User talk:76.189.109.155

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Contents

Welcome![edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia! You don't have to log in to read or edit articles on Wikipedia, but if you wish to acquire additional privileges, you can simply create an account. It's free, requires no personal information, and lets you:

  • Have your own watchlist, which shows when articles you are interested in have changed

In addition, your IP address will no longer be visible to other users.

We hope that you choose to become a Wikipedian and create an account. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on this page. We also have an intuitive guide on editing if you're interested. By the way, please make sure to sign and date your talk page comments with four tildes (~~~~).

Happy editing! Epeefleche (talk) 23:57, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

What are you talking about?[edit]

I haven't communicated with Legacypac since he was blocked. I have avoided participating in the threads where he is still throwing mud at me. My major concern was always his breaches of BLP, and obviously they have stopped (apart from his attacks upon me). Yet you write "This feud between Legacy and HiLo needs to end now. Both have behaved poorly. They need to cease initiating any contact with or about the other." You are not paying attention. HiLo48 (talk) 23:43, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

You are apparently referring to this discussion on Legacy's talk page, and this comment in particular. Apparently, you didn't read my message carefully. I suggest you re-read the last sentence, which refers to both of you needing to "cease initiating any contact with or about each other". While you may not have initatied any contact with him, the problem is that you have yet to stop initiating contact about him. To put it simply, you keep talking about him to other editors. For proof, see the following diffs. I included only the 12 most recent ones.
23:30, 15 May 2013
08:32, 15 May 2013
08:21, 15 May 2013
08:17, 15 May 2013
05:55, 15 May 2013
01:19, 15 May 2013
00:54, 15 May 2013
00:02, 15 May 2013
23:57, 14 May 2013
23:55, 14 May 2013
09:31, 14 May 2013
09:22, 14 May 2013
I'll repeat to you a great piece of advice that admin Drmies gave to Legacy (regarding you): "it's time to stop concerning yourself with him". Move on. Legacy received a harassment warning for making negative comments about you, and the same thing is going to happen to you if you don't stop. I don't want to see either one of you getting blocked. I have no idea how all of this hostility between the two of you developed, and really don't want to know, but many editors are unfortunately very familiar with both of you. For the wrong reasons. An editor's reputation is everything on here. And you both now have the opportunity to fix that. Editing on Wikipedia should be a pleasant experience. I wish you the best of luck. 76.189.109.155 (talk) 01:18, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
  • If you don't mind, I'll endorse and add to this. HiLo, I made the comments I made to Legacypac because at that time you weren't invoking their name everywhere--or at least I wasn't aware of it. IP76 is entirely right--I will warn you also for this plethora of edits which adds up to harassment, and if you don't stop making them you might find yourself blocked as well. I had really hoped that this would be over by now; as far as I can tell Legacypac was going to leave you alone and I thought you'd be doing the same. IP76, thanks for the note and for allowing me to use this beautiful talk page of yours. Drmies (talk) 01:30, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
I didn't report Legacypac to AN/I and cop a Boommerang block. He reported me, and got blocked. I didn't start the sock puppet case (nor even comment there) which gave Legacypac another opportunity to throw mud at me. I have done absolutely nothing wrong in this case. All I did was defend articles against his blatant BLP breaches, for which he has now been blocked. He appears unable to accept the reality that he is in the wrong here. I HAVE DONE NOTHING WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!! He continues to condemn and attack me, and he suffers no consequences. How can that be right. To say "I have no idea how all of this hostility between the two of you developed, and really don't want to know" is not being a very wise judge. It really does matter who did or did not do something. I DID NOTHING WRONG! I will stop now. My intention right from the start was to defend Wikipedia. I can see your point on that front. But the justice system on Wikipedia is appalling. (See my User page for further thoughts on the matter if you wish.) HiLo48 (talk) 01:37, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
  • HiLo, I'm very disappointed in your response. Beyond the inappropriate tone (caps, exclamation points, anger, etc.), you unfortunately disregarded the most vital point, which was that "it's time to stop concerning yourself with him". The fact that you came back here and yet again posted hostile comments about the other editor, just seven minutes after an administrator issued an explicit harassment warning to you about doing that, honestly amazes me. The mistakes by the other editor are irrelevant at this point. The issue now is about the future, not the past. You cannot control the actions of other editors; you can only control your own. My other concern is your apparent inability, or perhaps unwillingness, to accept or admit to your own inappropriate actions. To insist three times - twice by shouting - that you have done absolutely nothing wrong is an indication that you're likely to continue having problems with other editors going forward. For starters, I'd refer you to the list of diffs above. Regarding your statement that I am not "a very wise judge", I don't take offense to that because I have no interest in being a judge, nor in issuing some type of scorecard for the two of you. This is not a boxing match. For the record, you made a serious allegation that the other editor "continues to condemn and attack" you. If that's in fact the case, I'm sure Drimes would be interested in seeing the diffs that support your claim. With regard to your user page, you seem to have quite a bit of anger and frustration with regard to the project. I hope that things change for you in a way that will allow editing to be a happy experience for you. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 03:21, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Oh, Drmies knows about a lot of them, but I'm not going down that path any more. And all those diffs above came after I was inappropriately reported, and were attempts on my part to either defend myself, or express despair at the inability of Wikipedia to control an out of control editor. I won't apologise, but I've stopped. This all leads back to where it all started. An editor was doing something wrong on the BLP front, in both articles and on Talk pages. I was one of several to try to stop him. I don't think I did it significantly differently from the others. But it led to him reporting just me, wrongly. It led to this. Now I am wondering about the future. (I do that when things turn pear shaped. I can be quite reflective.) I will see future breaches of policy. I will be tempted to attempt to stop them. I probably won't be able to help myself. Those I try to stop breaking the rules may get cranky again, and blame me publicly for their troubles. Will the cycle just continue? Should I give up on defending Wikipedia? HiLo48 (talk) 03:41, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
[BTW - I know your comments to me have been well intentioned. And I do get angry and maybe a little irrational when mud is unfairly thrown at me. I'm happy to hear more of your thoughts though.] HiLo48 (talk) 03:45, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

A cupcake for you![edit]

Choco-Nut Bake with Meringue Top cropped.jpg Thanks for improving Bryton James! -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:52, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Yum, I love cupcakes. Thanks for the kind gesture. :) --76.189.109.155 (talk) 03:23, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Cupcakes are for wimps. Try a bacon explosion. Drmies (talk)
Wow, that is gross! Haha. I just lost my appetite, Drmies. :p 76.189.109.155 (talk) 01:35, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
I tell you what, the real thing isn't nearly half as disgusting as it may seem from the recipe. Very strange. You can ask Kelapstick, who made one and provided pictures for in the article. Drmies (talk) 01:38, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Deface warning[edit]

Don’t deface other’s User page. If you post to AN/I, then you are an experienced user and should understand that a User: page it is not the place for postings. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 05:14, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Wow, I didn't realize I did that. I clicked the wrong button. Thanks for letting me know! And please remember WP:AGF, I certainly didn't intend to put it on the wrong page. I have posted it on the editor's talk page and apologized for the error. I must be very tired. ;) --76.189.109.155 (talk) 05:20, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Btw, I see that you've had disputes with a number of other editors who have warned you about not assuming good faith, making personal attacks, and posting insensitive and other uncivil comments. Here are a few examples:[1][2][3][4][5][6][7] I hope you will treat other editors in a more respectful manner. And if you feel that someone has violated any polices or guidelines and is not willing to discuss it with you, then report it at the proper venue. Thanks. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 07:32, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm glad to see that an admin intervened in this matter. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 21:07, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

For making me laugh[edit]

MM (Report findings) (Past espionage) 10:54, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Clarification[edit]

Hi, 76., long time. I hesitate to post this message, but I wanted to clarify one piece of the imbroglio at ANI because it seems to have gotten lost in the shuffle. You can feel free to remove this if you wish, and if others besides you and me become involved (hopefully not), I will probably bow out because it is not my intention to reopen the ANI discussion on your talk page. You don't even have to read this if you don't want to as it's quite detailed. I won't be offended.

First, I wanted to thank you for your participation at ANI. I may not agree with everything you said, but you made a valiant effort to be even-handed, and, even more important, you didn't bother me on my talk page. :-)

The key thing I want to clarify is that when the IP came to ANI, his (I am going to use the male gender - I don't know the gender of the IP) talk page was not protected:

  • The IP's block expired at 15:37 on June 7. ([8])
  • His talk page protection expired at 16:31 on June 7. ([9]) When I protected the page on May 24, I tried to synchronize the expiration of protection with the expiration of the block, but I wasn't particularly concerned if it wasn't exact as it didn't seem that important to me.
  • The IP's first edit after expiration of the block was at 21:40 on June 7, hours after protection of his talk page expired, and it was the opening of the discussion at ANI. (contribution history and edit to ANI)
  • The IP's second edit was at 22:13 on June 7, when he edited his own talk page. ([10]).
  • My first (and not very friendly) comment at ANI was after the IP had edited their own talk page. It was at 22:24 on June 7. ([11])
  • Because the IP's request was to unprotect his talk page and because it was clear the talk page was unprotected, I closed the discussion two minutes later at 22:26 on June 7. ([12])
  • Another admin reopened the topic, and the rest of the discussion isn't part of this clarification.

The one thing missing from this timeline is whether the IP knew his talk page was unprotected. As I mentioned, his first post to ANI was hours after it was unprotected. However, it is possible that sometime between the block expiration and the protection expiration (less than an hour), the IP saw he couldn't edit his own talk page but didn't check again until after he posted to ANI. At the point the IP next posted to ANI, the page was re-protected, but I don't understand why the IP never acknowledged that he could edit his own talk page earlier, at least once.

If you got this far, I hope all of the above is understandable and that you can see all the links (I don't think there are any that only admins can see). Take care.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:08, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Bbb. Thank you. Yes, I tried my best to even-handed at the AN/I and I thank you for recognizing that. Perhaps the most important point missed or misunderstood in all of my participation over the past few weeks is that I never condoned any of 68's behavior when it has been uncivil, which I realize has been often. In fact, it has been my biggest frustration with him. Trying to help someone when they're not trying to help themselves is a very difficult position to be in. I stated my thoughts on this repeatedly, not only to 68 directly but also to all of the editors involved.
However, I did (and still do) agree with 68 on a few of the important policy and sanction issues, and about the fact that other editors at times were clearly uncivil or overly-harsh with him. In terms of the way he was being treated sometimes, my primary concern was that all those involved were well aware of the fact that 68 is extremely sensitive and has a very short fuse, which typically results in him being very defensive and seeing all issues as black and white; basically, that's he's right about the selective issues he chooses to focus on and everyone else is wrong. And for those points by other editors with which he may actually agree, he simply chooses not to acknowledge them rather than taking a balanced approach and letting others know when he thinks they've said something fair and accurate. So, if everyone was extremely familiar with his temperment, I don't understand why so many editors, especially admins, sometimes chose not to de-intensify their approach when dealing with him and try to calm things down. Frankly, it boggled my mind how some appeared to purposely push his buttons when they knew exactly what the reaction and result would be. There are times when it's very important to rise above the inappropriate behavior of someone else, particularly when they already see the entire world as being against them, so that there will be a much better chance for resolving the matter peacefully.
I definitely do not want to rehash the entire AN/I, but I'll briefly clarify a few points myself. First, my understanding was that 68 started the AN/I solely to have the protection removed from his talk page which was preventing other IP editors, not himself, from commenting there. Although I had no intention of posting on his talk page again, I did check to see if I would be able to. I was not. There was no edit button. Surely, if you or another admin had simply removed the protection to begin with, last night's newest war never would've happened. However, as I said to 68 in the AN/I, I don't understand why he chose to go straight to AN/I (his first edit after his block expired), instead of just politely asking you to remove the protection.
As you indicated, 68 started the AN/I at 21:40, 7 June 2013, many hours after the talk protection was supposed to end. I didn't even become aware of the AN/I until around 02:00, 8 June 2013. At that point, 68's talk page was indeed protected against IP editing. I hadn't look at the log history; all I knew was that the edit button was not there and IPs were inexplicably being prevented from communicating with 68 even though his block was long over.
Your timeline above ended with the other admin (Toddst1) re-opening the AN/I two minutes after you had closed it. So here are a few diffs, beginning at that point, which bring up a few questions:
  • 22:28, 7 June 2013, Toddst1, (→‎My Talk Page Needs To Be Unprotected: unarchive - sorry BBB)
  • 22:31, 7 June 2013, Toddst1, (restoring shared IP info, improperly removed per WP:BLANKING)
  • 22:34, 7 June 2013, Toddst1 (Undid revision 554177652 by Zzuuzz (talk) - can't see any consensus for this - quite some opposition)
  • 22:39, 7 June 2013, Bbb23, m (Protected User talk:68.50.128.91: WP:BLANKING (removing shared templates) ([Edit=Allow only autoconfirmed users] (expires 22:39, 14 June 2013 (UTC)) [Move=Allow only autoconfirmed users] (expires 22:39, 14 June 2013 (UTC))))
  • 22:54, 7 June 2013, Bbb23, (→‎My Talk Page Needs To Be Unprotected: protection comment)
For those last two diffs, I don't understand why you (a) re-added the talk page protection, and (b) said "If any admin wants to lift the protection I imposed on the IP's talk page because of the confusion, feel free", instead of just simply doing it yourself and putting an end to the unnecessary drama.
I am also troubled by the fact that Toddst1 restored the shared IP template on 68's talk page - as if 68 did something wrong - and then, amazingly, added (back) the shared IP template exclusion to WP:BLANKING three minutes later. Obviously, when 68 removed the template, WP:BLANKING allowed it. Some might easily assume that Todd was purposely being surreptitious, based on the chronology of those two edits. Todd's edit summary to 68 said "restoring shared IP info, improperly removed per WP:BLANKING" even though it was not true at the time he posted it. And even if Todd assumed that the shared IP template exclusion was contained in WP:BLANKING when he posted that edit summary, why didn't he go back to 68 after he (Todd) edited WP:BLANKING and fully disclose what he had done? He should have said to 68 something like, "I realize that WP:BLANKING appeared to allow you to remove that template at the time you did it, so you didn't do anything wrong. However, I just discovered that another editor inappropriately removed that exclusion from WP:BLANKING a few weeks ago; therefore, I just restored it."
In any case, I'm sad to say that based on 68's ongoing behavior pattern, I believe if he continues editing as an IP it will eventually result in an extremely long or even indefinite ban from editing. I sincerely believe that it is indeed possible for an IP editor to have such a damaged reputation, that it would be nearly impossible to repair it. I think registered editors have a much better chance at redeeming themselves with other editors if they change their bad ways because they don't have that huge "IP stigma" attached to them. IPs are behind the eight ball to begin with. Registered editors are not.
--76.189.109.155 (talk) 16:03, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Yes, the reason the edit button wasn't there when you looked was because I reimposed protection. I just wanted you to understand that it wasn't protected when the IP came to ANI. As for what Todd did, what the IP did, and what I did, I don't want to get into that. I understand you have concerns, but it's too complicated for me to explain, and if I didn't feel like explaining it at ANI (hence, my letting other admins know that they could remove the protection - and there were a lot of admins watching), I really don't want to go into it here. I hope you understand. Thanks for taking the time to read everything I wrote.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:32, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Oz[edit]

That's twice you've been right today and twice I've been wrong. What a world ... when IPs are right and admins are wrong. I'm melting, I'm melting. BTW, no aspersions against Bishonen, please, who is an outstanding admin.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:05, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Haha! Don't worry, you've worked hard all week so you get to slack off a little on the weekend. And IPs get to be right up to three times per month, so I have one more to go. I understand Bishonen's response; she just misunderstood and was rightly trying to protect you. I'm sure she's a great admin. :) --76.189.109.155 (talk) 00:24, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

wow[edit]

has it really been 7 years? sheesh... and I'm about to file my first DYK, for Kristin Beck - take a look if you like and wanna help improve... --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 06:18, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Haha, I figured you didn't even realize it was your Wikianniversary. Nice going! Btw, I noticed that in those seven years, you've never been blocked. That's very impressive and gives you a lot of credibility. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 15:58, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
I intend to keep it that way. Had a few close shaves... :) --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:12, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Totally understandable. Being on for a such a long time will certainly guarantee that you'll get into at least a few scuffles. Haha. Anyway, congratulations my friend. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 16:41, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
cheers. Mind if I ask why the ip? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:45, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
No, I don't mind at all. If I get to the point where editing routinely becomes a very pleasant experience for me, then I'll be much more likely to create an account. Often, it is. But there's also way too much unnecessary drama and hostility, as you well know. Interestingly, I've come across numerous (static) IPs who have been editing beautifully for years, while also seeing many registered users who are very disruptive. WP:HUMAN, an essay that I feel is really important, says that "while most vandalism (80%) is generated by IP editors, over 80% of edits by unregistered users were not vandalism". I think that's a very intriguing statistic. So it's really about the person who's editing, not the type of account they have. Sadly, though, the reality is that unregistered editors, generally speaking, are treated much less favorably than registered ones. If I haven't already done so by then, I promise to register for an account on your 10th anniversary. But if you ever get blocked, then it'll be on your 11th. By then, you'll be an admin. :) --76.189.109.155 (talk) 17:18, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
ok - I think IPs maybe get treated a bit less well because they can just disappear, they aren't really committing to an identity. They're also hard to remember, so its harder to build a relationship and then recall that your best friend is 67.58 while your worst enemy is 67.34....etc. Anyway, I hope you do register someday, but I probably won't be an admin, not really a path that interests me, plus I've crossed swords with some powerful dragons in the past and they'd probably kill my chances... Perhaps you could put up an identifiable image/logo/somethign on your talk, so when people comeby they remember it's you and not some other random ip? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:13, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Haha, I loved your comment, "its harder to build a relationship and then recall that your best friend is 67.58 while your worst enemy is 67.34". That really made me laugh. It's a good point, though. :) --76.189.109.155 (talk) 21:16, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Join Wikipedia![edit]

You should really join Wikipedia. You have every skill that an editor needs, and you could have a good chance at becoming an admin. If you are unsure why, look at WP:WCAA. 71.251.170.71 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:56, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Uh, thanks. I think. But I'm confused. You're an IP too and your very first edit is to tell me to create an account. Am I on Candid Camera? Haha. And if you want to know more about why I have not registered, you can read this thread from above. ;) --76.189.109.155 (talk) 01:05, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
My account isn't working, so I'm stuck on my IP. You can see my regular account here. User:Buffbills7701 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.251.172.116 (talk) 16:26, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Oh, now I understand! Thanks for the update. :) --76.189.109.155 (talk) 19:17, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Nadal[edit]

Go to his talk page, I have sandboxed a new version to see if you like it.HotHat (talk) 02:41, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know, my friend. I have replied on the Nadal talk page and put my suggested changes in your sandbox. :) --76.189.109.155 (talk) 04:22, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Just let me know if you need anymore changes to the article in question or another article if needed. I have posted it, but I will make changes if you change anything on my sandbox page.HotHat (talk) 06:26, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
I have fixed it to the ATP change.HotHat (talk) 06:32, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Thank you so much, HH. Everything looks great! --76.189.109.155 (talk) 06:34, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Nil desperandum[edit]

Purple Star.png The Purple Barnstar
For resolute endurance when baited, insulted and misrepresented. Writegeist (talk) 16:37, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your kindness. It means a lot. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 04:36, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Ditto[edit]

Read everything (even everything hatted); my moral support goes to you. (Please work w/ TP to find a way acceptable to you to continue editing here. The encyclopedia profits from unclouded minds, not sticky, territorial power gangs quick to lynch w/o accountability over power-lust & revenge over hurt egos in the name of "protecting the encyclopedia". That sick culture not only drives away good editors but is notorious [even in the media] and to WP's shame.) Cheers, good luck, keep honest, and best of editing. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:23, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 July 2013[edit]

Sanctions from WP:AN discussion[edit]

I have closed the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive250#76.189.109.155 and drama and find a consensus for Proposal 2. Accordingly, you are restricted from:

  • participating in discussions at noticeboards unless he is the subject of the discussion
  • participating in discussions and/or changes to policies, essays and/or guidelines
  • harassing or being uncivil to any other user or admin (broadly constructed)
  • removing from or moving anything on his/her talk page

This sanction will be in effect for three months. It is personal to you: it will persist if you change IPs or register as a user. Any violation of these conditions will result in an immediate block and an extension of this sanction. JohnCD (talk) 20:39, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 July 2013[edit]

The Bugle: Issue LXXXVIII, July 2013[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

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) 15:20, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 July 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 31 July 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 07 August 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 14 August 2013[edit]

The Bugle: Issue LXXXIX, August 2013[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

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) 23:56, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 August 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 28 August 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 04 September 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 11 September 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 18 September 2013[edit]

The Bugle: Issue LXXXXX, September 2013[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

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) 23:39, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 September 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 02 October 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 09 October 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 16 October 2013[edit]

The Bugle: Issue XCI, October 2013[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

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) 22:25, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 October 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 30 October 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 06 November 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 13 November 2013[edit]

The Bugle: Issue XCII, November 2013[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 05:27, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 November 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 04 December 2013[edit]

  • Featured content: F*&!

The Signpost: 11 December 2013[edit]

The Bugle: Issue XCIII, December 2013[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 00:04, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 December 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 25 December 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 01 January 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 08 January 2014[edit]

The Bugle: Issue XCIV, January 2014[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

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) 13:18, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 January 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 22 January 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 29 January 2014[edit]

The Bugle: Issue XCV, February 2014[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

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) 23:24, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCVI, March 2014[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

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) 11:59, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCVII, April 2014[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 14:25, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCVIII, May 2014[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

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) 22:15, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCIX, June 2014[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

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) 15:05, 21 June 2014 (UTC)