks back then, and this contributed to my initial negative impression; for example, before I convinced them to create an account, SPECIFICO's IP asked me "TIMES: What is your relationship to Schiff?" merely because I disagreed with some of their edits. I'm not sure when SPECIFICO thinks I claimed we have a "long history" of conflict; if I did use that phrase, it was probably in reference to SPECIFICO's long history of distorting what sources say, which I have looked into. Finally, I am surprised to learn that I "provided a role model to half a dozen other editors who are following his model of attack and POV"; coming from SPECIFICO, I'm inclined to take that as a compliment—though I must confess I have no idea what six editors are being referenced in the comment (assuming that SPECIFICO actually has anyone in mind).TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 15:59, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * RE: When did you claim to have a long history of conflict with SPECIFICO? I was the one that brought that up at the AE page, based on this comment on your own talk page from 26 November: "My issues with SPECIFICO go back to a feud from 2012 (not coincidentally another election year)." That made it sound like you have been in continuous warfare ever since. (Incidentally, that comment was your explanation why you felt it was justified for you to "hit back twice as hard" at SPECIFICO.) --MelanieN (talk) 17:04, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Not to mention the happy coincidence that this just happens to be TTAAC's world premiere appearance on TParis' talk page. :) SPECIFICO  talk  17:09, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * @Specifico, are you saying that it is beneath me to point out the hypocrisy in claiming that only one party to a 4 year long dispute should be accused of stalking and harassment based on the length of the dispute? I don't think so.  The only equivalency made is that you both have at least one dispute with each other going back 4 years.  Is that a lie?  I don't think so.  There is nothing else to read into the comment.--v/r - TP 00:04, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * No, I am saying that it's beneath any Admin to accept an undocumented assertion that a "four-year long" dispute exists. There is nothing in the observable world that has endured between me and him for 4 years. He obviously has a long memory and is now characterizing some brief 2012 interaction as a "dispute" but I have neither thought about him nor communicated with or about him in any way in the intervening period until a few months ago -- I believe at the "murder of Seth Rich" article.  Yes, it is certainly beneath you to state that it's hypocritical of me to deny something that doesn't exist and that you can't document.  Please don't use the term "lie" -- I didn't call you a liar. I said that you made an undocumented factual assertion with no evidence based only on one editor's claim.  That is not what we expect of Admins and frankly it concerns me greatly that any Admin would be so careless about verifying the basis for his/her words in this community. After all, you and I have engaged in various disagreements over the years -- not just once, but I still consider you my wiki-friend and certainly would not think of calling our relationship a 4-year long dispute!!  I'll also whisper to you, in friendship, that I hope you'll consider disengaging from TTAC. I don't see anything good coming of it for you, and we need voices like yours -- irascible though you may be from time to time :)    SPECIFICO  talk  00:30, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Murder of Seth Rich? I have never edited that article, or its talk page. You must have me confused with someone else.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:45, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I didn't call you hypocritical. I called MelanieN hypocritical for attibuting a dispute to one party.  You disputes appear to start on Talk:Paul Ryan.  Then, you and TTAAC were heavily involved in a slow-running [·https://tools.wmflabs.org/sigma/timeline.py?server=enwiki&users=SPECIFICO&users=TheTimesAreAChanging&page=Peter_Schiff edit war in 2012] constantly reverting each other over the span of a few weeks.  That's a dispute as far as I can tell.  You two went back for forth on his user page about this and then you two got involved in another dispute at The_Bubble_(2013_film) and were reverting each other.  If you don't recall it, I'm not going to call you a liar.  I have no idea what you remember.  But I have diffs and I'm also not going to settle for calling it some brief 2012 interaction.  You two went head to head for a couple months.  You two were seriously bumping heads in 2012.--v/r - TP 01:00, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's exactly the point. Briefly in 2012 at Paul Ryan, and never since. The diffs for the other one just seem to show him trying to "own" the article and maybe getting upset when other editors became active and rejected his views. Most folks would think it very strange for an editor to carry a memory of a few weeks' disagreement around for the next 4-1/2 years. Some battleground editors get very upset when their views are rejected, or if the get blocked or banned. What's really sad is that I was obviously a brand new user, stumbling with policy and ready to admit it and ask others for advice. I didn't "bump" anybody in the first month or so. I met some bumpers later on, but they all got banned and I learned to recognize bad actors from a distance.  Of course on the content matters, I was not mistaken and the articles reflect my edits which still stand today.  But the Battleground mentality of filing away enemies lists and "opponents" and trying to get the better of them and all the other stuff is way "off" --  I mean like 3 sigma-plus "off". Way less than 1% of editors are plagued by the bitter memory of whoever may have one-upped them in a content dispute from years ago.   SPECIFICO  talk  01:22, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm not going to go through the diffs again. I'm moving and my desktop is in a crate somewhere. I only have a small tablet to work off of. But, I did see interactions in 2015 and 2016 to. It wasn't a span of no interactions in 4 1/2 years. I only focused on 2014 because it was the year in dispute. I wasn't going to address the last part, but, yeah, I agree that lists are a bit dumb. I have a list on my user page, though, if you haven't noticed because I got hounded for several years. But, besides that, I've held grudges myself. Some I let go, some I was able to forgive and be forgiven, others I still hold onto. Unless I'm 3 sigma-plus "off", I don't think it's abnormal human behavior. Might be in this particular case, but not for the reasons you've described.--v/r - TP 01:34, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think it's unfortunate that he was not quickly blocked, because we are getting too close to discussing personality and emotional health and I think that is not appropriate. In terms of WP, the TBAN appears to have consensus and the sooner it's in place the sooner he can begin to reflect and plan a way forward. We're not serving any purpose discussing it further here, I think you agree. Best wishes.  Moving is enough of a pain in the neck.  SPECIFICO  talk  01:44, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

UTRS
Hi TParis. When you have a moment, there's a UTRS response template that needs to be updated. There's a template titled "ArbCom" that references BASC (which no longer exists). Do you know if this is the template editors are sent when they're temporarily banned from UTRS as well? There's a separate response template for CU/OS blocks that directs them to ArbCom for final appeal. That one is okay. Lastly, can I have my tool user status changed to Oversighters and Checkusers? Thanks, Mkdw  talk 05:08, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I honestly don't know what is show to users when they are banned. It looks like they may have the email to BASC if they get banned from UTRS.  I don't have the access to change that right now; for some reason I cant login with SSH.  As far as the Arbcom template, I removed BASC from it.  It's not the template they see they are banned from the tool.  That appears to be hard coded in.  Your rights have been updated.--v/r - TP 05:21, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you. In reviewing the disband motion for BASC more closely, ArbCom will only hear appeals on the following conditions:
 * As far as I know, this remains in place. Could we make the UTRS ArbCom response template cite this criteria? Blocked editors, who do not meet this criteria, would submit a subsequent unblock request when their UTRS ban expires or their talk page access is restored. Mkdw  talk 05:47, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, the admin using that template should only be using it in those circumstances. It's for Arbcom blocks, afterall.--v/r - TP 05:58, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, the admin using that template should only be using it in those circumstances. It's for Arbcom blocks, afterall.--v/r - TP 05:58, 3 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Just tested it. When attempting to submit a ticket while banned from UTRS, this is what you see:
 * Access denied: testutrs@salvidrim.net has been banned until 2017-01-08 03:04:43 by Salvidrim! for the reason 'test'. If you still wish to appeal your block, you may visit us on IRC at #wikipedia-en-unblock (if you haven't already done so) or email the Ban Appeals Subcommittee at arbcom-appeals-en@lists.wikimedia.org.
 * So yes, it does indeed reference BASC. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  02:11, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I think people are still being directed to the Audit Subcommittee when banned from UTRS. Mkdw  talk 00:36, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter - February 2017
News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.

Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg NinjaRobotPirate • Schwede66 • K6ka • Ealdgyth • Ferret • Cyberpower678 • Mz7 • Primefac • Dodger67
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13

Guideline and policy news
 * A discussion to workshop proposals to amend the administrator inactivity policy at Wikipedia talk:Administrators has been in process since late December 2016.
 * Pending changes/Request for Comment 2016 closed with no consensus for implementing Pending changes level 2 with new criteria for use.
 * Following an RfC, an activity requirement is now in place for bots and bot operators.

Technical news
 * When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
 * Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
 * The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.

Arbitration
 * The Arbitration Committee released a response to the Wikimedia Foundation's statement on paid editing and outing.

Obituaries
 * JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.

Discuss this newsletter • Subscribe • Archive

13:38, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

UTRS 'Blocking Admin' button
Hi, the 'Blocking Admin' button hasn't worked on UTRS review pages for a day or two. Just Chilling (talk) 21:57, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Discussing with blocking administrator template
Hi, would it be a good idea for the 'Discussing with blocking administrator template' to set the appeal to 'On Hold'? Just Chilling (talk) 22:19, 3 February 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)

Proposed new UTRS template
Hi, this is wording that I use quite often and I think it would make a good UTRS template:

Back Editing

I am pleased to see that you are back editing so I have closed this appeal. If you have further problems, please submit a fresh appeal and quote the exact block message that will provide the information that we require.

Just Chilling (talk) 19:08, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I think this is already implied in the No block found template, saying "if you still can't edit, please send us the block reason, because AFAICS you should be able to edit". ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  19:47, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Fair point but I think there is a difference at least in my usage (which might of course not be best practice!!). I use the no block found when a user who has appealed is found not to be blocked at the get go. I use the Back editing when initially they are, typically, affected by an underlying IP block, they don't promptly reply to the 'Ask for IP' template. and soon after they are seen to edit. What seems to happen is that users on a dynamic IP get switched to a blocked IP and then next time they connect, connect to an unblocked IP. Just Chilling (talk) 23:46, 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)

Cheery picked?
It's considered in bad taste to correct typos in others' comments but that phrase in WP:ANI seems a bit much. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:55, 4 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)

Bot
Why is not marking requests as "closed" any more?  Vanjagenije  (talk)  18:36, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Good question; I have been wondering that myself. Just Chilling (talk) 23:00, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, I do not have access to the server right now so would have to weigh in.--v/r - TP 00:20, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Alex, it wasn't meant in good fun. I'm genuinely disappointed.  Do you even realize you're gaslighting Tenebrae?  I've read that discussion.  It very clearly involved canvassing, ya'all did your best to gang up on him with bludgeoning arguments about 'it's not'.  But what is most upsetting is this edit by User:Impending IP.  That edit is the most biased start to an RFC I've ever seen.  Starting off with 8 simultaneous supports and 0 opposes?  Either there was previous collusion to start the RFC or Impending IP was speaking for all of you.  Either way, WP:RFC states that RFCs should "include a brief, neutral statement".  Starting with 8 supporters in 1 edit isn't neutral.  Insisting that canvassing didn't happen or was unintentional when it very clearly did happen is disruptive.  Neither of these RFCs are valid.  User:Black Kite, you really shouldn't have washed your hands of this so quickly.  There are serious behavioral issues going on.--v/r - TP 02:36, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep the barnstar, I enjoyed your comment! Cheers! --  Alex TW 02:39, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

UTRS
Hi, just to continue the discussion that started at User talk: Doors22, it doesn't say anywhere that talk-page access has to be removed before someone can appeal via UTRS.

WP:UTRS says: "If you have had talk page access removed or find the template to be complicated, you can use the link below to request an unblock ..." So removal of talk-page access isn't necessary. It concerns me that admins are being told we can't refer people to UTRS unless we remove talk-page access, because that's in some ways a cruel thing to do, so it should only be done where there's good reason.

I know you weren't the one saying that, but you know your way around, so I was hoping you could help to make it clear. SarahSV (talk) 07:30, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone has said that you should remove talk page access to refer them to UTRS. The removal decision should be made first, and if that happens then refer them to UTRS.  But, again, I did say that it's not routinely enforced on UTRS.  It's hit and miss.  I don't mind if you'd like to get a discussion started somewhere to solidify the rules or loosen them up.--v/r - TP 12:38, 5 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I'm not sure where to start a discussion, and it's not something I have a burning interest in. It's just that the UTRS site states that talk-page access needn't have been removed, so I was concerned to see that stated as a pre-condition. Anyway, I've closed that unblock request and advised him to appeal via UTRS if he wants to. I'll leave it there. SarahSV (talk) 01:24, 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)

My very potential RFA
I have opened a discussion at the optional candidate's poll. If notifying you is canvassing then please remove this. White Arabian Filly Neigh 21:41, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

OK
sorry things got clashy. Jytdog (talk) 00:17, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * We have a fundamental disagreement in implementation but shared interest in the success of the project. Clashing is bound to happen.  I remember a time when you and I got along quite nicely.  I try to keep that image of you in my head.  I'm sorry if I sometimes forget it.  I'm not the easiest person to get along with.  I'm rash, tactless, and I communicate poorly.  So, I've got as much responsibility as anyone if we go at it.  What this all is to say is, that I'm sorry too.--v/r - TP 00:25, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

when=>whet
Uh...don't you mean "went" in this context, though? ;) Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 19:52, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, yes I do. I haven't been sleeping well and it's been a struggle to concentrate today.--v/r - TP 20:50, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd send you a wiki-zanax to help you with the sleep issue, but apparently all we have are in the wiki-arsenal are pints and kittens. Boooorrring!-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 20:58, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

UTRSBot
Hi TParis, I notice that the bot hasn't been closing appeal templates on user talk pages lately. I don't know if it's a widespread problem, of if I've just stumbled onto some that the bot missed like here. Anyway, if you get a chance to look at it... Thanks ​—DoRD (talk)​ 12:18, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, now I see the previous query about this in the archive, where you pinged to look at it. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 12:21, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Yep. WMF started telling us the server was going down if we didnt upgrade - so we upgraded.  And I dont have access to the new server yet.--v/r - TP 12:34, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The issue has been fixed. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 22:28, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

JavaScript RegExp problem
I noticed you have experience in JavaScript. I'm hoping you can help me with a problem I've run into writing a userscript.

Please see my post at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject JavaScript.

Thank you. The Transhumanist 12:27, 5 May 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)

TPBot...
Love the updates to the FA by length pages, but would it be possible to have a column for characters also? If it's terribly difficult, don't bother, but it'd be nice to be able to sort that way as well as just by pure bytes. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:17, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but the only information I can give is whatever this report provides and it doesn't have characters.--v/r - TP 17:22, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Misspelling in UTRSBot's edit summary for notifying admins
Hello, there's a misspelling in [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Graham87&diff=781896864&oldid=779021733 this type of edit summary]: "Notifing" should be "Notifying". Graham 87 15:57, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Awesome, thanks, I'll get it fixed soon.--v/r - TP 16:05, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello
My apologies if I am disturbing or misunderstanding something, but Snooganssnoogans still seems to do lots of edits to articles featuring conservative public figures and organisations: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Snooganssnoogans&offset=&limit=500&target=Snooganssnoogans David A (talk) 18:56, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * He's only been banned from making mass-edits to a bunch of articles where the edit has marginal importance to the subject. He can still edit any article.--v/r - TP 20:23, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay. David A (talk) 02:43, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Your BRFA
Your recent BRFA, Bots/Requests for approval/TPBot 3, has been approved. Happy editing, — xaosflux  Talk 19:15, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi TParis
Hi TParis.

I'm trying to write an unbiased non promotional page for 'Rubicoin', the company I work for. I understand it was a soft block as the company name was included in my username. I felt that provided transparency. I've requested a new username. Is there anything else I should do to unblock the page?

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.107.99.197 (talk) 16:11, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, to be honest, you really shouldn't write it at all. You'd be better off adding it to WP:Requested articles.  However, if you're going to move forward, then I'd suggest you use draft space instead.  But, to get into the nitty gritty, the reason we try to dissuade folks connected to a topic from editing it is because they often cannot see the line between promotion and dispassionate facts clearly.  You had a lot of information about products in that article, most of it was uncited.  Wikipedia cares only about the facts of notable companies.  Notable means that your company has been noticed by the media.  Each line of your article should be supported by citations in the media about your company - and not press releases.  Once again, I strongly recommend you don't create an article.  Wikipedia isn't a PR platform, and it can often become a curse.  Information you'd rather not be widely known has a way of finding itself on Wikipedia.--v/r - TP 16:32, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * In the first sentence, I assume you meant "shouldn't"? isaacl (talk) 16:58, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, yes I did. Thanks ;) --v/r - TP 17:00, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Possible IP block
Hello TParis since you showed up in my watchlist, do you have a second to see if you're willing to block this disruptive IP user. Thanx for your time, -  FlightTime  ( open channel ) 21:25, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I didn't know you were "FlightTime". I thought "FlightTime" was some jerk shutting people out.  Sorry for calling you dumb earlier.  I'll look at the IP.--v/r - TP 21:26, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I just noticed your Semi-retired tag, I poke someone on IRC. Thanx anyway, You called me dumb ? lol, never saw it :P  -  FlightTime  ( open channel ) 21:29, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Too slow IP has been blocked.  -  FlightTime  ( open channel ) 21:31, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * On the Wray talk page. I thought you were some drive-by n00b shutting another n00bs edit down simply because I didn't recognize "FlightTime". I know I don't know everyone, but I generally recognize a lot of editors. I should've recognized the style of your signature. Anyway, someone else blocked the IP.--v/r - TP 21:31, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * No worries, I have a re-name in the works (I think), anyway, have a great day, thanx for your time, -  FlightTime  ( open channel ) 21:34, 7 June 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) 12:53, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

On my proposed topic ban
Hi, this is dragging on for ages, I would like it to end, either way banned or not banned but it is just annoying to open wikipedia and see it just there on my watch list for 2 weeks now?. I refuse to engage in the same behavior of looking for meatpuppets to support me. although Im sure I could gather a similar number. Would it be possible for you admins )I´m sure you all know each other) to just have a look at my case and decide whether I should be topic banned? I would really appreciate it.Asilah1981 (talk) 09:28, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

/* */ new section
On your ANi comment, I see no dispute between us. We were both editing fast and furious with edit conflicts. The Heavy source was already linked several times and I was scanning for a different source to broaden the references. I definitely don't think that negative material should go unsourced, nor would I characterize the fact a lawyer represented a high profile client as negative material about either the lawyer or client. Legacypac (talk) 03:12, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I never got that from you on the article talk page, but your comment here addresses my concerns, so I'll go strike my remark at ANI.--v/r - TP 03:14, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * As far as your last sentence, I'd say any tie to the wrong side of a scandal is negative material.--v/r - TP 03:19, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

refund
hello, I was wondering if you would refund Template:International Emmy hosts into User:Gonejackal/sandbox2. if thats not possible, would you overwrite Template:International Emmy hosts?Gonejackal (talk) 01:35, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure, it's been moved to your sandbox.--v/r - TP 03:20, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Undelete request Darren Curovic
Hello, Could you please consider to undelete the page Darren Curovic, regarding the G news as well as the following reference (2016) as one of in regards to achievements of the character Thank you Parviziskender (talk) 13:42, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure, it's been restored.--v/r - TP 14:10, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for this. There will be some work done on it to help improving as required. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Parviziskender (talk • contribs) 14:33, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

B4 clarification
A clarification to WP:UP/RFC2016 § B4 has been proposed. You participated in that discussion; your input is welcome at User pages/RfC for stale drafts policy restructuring/B4 clarification. Thanks, — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 16:00, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Restoring page of Dennis M. Kelleher
I understand that you just approved the deletion of the page for Dennis M. Kelleher for lack of notability. Literally as the decision was made (today, 6/23/2017) I was drafting materials, extensively cited and footnoted, to show that he is a person of some prominence in his field. I have tried to paste it in below but see that the footnotes did not make it. I am happy to send a document to you to allay your concerns, but what I am hoping to do in the short-term and as quickly as possible is restore the page so I can also publicly address the notability issue. I appreciate your consideration.

Kelleher and his work at Better Markets has been profiled in the media many times, including in the New York Times (“Facing Down the Bankers”), where he was described as “one of the most powerful lobbyists on financial regulatory reform”; by Congressional Quarterly as an “Influencer,” which stated “Kelleher has become K Street’s most vocal counterweight to the bank lobby, often called to Capitol Hill to defend the Dodd Frank law” ; and by Wealth Management, where he was referred to as one of “Ten To Watch in 2016.”  He was also profiled by the PBS show Need to Know (“Braking the Banks”), and featured prominently in Frontline’s award-winning inside story of the global financial crisis (“Money, Power and Wall Street”), as well as in the German and French public television documentaries on the global financial collapse.

He also frequently speaks on financial matters and is often interviewed and widely quoted in US and international media on the important financial issues of the day. Since taking the helm of Better Markets seven years ago, Kelleher has been interviewed more than 3,000 times and quoted or appeared in the media over 2,000 times. When the news broke that JP Morgan Chase, the world’s largest bank, was facing billions of dollars in losses due to its so-called London Whale trading, policymakers, rule makers, elected officials and the global media sought out Kelleher for analysis, insight and implications. He was interviewed extensively on the subject and his comment appeared in the global media including the Financial Times, Huffington Post , The New York Times , and The Washington Times. Similarly, throughout the recent Wells Fargo fraudulent account scandal, which cost the CEO of the fourth largest bank in the US his job, Kelleher was sought after for comment from those same policymakers as well as industry, regional, national, and international news outlets, including The Charlotte Observer, American Banker , The Washington Post , The Los Angeles Times , the Associated Press , and the Financial Times. When it was reported that National Economic Council Chair and former Goldman, Sachs President Gary Cohn supported reinstating the Glass-Steagall law that separated investment and commercial banking, Kelleher was once again the voice that the media sought to provide critical perspective and analysis on the story, appearing in The New York Times , The Washington Post , and the Financial Times. Kelleher has also appeared on television, commenting on the first 100 days of the Trump Administration and Trump’s record with Wall Street.

Kelleher is also regularly asked to provide testimony to House and Senate committees on financial protection rules. He has appeared before the House Committee on Natural Resources on the impact of Wall Street speculation on gasoline prices, the House Committee on Financial Services on the impact of the Dodd-Frank Act on credit and job creation  and also on the impact of the Volcker Rule on markets and job creation , the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry examining the Dodd-Frank Act after two years  and on the re-authorization of the Commodities Futures Trading Commission. He has also appeared before the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs to discuss the Financial Stability Oversight Council and the House Education Subcommittee on Health, Employment, Labor, and Pensions on the Department of Labor’s “best interest” fiduciary rule. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charnich (talk • contribs) 16:22, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

At AN
I hope you don't mind me hatting your comment in with Joobo's; I mean nothing at all against you or your comment, just trying to keep the discussion on track. Indeed, I gave Joobo almost precisely the same advice on his user talk. GoldenRing (talk) 15:18, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Of course, no worries.--v/r - TP 15:18, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

AN/I
As you participated in Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive957, you may be interested in Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 03:50, 29 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)

Noam Javits SPI
Hi, I was disappointed to see that Sockpuppet investigations/Noam Javits was closed some 30 minutes after you opened it. I've been looking into the same group (maybe) and sharing notes with a trusted administrator. I have a hunch that they have left enough breadcrumbs to tie together two non-stale edits somewhere. I or someone else just have to find them. There's a long trail of LA IP addresses to start with.

By the way have you tried a web search on "Noam Javits SEO"? - Bri (talk) 10:42, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Typo reduxe
Hey, re this message of mine from May, the typo's [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Graham87&diff=790853977&oldid=790584284 still there]. Graham 87 15:25, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Featured articles by length
Hi there, thank you for your work in updating the Featured articles/By length page! It's a fun and interesting list, and I appreciate having the updated numbers every time I check it. Would it be much trouble to similarly update the Good articles/By length page? I honestly don't know whether it would be easy or not, but if the former, would you be willing to get that running as well? Regardless, thanks again for your work on the featured articles list. --Usernameunique (talk) 03:20, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that'd be a trivial addition. I'll look into it.--v/r - TP 15:14, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * That would be great, thank you! --Usernameunique (talk) 02:06, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Hey there, just wanted to follow up and see if this is something that would be possible to do. No worries if not. Thanks! --Usernameunique (talk) 20:03, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
 * It is possible, I've just been very very busy. I'm so sorry, I'll try to do it this weekend.--v/r - TP 22:43, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * No worries, thanks TP! --Usernameunique (talk) 02:54, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

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)

Hello
My apologies for being a bother again, but Snoogansnoogans still seems to be mass-editing pages to character-assassinate any prominent individuals and organisations critical of Islamism or mass-immigration, in order to turn Wikipedia into his own personal propaganda machine. I thought that he was not allowed to do that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Snooganssnoogans&offset=&limit=500&target=Snooganssnoogans

David A (talk) 17:37, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Snoo is prohibited from making the same edit to a large number of articles in a short amount of time. In the past, he was copying and pasting the same content to 5+ articles in under 2 minutes each or less.  I looked at the contribs you've posted and they seem to be different edits with much more time in between each edit.  While I suspect you're right about his intentions, his editing is predominately of a singular point of view and purpose with minor deviations, these are not the same edits that led to his ban.--v/r - TP 18:37, 27 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Okay. Thank you for responding.
 * Nevertheless, I am very concerned about that he is turning Wikipedia far too onesided and biased regarding these issues, in a dangerous time when the full spectrum of facts and statistics are necessary for proper evaluation.
 * At the very least, is this not something that is heavily discouraged by Wikipedia, and if so, would you or somebody you know be willing to properly investigate and launch another case against him? David A (talk) 14:47, 28 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) 23:33, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

UTRSBot edit summaries
Hey! How have you been?

UTRSBot left this edit on my talk and it's a problem – reveals an underlying IP address in the edit summary. Suboptimal. Let me know when you get the bot fixed so I can oversight it. (FWIW, I really don't want to be notified every time there's a UTRS appeal like this. Another admin/CU needs to take a second look anyway. If I can opt out, let me know how to do it.) Thanks. :-) Katietalk 00:49, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * That's really strange. I don't have access to the code at the moment to change anything, you'll need to contact DeltaQuad.  In the meantime, I've disabled that task.  I'll leave a note in the interface so everyone is aware.--v/r - TP 02:24, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I think it only happens when the block is for an account-appealing-an-underlying-IP-block, which is itself a rare situation, and even rarer is using UTRS to send a help request to the blocking admin. I've scrolled back up over a month in UTRSBot's contribs and cannot find an earlier example of this situation happening (although to be fair it's liable to have happened in the past). Ben · Salvidrim!   &#9993;  02:46, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I was thinking the same thing. But as my time is sparse and I don't have access to fix the problem, I went with the safest solution.--v/r - TP 02:47, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Invitation to Admin confidence survey
Hello,

Beginning in September 2017, the Wikimedia Foundation Anti-harassment tool team will be conducting a survey to gauge how well tools, training, and information exists to assist English Wikipedia administrators in recognizing and mitigating things like sockpuppetry, vandalism, and harassment.

The survey should only take 5 minutes, and your individual response will not be made public. This survey will be integral for our team to determine how to better support administrators.

To take the survey sign up here and we will send you a link to the form.

We really appreciate your input!

Please let us know if you wish to opt-out of all massmessage mailings from the Anti-harassment tools team.

For the Anti-harassment tools team, SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 19:52, 13 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)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Previously deleted draft
Template:Previously deleted draft has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Steel1943 (talk) 15:32, 27 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)

UTRSBot edit summaries
Previous thread: User talk:TParis/Archive 16
 * I've looked into and have now resolved this issue. Apparently I introduced the issue back in trying to fix another bug in b850e12. It also required additional oversight of 8 edits from late December 2016 to Mid July 2017. 10 appeals were affected, 1 edit never got made. Please if we see this issue again let me know, especially because of the level of privacy issues involved. It's possible to run MySQL queries to figure out if the issue is isolated or not. So with everything restored, I am going to re-enable the bot task. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 14:42, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Ty for taking care of this. Sometime we need to resolve my access issues and I also need more Git training because I'm not being effective at it =(.--v/r - TP 14:46, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I've actually fixed the permissions issue so we don't have to fight for access to the files every time we want to deploy something. Anyway I'm around all weekend and Monday, so come and find me and I can set you back up. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 15:07, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

RfA

 * - that  is an aspersion  if ever there was one, vindictive, spiteful, snarky, and thoroughly  unbecoming  for  an admin, . I  may  be unconventional  at  times but  I have moved Wikipedia to  several major changes in  policy, have a good reputation  for  fairness and judgement, and I don't  have a record of deserving  such harassment -  least  of all  not  from  you. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:26, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Harassment? And least of all from me?  You seem be out of touch with what those words mean.  You're not displaying fairness and good judgement in that conversation and coming here to accuse me of harassment displays even less.  Have a good day, Kudpung.  I hope whatever is causing you to react aggressively and to direct that at me eventually resolves itself so you can come at this with a clear head.--v/r - TP 03:30, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah, and if I have something to be vindictive about, please bring it up so we can resolve it. I'm not sure what kind ≤of past argument we've had that you believe I'm being vindictive about, but lets clear the air.--v/r - TP 03:41, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The amazing thing  is that  I  always had a lot  of respect for you and never had a previous  disagreement. Your es, and threat  of using  things against me should I  ever venture to  run for  arbcom (heaven forbid) is inappropriate and little less than a veiled PA. I  don't  know what  I  have ever done to  offend you, maybe it  is this, but being  vindictive just  because you  object to  me sharing  an opinion with that of  and a  is no reason to make such a mean spirited statement. It  puts  you  in  the same league as those whose inappropriate votes we trying  to protect  our  horrible and broken RfA process from. Threatening  to  turn an Arbcom  election  out  of vengeance into  yet  another horrible and broken process is surely not a solution. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:50, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Curious that you should take it so personally as to think I'm out for vengeance. No, I simply oppose Arbs who believe ad hominems are acceptable if they agree with their point of view.  I intend to oppose GW as well should she run again.  The fact that either of you find ed17's behavior appropriate is a deal breaker.  It's not mean spirited, it's a matter of precedent.  Arbcom has ruled against that stance over a half dozen times now.  Editors have been topic banned and site banned for your view.  Trying to tie it with RfA reform is simply a strawman approach to avoid confronting the real line that you've crossed.  And you accusation of "harassment" against me, for replying to you when you initiated the conversation with me, is simply so far into WP:NPA territory that I cannot take any of your other accusations against Francis seriously.  You've got a bone to pick with someone over something, there is something unrelated that is bothering you, and you're expressing that frustration toward me.  I really hope you resolve it and in the meantime, I won't take this personally.--v/r - TP 13:25, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Tom, regardless of anything else, a random drive-by "I'll remember this in the future" comment is pretty shitty. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:14, 15 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Sorry TP, it's a bit hypocritical to condemn 's comments and then cast aspersions at in the same breath.   Gamaliel  ( talk ) 15:53, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello Gamaliel. I'm sorry but I'd rather not discuss this with you.  I've already managed to sour our relationship, regretfully, and I don't want to do it anymore damage.--v/r - TP 15:55, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * P.S.: I am happy that you felt comfortable enough to come here though; that's a bit of an improvement, I think.--v/r - TP 15:59, 15 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Wow. Amazed that you're being so defensive of blatant sexism manifest on Wikipedia. I'm stunned that you seem to think that that's actually a reasonable comment and it's the people calling out the obvious sexism who are out of line. The user is literally opposing because they alledge that she will have an anti-male/pro-female bias, simply because she's a woman who writes about women. The implication is that she's going to be some sort of militant feminist gender crusader who's going to use the admin bit to conduct "positive discrimination". That is sexist. Absolutely insane that you're making excuses as to why it shouldn't/can't be called out. Christ. Then threatening someone who points out that it's not cool to be like that at RfA. S warm   ♠  16:50, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Again, as I said to Kudpung, you're engaged in a strawman. I've never said it was a reasonable comment or that it wasn't sexism.  I said the response to it violates policy, specifically WP:ASPERSIONS and that there are processes to handle it.  Citing the Manning naming dispute Arbcom case, just because discrimination is present doesn't mean we suspend all of our behavioral policies.  But, please, ignore everything I've said and continue to argue about what you imagine someone once said that pissed you off.  And it can't be called out *this way*.  Everytime we've have these issues go to Arbcom, they've routinely rejected ad hominems and the editors involved in them have been topic or site banned.  Again, see the Manning naming dispute.  If you want to call it out, do it appropriately.--v/r - TP 17:00, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * P.S. These are the same accusations I faced then too and I was right in the end. I was called transphobic, sexist, and a bigot for pointing out how you address it is just as important as what you are addressing.  Don't confuse criticizing your methods for criticizing your message.--v/r - TP 17:09, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:14, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, you're right about that.--v/r - TP 19:28, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

I apologize for posting here again. I know you didn't want to engage on this issue so I'll say my piece and leave it at that. I think so many people are posting here because they know you are a reasonable person capable of weighing both sides of the matter. I'm sorry that you were unjustly accused, that's unacceptable, and I see how that experience would make you sympathetic to the plight of someone who you think might be likewise unjustly labeled. But your sympathies should lie not with the sexist voter, but with Megalibrarygirl, who is herself unjustly accused of bias with absolutely zero evidence besides the sexist suppositions of some random editor. You have the best of intentions but unfortunately you're falling into the same pattern we see so often in this toxic community, where the worst of us are vociferously defended while the best of us are thrown to the wolves. Gamaliel ( talk ) 16:38, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I would not say that Francis has been vociferously defended and MLG has been thrown to the wolves. Quite the opposite.  MLG has lots of support from some very influential people.  My concerns aren't this one instance.  My concern is that each time we're in this situation, we're so narrowly focused on the specific instance that we forget all other considerations.  I'm not on Francis' "side".  I'm on Wikipedia's side.  You, Kudpung, GW, The ed17 and I all have to get along tomorrow and it starts with some level of agreement on conduct.  One of those is ASPERSIONS.  Just like the Manning case, when editors feel they are defending a worthy cause, there is a sense that they'll get a pass on behavior.  I don't want to see our level of knowledge-based debate and discussion fall into the clutches of name-calling.  We're better than that.  There are processes in place to raise the sexism issues.--v/r - TP 19:13, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Should this not apply to Megalibrarygirl as well? Why should she be subject to aspersions from the likes of Francis?  It's true that she has some influential support, but that's not the point at all.  You can't handwave the problem away by alluding to "processes in place" because we've both spent enough time immersed in those processes to know they are ineffective, pointless wastes of time.  The point is that her RFA should be free of those aspersions, not just for her sake, but more importantly for the sake of countless other volunteers who are looking at this shitshow and thinking if someone as well-connected as Megalibrarygirl is subject to sexist abuse from random editors and that abuse is defended by prominent community members, they're going to find other ways and other websites to volunteer their time instead of signing up for that abuse.   Gamaliel  ( talk ) 23:36, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * You've already done that work, why do I need to pile on to that argument? There is a lack of people voicing concern over the ASPERSIONS thrown at Francis, but there is already a resounding chorus of people supporting MLG.  My assistance would not add anything there.  If you believe I am defending abuse by calling out abuse, then we shouldn't be talking.  That's a false dilemma fallacy and I'd expect most editors to be able to recognize one.  There are not two sides to this issue where I must pick the choose the most morale one.  There are multiple sides and concerns.  The most concerning one has ample attention, thanks to you and others for that.  I've placed my focus where the light is dimmest - on ourselves.  This issue raises two very red flags for me, 1) That editors feel that civility is only a thing when we're talking to people we respect, and 2) that editors have become very defensive when the light shines on them.--v/r - TP 00:33, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * P.S. If you think I feel I'm better than anyone else, I'm entirely aware that I've been (and still am) a real asshole the last year or so. Not going to make excuses, I'm guilty of throwing civility to the wind too and I seriously doubt I'll stop in the future.  But, at least I (generally) admit when I'm not being my best self.--v/r - TP 00:36, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Despite RfA being mysteriously  tolerated as that one playground where users can be as disrespectful, abusive, and  intolerant as they  like  with almost total impunity, there are still  some people  who want  some slum  clearance in  order to  attract  more candidates of the right  calibre and I'm one of them, and bone I have to pick is is not with you personally but with everyone and anyone who is determined keep RfA as a squalid back alley of Wikipedia. For their being at the root of such enormous drama 's and  votes have attracted huge criticism including from some of our fairest admins such as , , and , and stalwarts of decency such as
 * At that statement  of admission of yours above, I  suppose if they  were mean spirited enough one could say the same thing:   to  you, but it's probably  unlikely  that  you  would even want  to  be on  that  committee anyway. More to  the point, however, as throwing civility to the wind is not  compatible with  the role of sysop it is possible that you may have reached the point  where anyone really mean enough  might  tally up  your poor comments, stalk  your  future ones, and make a case against  you at Arbcom. Don't get  me wrong - admins, , , and I, are not mean spirited, vindictive, or vengeful  people but  I  can't  speak  for  the rest  of the community  who might not be on  your  side. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:31, 19 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Not sure what I'm doing here, but OK--TParis that was kind of a mean thing to say but Kudpung, surely you've heard worse. Maybe this hurts more because TParis is not an idiot. Anyway--I hadn't seen the Schonken remark/vote. I think that was a pretty stupid thing to say. Y'all have a great evening... Drmies (talk) 02:37, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I have no wish to prolong this discussion, as I feel like it's reached a natural conclusion and everyone's had their say. I just wanted to add that "defending abuse" was a poor choice of words on my part and implies some nasty things about you that were not intended.  Sorry, I should have worded that particular point differently.   Gamaliel  ( talk ) 03:28, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2017/Electoral Commission
Just in case you have pings turned off, or the software messed up, I've closed Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2017/Electoral Commission, and ... (drumroll) ... you've been asked to be a 2nd reserve commissioner, if two of the 3 (or DoRD) can't serve after all. Please take a look at that page for a couple of comments I made in the close, particularly the fact that I kind of volunteered you for something.... I hope that was OK, I figured you'd be willing to help since you volunteered to be on the actual commission. Thanks for volunteering. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:20, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your close. I have no problem advising, but somehow I doubt it'll be necessary.  We've got 3 great commissioners.--v/r - TP 02:33, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't doubt the quality of the commissioners; just their experience with undocumented, rather arcane processes. Maybe I'm concerned for no reason. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:03, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Sources for your Ford Island Article
Sir,

Regrettably, my publisher (Naval Institute Press) will not accept footnotes for Wikipedia articles, this despite many of the newer postings rising to the level of excellent journal articles. As a fall back, NIP is directing me to consult various sources in the articles so as to produce footnotes based on those sources, or, to contact the authors (my preferred fall back), and cite interviews or correspondence with those individuals. I would be happy to cite you personally in the notes, and in the acknowledgements as well, and to send you a copy of my book when it is finished.

There is at least one article that I referenced in my notes that has no sources referenced for the first two paragraphs of the article. I need to speak with you to inquire what those sources were. The URL for the article, which I believe is yours, lies below: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ford_Island&action=history

Thank you a great deal for your time.

Mike Wenger (nahaufklarer) Raleigh, North Carolina USA wengerm@mindspring.com Nahaufklarer (talk) 19:41, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Mike, the way Wikipedia structures articles, the first two paragraphs that you are referencing is what we call a "lede". The lede summarizes the rest of the article.  If you're looking at a particular fact in the lede, it is probably covered in more detail later in the article and you will find an inline citation that supports the fact there.  If you cannot find it further in the article, let me know and I'll revise the lede.  I can tell you upfront and honestly that I am not an expert on Ford Island.  I used tertiary sources to put it together.  I'm not personally cite worthy. If your question is about Hawaiian culture, I am not of Hawaiian heritage.  You'll want to verify facts with someone from that culture, like User:Mark Miller or even the Bishop Museum to ensure cultural sensitivity.--v/r - TP 21:10, 26 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)

Hashing things out
It's a bit frustrating to read that you should "hash things out" with someone you have an interaction ban with. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:31, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

ADJEAD
Regarding my "petty and unfair" question, were it to have been given in a vacuum, I'd agree that it would be a "gotcha" example of me trying to trip someone up for not knowing every policy. However, the context of this was ADJEAD repeatedly demanding authorization to run a bot to slap the WPUK template on every article relating to the UK in any way, despite there being specific instructions on the WPUK page that the template is for general UK-related articles, not for articles falling into the assorted sub-projects (were this not the case, WPUK would probably have over a million articles falling into its remit); he also wanted to run a bot to add the  field to every WikiProject template, even though many WikiProjects—including some of the largest and most active ones like WP:VA—have made explicit decisions to exclude the importance field from the templates, so if he'd actually gone ahead with this it would have meant someone wasting a lot of time mass-reverting him to avoid editors trying to fill in the blank importance fields in good faith and getting confused when their ratings weren't visible. Given that this is someone asking to be given a position where the principal requirement is attention to detail and understanding of current policies, guidelines and unwritten consensuses and how they interact, I'd argue that my question and how he answers it is directly relevant, especially in light of the fact that the entire history of his talkpage consists of little more than assorted people saying variants of "stop what you're doing and actually read the instructions first". ‑ Iridescent 16:20, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

ANI Experiences survey
The Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative (led by the Safety and Support and Anti-Harassment Tools team) is conducting a survey for en.wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with the Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works - which problems it deals with well, and which problems it struggles with.

The survey should take 10-20 minutes to answer, and your individual responses will not be made public. The survey is delivered through Google Forms. The privacy policy for the survey describes how and when Wikimedia collects, uses, and shares the information we receive from survey participants and can be found here:


 * https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/2017_AN/Incidents_Survey_Privacy_Statement

If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be mailed to you via Special:Emailuser.


 * Sign up here to receive a link to a survey

Thank you on behalf of the Support & Safety and Anti-Harassment Tools Teams, Patrick Earley (WMF) talk 18:24, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Precious three years!
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:24, 7 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)

Donald Trump
I think that there are some rather serious problems with this article. As can be seen on the article talk page, I have expressed serious concerns about a lede that already looks grossly over balanced in favor of the subject's presidential term becoming even more unbalanced. I think the input of a knowledgeable admin who might not have the same presuppositions as many of the editors there would be very beneficial. John Carter (talk) 16:12, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I have a very strong perception of being politically partisan on this project. I don't think my involvement would be helpful.  Besides, I'm a currently serving military member and I hate to even consider the COIs involved and potential reprimands that I could receive if I didn't favor the subject.  It's just better overall if I don't edit there.  Sorry.--v/r - TP 19:57, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Noting I mentioned you
I have made a proposal (not an RfC yet) about admins and COI/paid editing, here: Wikipedia_talk:Administrators. I copied evidence there that i had gathered in the arbcom case, and this time I kept the part where i mentioned you. Last time you asked me to notify you in addition to pinging you - so I have this time!Jytdog (talk) 21:58, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * That looks like a reasonable background statement. I don't think my participating is needed, but if anyone has a specific question, then I'll be around.--v/r - TP 23:06, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

UTRS Tool Admin
Just Chilling (talk) 02:01, 20 December 2017 (UTC) I've replied. Thanks.--v/r - TP 02:02, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Many thanks! Just Chilling (talk) 02:09, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, hey, welcome to the team!  didn't poke me about your promotion to tooladmin (even though he thrust upon me to "role" of Tool Ambassador some time ago :p) so I only just noticed. Since OAuth was implemented we don't approve accounts manually anymore, most of what we do is just ban management and responding to the mailing list. The mailing is... kinda just me, and sometimes Ponyo for CU-related matters. I see you haven't added an e-mail to your Wikipedia account so I'm not sure if you're interested in pitching in there as well, let me know, it's just a Googlegroups list and me and DQ are the listadmins. And if you're ever interested in reporting issues or dabbling in code, UTRS is a GitHub project. Even coding neophytes such as me can do small fixes sometimes :D. Thanks again for all your tireless help! :)  Ben · Salvidrim!   &#9993;  03:39, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

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)

Message
Hi, another Wikiperson identified you as having been the admin who deleted a page, in which I have an interest, in 2012. The details are on my talk page. Sorry to bother your semi-retirement!! :) Charlie Sanders (talk) 12:43, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Moved from User:TParis. Ben · Salvidrim!   &#9993;  16:42, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Restored to Draft for you. Since this was deleted by a full discussion, it cannot be moved back to article space without proper improvement and a review (or it's likely to be speedied as WP:CSD). Go to Draft:Deakin University Student Association. I left the redirect at the original page name, and I've added the AfC banner (to allow easy request of a review) and a reference section. Ron h jones (Talk) 19:25, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Pinging since he's the one who requested it, I just moved a misplaced message. ;)  Ben · Salvidrim!   &#9993;  20:28, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Oh, um, my pronouns are she/her/hers/comrade/comrade’s/they/them/their. I do not identify either medically or emotionally as ‘he’. But thank you for the tag! Charlie Sanders (talk) 07:33, 24 December 2017 (UTC) (It’s short for Charlotte.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charlie Sanders (talk • contribs) 07:34, 24 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)

Seeking your input for The Signpost
TParis: I have been doing The Signpost's arbitration reports for a few issues now. For this issue we are preparing a writeup on the Mister Wiki case that just closed. I followed your input keenly, particularly what you wrote in the workshop phase. I'd like to invite you to prepare an up to 250 word response to the report I've drafted, or really whatever you think the readers should know about the case. I'll be asking another key contributor for input as well.

Right now we are really close to our proposed publication deadline, so if you would like to contribute please tell me if you could do it by the end of day Friday (Pacific Time). If the publication deadlines don't line up with your availability, then of course you can post your reader comments after publication as usual. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:52, 11 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)

WP:ANI

 * Lamest edit wars.--v/r - TP 01:02, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Hence why I've not reverted and have since contributed to this place .... but hey thanks for your insightful and extremely valued comments. – Davey 2010 Talk 01:04, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Collaboration disscussion
Hell TParis, I'd like to make a quick comment on your final responses to the now closed Admin Incident report regarding Collaboration with the Nazis discussion. The issue here was user François Robere's sanitization of parts of the article related to Jewish collaboration in Poland by removing text backed by reliable references related to the Jewish Ghetto Police, Judenrat and organizations such as Żagiew and Group 13, which worked directly for the German Gestapo. Also, user François Robere, repeatedly removed reliable reference sources and statements, which discussed comparisons of how may Poles collaborated vs. how many aided Jews. --E-960 (talk) 09:01, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Last point, I'd like to draw your attention to Cullen328's final comment on the Admin noticeboard, in which he called everyone who objected to user François Robere's editing as "nationalists", without considering the facts surrounding the issue because if François Robere was removing references to Polish collaboration vs. aid, what "nationalist" editor was trying to hide Polish collaboration? Again, this shows how media is blurring everyone's perception of the issue, that even and editor such as my self is vilified because of my background and have no leg to stand on in an debate - automatically perceived to have malicious intent. --E-960 (talk) 09:08, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * You have completely mischaracterized my comment, . I called no specific editor involved in this dispute a "nationalist" and expressed no opinion on the underlying content issue. Instead, I wrote that Wikipedia is fortunate to have editors willing to do the hard work to ensure that we have accurate, neutral articles about Nazi collaboration. If you share those goals, then how can you possibly object to my statement? Cullen328  Let's discuss it  18:15, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * If that's the case I can apologize, just came across as if the 'nationalist' tag was leveled against Polish editors. --E-960 (talk) 20:13, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Edit summaries
If you haven't gotten the memo, edit summaries are now 1000 characters long. That means when you copy your entire message into the edit summary, it shows in the history. As this is rather unnecessary, I would ask that you please cease from doing so. Obviously, writing a summary is okay, it's just the huge blocks of text that are a little much. An example can be seen here. Thanks. Primefac (talk) 02:03, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * did you get lost on your way to 's talk page? :p 'cause that's who posted the diff you linked to ;) Ben · Salvidrim!   &#9993;  02:06, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Apparently some things are invisible to my non-sysop eyes, but fortunately I retain the ability to meddle in other people's business and stick my foot in my mouth! Ben · Salvidrim!   &#9993;  02:10, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Is there broad consensus for the use of RD3 to redact those edit summaries as "Purely disruptive material"? If not, you might want to revert your inappropriate use of revdel.--v/r - TP 02:07, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * No, but I don't think there's broad agreement to even have the 1k char limit in the first place. I've had multiple people ask me off-wiki to revdel the edit summaries, and while there is already a VPR discussion about the summaries themselves, I'm happy to discuss the issue further at AN. Primefac (talk) 02:10, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * We can discuss the 1K character limit all day - but RevDel has very strict guidelines on its use. I'm not trying to make a power-play here, but I really think you should revert that use.  I think 1K is stupid, too.  I have been in a habit of doing edit summaries my way for ages and your message isn't going to stop me overnight from a habit years in the making.  But that doesn't justify revdel use.--v/r - TP 02:12, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I will also note that H:ES has a line about Edit summaries should accurately and succinctly summarize the nature of the edit so really copy/pasting your message into the edit summary isn't really following the spirit of the guidelines.
 *  I will remove the revdel until the matter can be more formally resolved, but I do ask that you refrain from unnecessarily long edit summaries if they can be avoided. Primefac (talk) 02:14, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * They can easily be avoided. It's unlearning the habit that's hard.--v/r - TP 02:19, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * True, I have a few habits myself that I've been meaning to get rid of. For what it's worth, I've started the discussion. You're welcome to join in or not, but I did use your edit as an example (mostly because it was one of the three I'd actually written down). Primefac (talk) 02:24, 2 March 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)

April 2018 Milhist Backlog Drive
G'day all, please be advised that throughout April 2018 the Military history Wikiproject is running its annual backlog elimination drive. This will focus on several key areas:


 * tagging and assessing articles that fall within the project's scope
 * adding or improving listed resources on Milhist's task force pages
 * updating the open tasks template on Milhist's task force pages
 * creating articles that are listed as "requested" on the project's various 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 scope of military history will be considered eligible. This year, the Military history project would like to extend a specific welcome to members of WikiProject Women in Red, and we would like to encourage all participants to consider working on helping to improve our coverage of women in the military. This is not the sole focus of the edit-a-thon, though, and there are aspects that hopefully will appeal to pretty much everyone.

The drive starts at 00:01 UTC on 1 April and runs until 23:59 UTC on 30 April 2018. Those interested in participating can sign up here.

For the Milhist co-ordinators, AustralianRupert and MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:53, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXLIIV, April 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) 09:55, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXLIV, May 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) 15:00, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks
Just wanted to thank you for your very reasonable and even-handed comment. Indeed, we are both strong personalities, but I'm happy to say we resolved our differences and put it behind us; so no old wounds opened, they have healed cleanly. I truly appreciate you leaving a thoughtful comment, and I would have done the same for you. Hope you are well and all the best. Andrevan@ 01:29, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

BLP issues on British politics articles arbitration case opened
You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Arbitration/Requests/Case/BLP issues on British politics articles. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Arbitration/Requests/Case/BLP issues on British politics articles/Evidence. Please add your evidence by June 22, 2018, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Arbitration/Requests/Case/BLP issues on British politics articles/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:17, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Arbitration request
You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Andrevan. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Andrevan/Evidence. Please add your evidence by June 23, 2018, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Andrevan/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.

If you no longer wish to receive notifications for this case please remove your name from the listing here

For the Arbitration Committee, Amortias (T)(C) 19:43, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXLVI, June 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) 10:35, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Help on openHAB article structure/content to avoid deletion
It has been a year since we last chatted and unfortunately, I was just notified that the openHAB draft page is marked for deletion. As you mentioned last year that you would be willing to help to prevent this, it would be awesome, if you might also want to comment on and maybe even help on improving the content so that it meets Wikipedia expectations. Many thanks in advance! Xthirtynine (talk) 20:27, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXLVII, July 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) 12:12, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Cooled down
You are only the second editor I have ever directed a bugger off at, and the first came to my talk page to accuse me of disrespecting the memories of the dead victims of a mass shooting. That might give you a feel for how much offense I've taken to your assertion. To walk into a discussion, clueless of what one thinks and why, and dismiss it as nonsense without a second thought is ... if I AGF hard enough ... poor form. The only reason I'm here at this moment, now that I've cooled off a bit, is that you are an editor I have some serious respect for. Rzvas has been pursuing the candidate since they went to ORCP. At ORCP they presented a biased version of Jbh's participation in an AN/I discussion and accusations of incivility and canvassing, presumably in the hope of swaying the other respondents against Jbh. This was soundly rejected by all involved. All of this was actually brought up by Jbh in their response to Q2 at RfA. On top of that, one of their two arguments to oppose is about a comment that Jbh left Talk:Uebert_Angel. How curious that Rzvas choose to ignore that Jbh had struck the offending comment a mere hour after he'd made it, and how strange that Rzvas went back two years to find it. I suspect that Rzvas did an edit summary search for the word "fuck", of which only two instances exist, and one is not uttered by Jbh. I.e., they were searching specifically for mud to sling. Sockpuppet_investigations/Simon_Mugava/Archive is also relevant concerning that comment. So two times, Rzvas twists the truth to make Jbh out to be the bad guy. That in combination with two other comments, one at the RfA and one on the talk page, which I'll leave you to find, leaves me with the distinct impression that Rzvas is pursuing a grudge. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:40, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Nevermind about what I posted a moment ago, I misunderstood the context. I'm now reading the rest of your comment.--v/r - TP 00:17, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * So I've read the rest of your comment and I was accused of the same exact stuff. See Requests_for_adminship/Northamerica1000_2 and it's corresponding talk page.  I'd been watching a user that I hadn't had much trouble with but I knew was ambitous and I won't say more to as not to stir up more trouble.  But I didn't have a good impression of them.  I remembered incidents that happened that I made no comment about at the time because others had already voiced my concerns.  But, I remembered them and I brought them up at RfA.  Those memories were shrugged off as a personal grudge.  So, excuse me if I have a problem seeing oppose !voters ignored because of acusations of grudges.  There is no rule against opposing someone you have a grudge with, number one, and two, people with grudges have the best memories.--v/r - TP 00:25, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * On the one hand, looking at the RfA you are linking, you were, by far, the most vocal person against their candidacy. On the other hand, I can't find you searching for reasons to sling mud at the candidate... well except perhaps the conjectural "the candidate has been coached to not participate in the RfA", though that's directed at both the candidate and the nominators. I don't know how things were done in 2014, though based on MelanieM's and Bagumba's comment it's not that different, but in 2016-8 the advice to the candidate has always been to not engage with the !voters. However, I don't see these two instances as being in any way comparable. I'm probably wrong that it's a grudge. There is practically no history between Rzvas and Jbhunley to speak of (something I've only just now thought to look for). Yet they've still gone to some lengths to misrepresent the candidate. First at ORCP, a place they'd never been before, to cast aspersions over an incident in which they were never involved in. They actually chose to double down and bring the same (non-)issue up again as part of their oppose rationale. Then at RfA where they went digging for dirt and took the first thing they could get hold of to throw at the candidate. This gives me worse vibes than a grudge. Oooh... hmm... I think I found what I'm looking for. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:57, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Featured articles by length
Hey there, I see WP:Featured articles/By length has stopped updating. Any chance you might be able to get it going again? Thanks, --Usernameunique (talk) 02:18, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Sure, I'll take a look when I get home.--v/r - TP 15:04, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Sounds good, thanks! --Usernameunique (talk) 06:04, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXLVIII, August 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) 08:35, 12 August 2018 (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, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:54, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXLIX, September 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) 22:19, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Milhist coordinator election voting has commenced
G'day everyone, voting for the 2018 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, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:35, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Milhist coordinator election voting has commenced
G'day everyone, voting for the 2018 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, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:22, 15 September 2018 (UTC) Note: the previous version omitted a link to the election page, therefore you are receiving this follow up message with a link to the election page to correct the previous version. We apologies for any inconvenience that this may have caused.

Featured articles by length
Hi there, sorry for another message about this, especially as I see you are now semi-retired. (Congrats: four days a week on the golf course?) In any event, the WP:Featured articles/By length page had a singular update last month, so thanks if you were behind it. It hasn't updated since. It stopped automatically updating exactly a year after you first put the bot back into motion, and so I wonder if there is just something simple about the code that needs to be adjusted in order to get it running again. Thanks, --Usernameunique (talk) 18:37, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The Wikimedia software API got an update and the old endpoints that the script used are no longer valid. I managed to force it through once, but I have to update the framework to the latest and I havent been able to do it yet.--v/r - TP 02:20, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Have your say!
Hi everyone, just a quick reminder that voting for the WikiProject Military history coordinator election closes soon. You only have a day or so left to have your say about who should make up the coordination team for the next year. If you have already voted, thanks for participating! If you haven't and would like to, vote here before 23:59 UTC on 28 September. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:29, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

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) 07:01, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

About Chandra Shekher Mishra Unblock Request
Right now the wikipedia admin has added some content on my talk page which you would see before taking any decision but don't forget to watch  the history please as to hide the truth he has deleted the content which i added so you please read that. And sir, everytime the thing which seems true isnt. I should be given a chance and i would not do any mistake this time. So please do unblock me. I can do thousands of edits for sure. So please.117.234.29.253 (talk) 12:14, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Any idea what this is about?--v/r - TP 15:22, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Yep, see User talk:Chandra Shekher Mishra. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:27, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Doesn't look like something that needs additional scruitiny. Good block.  Thanks.--v/r - TP 15:36, 13 November 2018 (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)

Hello?
How often do you check-in? <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme ✍🏻📧 02:52, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I check my email at least every other day and I have talk page alerts turned on, but other than that, I don't visit often. How are you?  How is your holiday season going?--v/r - TP 18:24, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * , you should nominate me for 'crat. ;-) — CYBERPOWER  ( Chat ) 18:28, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * IIRC, you failed the RFA I nominated you for. Are you sure you want my nom?  You have it if you want it.--v/r - TP 19:35, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * , I was being semi-serious. While I wouldn’t mind being a bureaucrat, right now my plate is full.  Maybe next month? — CYBERPOWER  ( Chat ) 20:05, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Voter Guide
Hi. Your comment next to my name on your voter guide says: "Her views on paid editing will drive it underground and make the encyclopedia less reliable. I don't want to see her enforce those views on Arbcom. Although I do support a hard stand on promotional editing." I don't recognise myself in those comments, and am curious if you have mixed me up with someone else, or if not, if you could point out how you came to that view from what I have said. SilkTork (talk) 20:49, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I did confuse you with someone else. I'm so sorry.  I don't engage in the community as often anymore and sometimes my memories cross.--v/r - TP 20:57, 20 November 2018 (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. Thank you. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:11, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Re: User:EEng's request
Per your request, I am outlining my rationale for removing your comments. Despite your selective reading of WP:TPG, the guidelines permit the removal of personal attacks and trolling at Talk_page_guidelines. Your image is an attack at both editors in the dispute that calls them both foolish; which they may be, but it's still a personal attack. As you've used WP:ADMINACCT to compel my response to your question, I assume it means you agree I acted solely in an admin capacity and I maintain my WP:UNINVOLVED status with regards to you. If you have any other questions, feel free bring them to a noticeboard.--v/r - TP 16:44, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Undoubtedly, I expect my talk page to get blown up by the fan club. My lunch break is over, so ya'all will have to accept my timely responses later.--v/r - TP 16:46, 30 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)

Pssst
It's nice to see you back. -- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 21:25, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Although I hate to say I think it'll be short lived like the other resurrections.  My passion hasn't been here in a long time.--v/r - TP 21:26, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, we'll take what we can get I suppose!-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 22:57, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:59, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you!--v/r - TP 15:39, 7 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)

UTRS appeal #23556
Hi,

You've assigned this UTRS appeal and said that you cannot find a block affecting this user. However,this would appear to be an IP block because UTRS is stating "IP address/autoblock underneath an account". Therefore we should really be requesting the IP address.-- 5 albert square (talk) 01:14, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Rog, will do.--v/r - TP 01:20, 14 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)

Honolulu Museum of Art edit-a-thon
Aloha TParis, I hope you've been well! I worked with you a few years ago on an edit-a-thon at Shangri La in Honolulu (I participated as AwakesUndo, but subsequently lost access to that account). I'm now at the Honolulu Museum of Art, and am planning a half-day edit-a-thon for February 8, 2019. The focus is on expanding existing articles about Hawai'i artists using, among other sources, a newly digitized collection of the museum's member newsletter, which contains biographical information, information about exhibitions, etc. For the Shangri La edit-a-thon, you helped us to set up an event page on WP:GLAM. Would you be the person to contact about this? Would you like to participate in the event? I've enlisted a couple of other local editors to help on that day too. Please let me know! Many thanks as always, AwedOakSun (talk) 03:03, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello! I can help but the best person to speak to is Richard Knipel who goes by the username User:Pharos.  When the Shangri La edit-a-thon was being planned, he connected you with me, then.  Unfortunately, I've moved to Texas and I'm not longer in the local area.  And, really, my activity on Wikipedia has died.  If you're interested in getting a project page started, though, you can create a subpage of GLAM/.  I'd recommend building a list of articles and references for those articles prior to the edit-a-thon as a resource for your newer editors.  You can also leave a message on the US GLAM talk page, as well, letting folks know about your event.  And maybe create a template to tag the pages you worked on.--v/r - TP 16:40, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much, TParis. I'll get in touch with Pharos, and will also set up the article list the way we did last time. Will look into creating templates as well. Thank you again, and hope all's well with you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by AwedOakSun (talk • contribs) 21:45, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!
<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:#01902a; background-color:#fff; border-width:3px; text-align:left; padding:2px;"><div style="border-style:solid; border-color:red; background-color:#fff; border-width:2px; text-align:left; padding:6px;" class="plainlinks">

The SandDoctor Talk is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas6}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Wishing you and you family all the best in 2019. Keep up the good work! -- The SandDoctor Talk 07:39, 25 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)

Snoogossamams (or however you spell it)
Hey, I've noticed you saying several times something along the lines of "Snoog's editing efforts are focused almost exclusively on adding negative material to Conservative BLPs." I just wanted to pop in and say that Snoog has been on my radar for a few months now, and I'll admit that I sometimes get that impression as well, especially when I first encountered them, though less now. The things that have held me back from placing any additional sanction on Snoog are:
 * 1) In the disputes that come to my attention (I tend to sniff around every time they get talkpage warnings) Snoog has been more on the right side of WP policy than the people they're fighting with.
 * 2) There are a lot of complaints, but every time I look more closely the problems seem smaller
 * 3) Their editing is actually not focused solely on adding negative material to conservative articles, and they do edit against their POV. This recent edit war comes to mind (representative diff) where Snoog went up to 3RR reverting sourced negative info out of the BLP of Ryan Zinke (a Trump cabinet member under investigation for ethics concerns). If your assessment were correct I'd have expected to see Snoog on the other side of that edit war.
 * 4) They actually do make a lot of good edits focused on just maintaining articles. A lot of the POV pushers in the area don't do that...they take the "safer" route of opining relentlessly on talk pages, occasionally sticking their neck out for a single revert here or there, but mostly just showing up to vote for their tribe on talkpages, RfCs, AfDs, and noticeboard threads. (I tend to prefer editors who actually put some time into...you know...building an encyclopedia.)

Obviously I can't definitively say that you're wrong, and I don't have the time to dig in and thoroughly analyze their thousands of edits, which I realize you did a bit of back in 2017. And I do think that the outcome of that AE report was good. Surprisingly good. I really like it when a sanction directly addresses the problem that precipitated it. Snoog wasn't on my radar back then but I wonder if they haven't improved since then.

Anyway I think it's clear they are "left leaning". But I haven't seen them cross any lines, otherwise I would have already placed sanctions myself. I suspect part of the problem is volume (you annoy more people when you make 8,000 edits per year) and part is their more aggressive editing style (they aren't shy about reverting). If I do come to see a problem I will definitely try to intervene with a sanction that directly addresses the problem, allowing the user to still channel their energy into improving the encyclopedia while minimizing disruption or collateral damage. ~Awilley (talk) 20:40, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note. It's possible that I'm wrong.  I don't get into the history of articles deeply these days as much as I used to to keep tabs on editors that I'm aware of.  I admit that a 2-year old impression is, well, two years old.  I tend to keep quiet about this stuff because I know I have a reputation, which I don't agree with, as a right-leaning sysop.  I admit I'm right of the general Wikipedia editor, but I'm still left of center.  But, that perception of me is other people's reality.  If they believe I'm right-leaning, then all of my actions will be seen through that lens.  So, I've steered clear of that topic area to avoid causing disruption.  Despite that, Snoo continues to appear on my radar somehow and so my impression over two years hasn't changed because of it.  I appreciate you keeping an eye.  I tend to believe that right-leaning editors receive the least benefit of the doubt and the harshest judgements when there is grey area in a policy.  I even noticed a sysop threatening NOTHERE blocks to one editor who did not support Snoo, and another sysop threaten another with a disruption block.  That baffles me, they did nothing wrong but oppose Snoo.  Anyway, I'll continue to do what I do and just avoid the topic area so as to avoid causing disruption.--v/r - TP 20:48, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I generally think everybody on Wikipedia is a left wing kook. Of course that could be the perceptional bias that comes from being the most rightwing editor on the project. Not sure which... -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:01, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Either way, there is no appetite on this project for investigating long-term civil POV pushing by left-wing activists on here. They're doing the "good work".  One in particular has weaponized Arbcom in the past against conservative editors quite sucessfully.  There are a number of sysops that avoid the topic area just so they can play the uninvolved admin card when a block against a conservative is needed.--v/r - TP 21:10, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * @TP, there are plenty of editors and admins on the project who make it clear which way they lean politically from their editing. You're not one of them in my experience and I wouldn't have been able to guess if you hadn't said anything. (By the way I seem to remember you saying something about having some Libertarian leanings...this would have been over 6 years ago...I only remember it because that StillStanding character was involved somehow.) Anyway I agree with you that there doesn't seem to be an appetite to deal with long-term civil POV pushers, though I think it applies to both left and right. That said, I think there's an argument to be had that we focus too much on the direction that editors or admins lean and not enough on their actual editing. One can have strong views about something and still edit in a reasonably neutral manner. It's just harder to do than editing something you don't feel strongly about. ~Awilley (talk) 22:15, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * You're right, of course. And, I am a Libertarian, though my views have been shifting left as I age.--v/r - TP 00:07, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Indeed. There are a handful of subject areas that I don't touch (cough cough) due to strongly held views. Regards snoog, I've run across him a few times and yeah, some of his edits have caused my eyebrows to go up. But I can't say that I have seen enough that I think it would be considered actionable. But there are definitely cabals of left leaning editors. I ran into at least one during the special election in Alabama and the article Roy Moore. When I first saw it, it looked like it had been written by the DNC. And I say that as one who cordially detests the man. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:15, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, I'll defer to your's and Awilley's opinions on Snoo, then. My impression is based on two year old information and I'm willing to believe it's outdated.--v/r - TP 00:20, 11 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)

WP:Featured articles/By length
Hey there TParis, sorry to bug you about this. Just wondering if you might have some time coming up to update this bot to get it running again. Thanks, --Usernameunique (talk) 07:38, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay, I think I've applied a semi-permanent fix. It should update daily once again.--v/r - TP 03:42, 1 March 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)

UTRSBot
Hi,

FYI UTRSBot does not appear to be notifying users that their appeals are closed. It hasn't done for the past couple of days.-- 5 albert square (talk) 07:36, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi, Cloud Services had some issues we couldn't have prevented. That said, I've set everything so it should run again, but let me know if it doesn't. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 15:48, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I did wonder if the Cloud issues had affected this on the bot. Wasn't 100% sure though which is why I thought I'd flag it just in case.  Thanks for that, it's just closed a whole load!-- 5 albert square (talk) 17:25, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks Amanda!--v/r - TP 17:59, 1 March 2019 (UTC)


 * UTRSBot is again not marking closed requests as closed - hasn't been for a few days now. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:27, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I came here to report the same thing. Tagging in  as well.-- 5 albert square (talk) 23:18, 27 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) 22:00, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Confused
I don't understand this. Atsme told me to get off her talk page, so I did. Am I missing something? R2 (bleep) 15:42, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Basically it means that, per WP:BLANKING, Policy does not prohibit users, whether registered or unregistered, from removing comments from their own talk pages and that per WP:NOBAN, if a user asks you not to edit their user pages, it is sensible to respect their request. TP's comment merely reflects—baldly—accepted practice, I fancy. Happy editing! ——  SerialNumber  54129  16:19, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Why were they swearing at me to "get the fuck off Atsme's talk page and never return"--right after I had just said I would? R2 (bleep) 16:32, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Because the earth is a globe and it rotates so the delayed reaction is attributive to that, solely.--MONGO (talk) 16:55, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Constructive comments only, please? R2 (bleep) 17:42, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * .--MONGO (talk) 18:19, 1 May 2019 (UTC)


 * What more is it that you want? A positive outcome where either Atsme apologizes, I apologize and you feel vindicated or some admin comes by and blocks anyone who has every used an expletive around you?  You aren't entitled to closure.  If you have a bad interaction with someone, drop it and move on.  Don't continue beating the dead horse.  It was a bad idea to continue this on my talk page.--v/r - TP 23:48, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * What a mensch! Bye! R2 (bleep) 00:01, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 special circular
<div class="notice" style="background:#fff1d2; border:1px solid #886644; padding:0.5em; margin:0.5em auto; min-height:40px; line-height:130.7%; font-weight: 130.7%;"> <span style="color:#5871C6;cursor:pointer" class="mw-customtoggle-ArbCom_2019_special_circular"> <div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" id="mw-customcollapsible-ArbCom_2019_special_circular" style="display:none"> <div style="border-style: dotted; border-color: #886644; border-width: 0 3px 3px 3px; padding: 0 0.5em 0.5em 0.5em;">

This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 02:50, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Administrator account security (Correction to Arbcom 2019 special circular)
ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.

Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.

We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.

For the Arbitration Committee, -Cameron11598 21:04, 4 May 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)

UTRS Bot not closing UTRS appeals
Hi,

UTRS Bot hasn't closed appeals in a long time now. Is there any update on what is happening with this?-- 5 albert square (talk) 01:00, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I really don't know. DQ mentioned something about the new OS causing this and she'd know more.  Also, the entire system is about to be rewritten soon so we have that to look forward to.--v/r - TP 01:07, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh joy of joys a new operating system!  is the system being rewritten likely to resolve the issue with UTRSBot?-- 5 albert square (talk) 01:13, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, the system rewrite will definitely fix the issue because it's being written from the ground up. That said, that will take time. I'll see if I can put some time on the old one this week, but no promises. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 06:10, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

TPBot deleted the entire Featured articles/By length
TPBot just deleted the entire Featured articles/By length article. Can I assume that was a malfunction? Jayjg (talk) 14:21, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * It seems the API this bot uses to generate the data must've been down at that time. I ran the bot again and it was successful.--v/r - TP 21:33, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for following up. Jayjg (talk) 13:52, 23 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) 13:08, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

How to shut down a disruptive editor in article talk
Stop responding to them. ― Mandruss  &#9742;  02:11, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * You're not wrong. Thanks.--v/r - TP 02:50, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I have reached the unfortunate conclusion that merely ignoring a certain disruptive editor is an insufficient remedy and that another remedy may be necessary. soibangla (talk) 17:16, 2 July 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)

UTRS bot hoax
Is there a way for me to prevent the bot from continuing to edit my talk page? El_C 04:33, 17 July 2019 (UTC) --UTRSBot (talk) 04:36, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

LOL! Sorry, I seem to have brought some bad juju your way. El_C 04:37, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Never mind, I have discovered — however, there seems to be malicious usage of the bot, which is now being extended to multiple users. El_C 06:44, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Yea, that's some abusive LTA. The system is being rewritten and I think it'll be harder to take advantage of it this way.  There should be a throttle on IP submissions, though.  I'll speak to  about incorporating such a control into the new system.--v/r - TP 23:11, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The new system will require people with usernames to verify their account through the Special:EmailUser system, which will effectively eliminate the talkpage issue, just crate a problem with email spam. I'll make sure some throttling is in there, and we'll add some interface where users can disable appeals on their account for a time or permanently. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 19:39, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you both for your efforts. They are greatly appreciated. El_C 19:40, 19 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you for working to fix this, and to everyone who's been reverting the hoax notices. - <b style="color:#44018F;">Co</b><b style="color: #003878;">rb</b><b style="color: #145073;">ie</b><b style="color: #006E0D">V</b>  ☊ ☼ 17:54, 28 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)

"We aren't here to sell their products"
The wholesale removal of information from Ring Inc. made it less informative, leaving only corporate history and criticism of the company's partnerships with police departments, without any context as to what the products being criticised are. I did trim out some wording that sounded like PR. ViperSnake151  Talk  22:07, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Selling their products on Wikipedia does not make a page more informative. We can make a brief mention of a product inline with the criticism about it.  Ring, Inc has been using that article to advertise for years and the article has been flooded with editors with a COI.--v/r - TP 00:08, 26 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) 07:37, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Noticeboard Notice
Hi TParis, just FYI there is a post at WP:BOTN regarding your bot. The topic is Bots/Noticeboard. Please stop by and reply if you have a moment. — xaosflux  Talk 20:26, 24 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)

Bot gone mad?
What is this about? News to me I'd been blocked, & I therefore launched no appeal. Johnbod (talk) 15:12, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The bot was disabled months ago because some troll is using it to harass others by submitting unblock appeals on their behalf. I disabled it again.--16:30, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks. Johnbod (talk) 16:36, 11 November 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)

UTRSBot not working
I noticed that UTRSBot has not been noting or updating appeals since 11 November. When you have some time, would you be able to take a look at it? Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:19, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The bot is being used by trolls to harass people. They post unblock requests on behalf of a user to get the bot to post something on their talk page.  Since I don't have the time to update it, I disabled it.--v/r - TP 17:58, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:13, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXIV, December 2019
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:48, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXV, January 2020
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:56, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Deletion review for Reggie Arnold
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Reggie Arnold. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Cbl62 (talk) 15:31, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Reggie Arnold
I am confused by your closing summary on Articles for deletion/Reggie Arnold. If you recognize that there is no consensus to delete the article, why did you delete it? Finding a consensus is the point of AFD.--TM 14:07, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I was going to reply, but User:Cbl62 created an out of process WP:DRV without bothering to discuss it first in accordance with the instructions there. So, I'll let the rationale I gave at the AFD stand rather than muddy it.--v/r - TP 15:35, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I am happy to discuss. Can you clarify your rationale? Cbl62 (talk) 15:40, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Clearly not. I'd have shown you the courtesy of a talk page discussion.  As it stands, the DRV can use my rationale at the AFD.--v/r - TP 18:39, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * OK. No disrespect was intended. I apologize if any offense was taken. Cbl62 (talk) 18:43, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

AfD close
It seems like you have grossly misrepresented the delete !votes at this AfD where 4 delete !votes also used GNG, TOOSOON as argument for a promotional article based on one event against several handwaves of WP:RS and a disruptive filibuster of press releases. Can you undo your closure to simple 'Delete'? WP: LASTING is valid since the subject is all about an event. Orientls (talk) 18:13, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * You should reread WP:LASTING. It doesn't say what you think it says.  It actually says the opposite.--v/r - TP 18:17, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Where does it says that one-off event populated in press releases for sometime becomes notable? You must also address your misrepresentation of the delete !votes that all they had was 'WP:LASTING' when it was not the case. Orientls (talk) 19:01, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * You're moving the goalposts. The assertion from the !delete voters is that it isn't notable because it only happened once.  WP:LASTING specifically says "It may take weeks or months to determine whether or not an event has a lasting effect. This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable."  Thus, that argument is incorrect. You're changing that meaning to "one-off event populated in  press releases for sometime becomes notable".  Those are similar lines of thought, but distinctly different.  The first asserts a negative, the second a positive.  You're setting up a false dichotomy fallacy. 5 out of 6 delete !voters cite WP:LASTING as the rationale - 2 of those as the only rationale.  The 6th cites WP:TOOSOON, a essay, which actually isn't even tangentially related because it is speaking about speculative information - this event happened and has verifiable sources. I think the only one misrepresenting anything, especially grossly, is you.--v/r - TP 19:08, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Would have to concur with the comment above in that your closing comment misrepresented the discussion. GNG was contested by all delete contributors - highlighting lack of diversity in reliable sources and the churnalism.  NOTNEWS is policy. DIVERSE is part of the same guideline as LASTING. PROMO is clearly policy. Personally, I find LASTING extremely weak as a guideline here because it essentially allows notability to be deferred and thus creates a core problem of equivocation; it can justify completely different outcomes. Unfortunately, I don't think you are wrong in general, but neither are the others who cited it to justify delete, precisely because it is ambiguous in this case. LASTING is vague in time frames (just how many weeks or months should we wait?)... in this case it is 11.5 months since the event...your argument implicitly seems to be that we have not waited long enough.  Given your justification for rejecting the use of LASTING seems to be that the event has yet to be shown as neither non-notable nor notable; just how long is appropriate in the case of this specific event to keep waiting? 1.5 years? Longer? --Goldsztajn (talk) 02:04, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * "GNG was contested by all delete contributors" - blatantly untrue. WP:LASTING does not proscribe notability nor in-notability.  Nor does it proscribe a timeline.  The delete !voters relied on a policy that didn't say what they thought it said.  That's the fallacy of depending on the shortcut name to make an argument rather than reading the text.  The keep !voters had the stronger policy argument and it was numerically close.  If you have any other questions, at this point, either of you may take this to WP:DRV but I suspect that you'll receive the same result there.--v/r - TP 18:02, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Only commenting because I happened to see the AfD and TP's talk page seems to be on my watchlist. Speaking as someone completely uninvolved, FWIW I wouldn't bother with DRV. This was well within the discretion of the closer. Had I commented I would probably land somewhere in "weak delete" for reasons not far from Goldsztajn (I dare say it's difficult to hold a film festival in NYC and not receive a good amount of local coverage about it), but it's unambiguous that multiple delete !voters had poor arguments (there only being one instance of the event is irrelevant, but people kept mentioning it as part of their argument, for example). If you want to give it another go, wait 6 months and renominate rather than take it to DRV. IMO. &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 18:42, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi and thank you. My concern here is the way in which closure was wrongly justified IMO.  If I was to argue against myself (ourselves!), IMHO a far stronger no consensus closing would have been on the basis that GNG had been satisfied via appropriate RS and the delete !votes had not adequately shown why EVENT was not passed (as I noted above, I think the brouhaha over LASTING is misleading in this case). : all the delete !votes contested GNG via the significant coverage, reliable sources and presumption clauses....and that's it, no more comments from me.--Goldsztajn (talk) 22:58, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * "all the delete !votes contested GNG via the significant coverage" - This is demonstrably untrue. You might want to review each and every one.--v/r - TP 23:36, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * You are already in WP:IDHT territory now. Not only it is amazing to see that you apparently misunderstood what is WP:LASTING and that you made a false claim that delete votes entirely depended on LASTING argument, your claims like "I think the only one misrepresenting anything, especially grossly, is you" confirms that you were wrong person to make the AfD close. You still haven't named a single !keep vote that made any sense so far. Was there any? You should be far more careful and loyal to policy when you are dealing with promotional junk. Orientls (talk) 03:37, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * You've crossed the line into personal attacks. You may now find your way off my page.--v/r - TP 01:13, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

UTRS update
I figured I'd bring this here as it's not a main topic for the Arb page. Sadly, I found it difficult to try and integrate 42 into the project. They were asking for time to be put into something like a sales pitch and then basically I would have to convince people to be interested. After that, I would only get them for like a week at best to start small. It's hard to identify specific tasks that can be finished in the small amount of time, and then it would have required me to look over their work as they go, yet another time commitment. At the time I didn't have a working product either, I only started having it in September I think it was. From what i've been able to do, I do have most of the basic appeal work done, just missing the js for the page and a few small things. Database structure is fully built. So right now, just handling userrights and a few other admin things before I will have a basic project to launch. Additional improvements & features can come from that. I still do have interested parties such as ptwiki so we will get our use out of this cross wiki. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 06:09, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Alright, that sounds good. Thank you for taking the time to give an update.  Are you using a framework or classic PHP?--v/r - TP 00:16, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, totally forgot to come back and reply. I'm still using Laravel as we talked about. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 10:32, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:TRUMPHATE
Wikipedia:TRUMPHATE, 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/Wikipedia:TRUMPHATE and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:TRUMPHATE 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. 🌸 1.Ayana 🌸 (talk) 00:32, 28 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)

UTRS Access
You are being messaged because there was a bug in UTRS that made it look like you had access to no appeals in the system. This has now since been patched and will be tested more before fully implemented again. You can track the progress if you wish here. I appreciate your patience and wanted to stop by to say try again, and let me know if anything else is wrong. Please also ping me if you reply here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 05:15, 16 June 2020 (UTC)