User talk:Nick Thorne/Archive5
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Nick Thorne. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
DYK for Ambassis macleayi
On 28 January 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Ambassis macleayi, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Macleay's glassfish (pictured) is partly transparent? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Ambassis macleayi. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Ambassis macleayi), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Alex Shih (talk) 00:01, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CLIV, February 2019
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:19, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CLV, March 2019
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 11:00, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!OlJa 02:40, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
Classic Forum shipping
Wow. They shipped the entire Forum? The boat must have been enormous! :) --Guy Macon (talk) 03:27, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- Ha, ha, ha! I'll fix it. - Nick Thorne talk 03:42, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CLVI, April 2019
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 21:59, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
"My God! There are DOZENS of them!!"
Re: [2], thanks for fixing my error. It wasn't intentional. Sorry about that.
I decided to stop interacting with him, and I suspect that within a week everybody else will come to the same decision, leaving him shouting into an empty room. If his future behavior is like his past behavior, he will "misunderstand" what 'all articles and edits on the topic of creationism, broadly construed' means, the same way he "misunderstood" what 'An editor who repeatedly restores their preferred version is edit warring' and 'If you are claiming an exemption [to our rules about edit warring], make sure there is a clearly visible edit summary or separate section of the talk page that explains the exemption' even after a dozen warnings and 4 blocks by 4 different admins for edit warring. And it will all be my fault.
There once was a drunk driver who was driving the wrong way on the freeway. Upon hearing on the radio (over the honking horns) that there was a drunk driver who was driving the wrong way on the freeway, he peered through his windshield, noticed all of the headlights heading toward him, and exclaimed "My God! There are DOZENS of them!!" --Guy Macon (talk) 14:26, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
- No worries, I thought that was the case, I meant to insert "accidentally" in my edit summary, but I hit the submit button instead, my bad. I think you're right about our friend, that was partly why I wanted to ensure that an admin closed the discussion with an accurate reflection of the consensus, I was far from convinced he had got the message, but this way it will be straight forward when he returns to his old ways, which I think is likely. - Nick Thorne talk 20:43, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
What is and what is not acceptable conduct
So, just to confirm, not only do you think it is unreasonable to indef someone who thinks it is perfectly acceptable to scare a complete stranger with the idea that they might have cancer, you also think it completely unjust to indef the "excellent editor" and "asset to the project" who, having been reverted with a plea from the recipient to desist, then forcefully reinstates the comment to scare the stranger even more? I think you need to have a word with yourself about what is right and what is wrong. -- CassiantoTalk 18:45, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
- (talk page watcher) Get over yourself already. That "stranger" was almost immediately blocked itself, and is still indefinitely blocked. While that in af itself doesn't excuse Wolf's comments and actions, it is ironic almost beyond belief. Wolf has been contrite about his actions, and pledged not to behave that way again. Blocks are not supposed to be punitive, yet that is what this block has turned into. If he does something outrageous on this level or worse again, then I'll be the first to say we should drop the banhammer. - BilCat (talk) 18:58, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
- Wow, what a nice surprise to meet the other supporter of Wolfchild on this page. "Wolf", as you like to call them, was only sorry because they were blocked. It's part of the appeal jargon. You are aware of that, aren't you? Had they not have been blocked, I'd have bet my life on it that they would've carried on like nothing had happened, minus an apology. Stranger or not (as suggested by your inverted commas), to scare anyone into thinking that they might have cancer - twice - is a pretty sick move. Have you stopped to think of the possible collateral damage this comment may've caused to other persons viewing that comment who may have been licked by their cat? CassiantoTalk 19:17, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
- Actually, I like to call him "Child", but was told to stop. :) What I support is fair treatment of Wikipedia users, and he's not getting that here. I understand that Wolf has made enemies who want to see him gone - I used to be one of them. But I like to think I'm fair-minded enough to recognize when a user makes progress, and Wolf has. And too be honest,I was initially thirilled to see he had been blocked, but when I saw it how it happened, I was alarmed. I really don't care in this case if his apology was sincere or not, as I can't read minds over the internet. That can only be evidenced by his behavior, which is what we're concerned about here. We can't control what people think, and it's dangerous to even try. As to what he actually said, if you "genuinely" (note the use of "quote marks", as we call them in English) believe his comments will cause "collateral damage", then ask to to have the comments deleted from the history. As far as I know, that hasn't even been requested, much less done. - BilCat (talk) 19:40, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
- So you'll agree then that the treatment by "child" to the recipient wasn't fair either? If so, you should then support the block, no? I find it curious that you were more alarmed at someone being blocked for making a sick comment than them actually saying the sick comment in the first place. And you're quite happy to have an insincere apology rather than someone accept the block, ride it out, and return when they've pulled themselves together? Where is the lesson in that? We can all say things in the heat of the moment - I'm perhaps more guilty than others for doing that around here - but to present to someone the idea that they might have a terminal illness, simply because they disagree with them, is way below the morals of standard decency. I'm stunned you think this is something that should just be glossed over. CassiantoTalk 20:11, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
- Actually, I like to call him "Child", but was told to stop. :) What I support is fair treatment of Wikipedia users, and he's not getting that here. I understand that Wolf has made enemies who want to see him gone - I used to be one of them. But I like to think I'm fair-minded enough to recognize when a user makes progress, and Wolf has. And too be honest,I was initially thirilled to see he had been blocked, but when I saw it how it happened, I was alarmed. I really don't care in this case if his apology was sincere or not, as I can't read minds over the internet. That can only be evidenced by his behavior, which is what we're concerned about here. We can't control what people think, and it's dangerous to even try. As to what he actually said, if you "genuinely" (note the use of "quote marks", as we call them in English) believe his comments will cause "collateral damage", then ask to to have the comments deleted from the history. As far as I know, that hasn't even been requested, much less done. - BilCat (talk) 19:40, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
- How do you ride out an indefinite block? It's indefinite. Yeah, he's been advised to take the 6 month offer, but that's different than a six-month block which then expires. He has no guarantee of the block being lifted, which is what "ride out the block" implies. I have previously stated on Wolf's talk page that I do support a finite block with a definite end period, so in no way am I saying that this should be glossed over. But that isn't what this is, and that's what I don't support. (At this point, I should probably wait on Nick to respond, assuming he does, and that he doesn't chose to delete the whole discussion, for which I wouldn't blame him.) - BilCat (talk) 20:24, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
- You request a return after a significant period of reflection, that's how. Unlike you, I'd respect that person more for doing that rather than coming out with a lame apology, purely to get their editing rights back again. I couldn't really care less if this exchange is deleted, I've got it off my chest and that's all that matters to me. If snowflake-like behaviour is exhibited here by the page owner deleting a civil debate on the morals of someone who can say such sickening things, then that is a matter for them. It won't be me being judged. Good evening. CassiantoTalk 20:58, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
- What a load of self righteous nonsense. No one is suggesting that Wolf did not need to be sanctioned. However jumping straight to indef without prior escalating blocks is simply unconscionable and clearly breaks the not punative guidelines that are supposed to be followed by admins. Frankly it is an abuse of the tools and must not be allowed to stand. - Nick Thorne talk 22:46, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
- Clearly I'm running up a treacle hill with concrete shoes on in trying to make either of you see sense. It's utterly bizarre that you are more offended by an admin stepping outside administrative protocols than you are about an editor telling another editor to get checked out for terminal cancer, twice, in response to a whacky, yet somewhat innocent, tangent on their own talk page. You may think it's semi-okay to do this, but frankly I don't and they'll be many others who agree with me. CassiantoTalk 23:29, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
- I don't think it is okay at all, either, but jumping straight to an indef is massive over-reach and there'll be many others who agree with me. - Nick Thorne talk 00:52, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
- Anyway, my point has been made. I won't be responding any further. CassiantoTalk 23:35, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
- OK, bye Felicia. - Nick Thorne talk 00:53, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
- Hi. Came here from TWC's talk page to point out that TWC was just topic banned from RfA/RfB for their behavior. diff I don't know why you say they haven't been warned, etc. Leviv ich 00:28, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, burn the witch! - Nick Thorne talk 00:55, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
- Clearly I'm running up a treacle hill with concrete shoes on in trying to make either of you see sense. It's utterly bizarre that you are more offended by an admin stepping outside administrative protocols than you are about an editor telling another editor to get checked out for terminal cancer, twice, in response to a whacky, yet somewhat innocent, tangent on their own talk page. You may think it's semi-okay to do this, but frankly I don't and they'll be many others who agree with me. CassiantoTalk 23:29, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
- What a load of self righteous nonsense. No one is suggesting that Wolf did not need to be sanctioned. However jumping straight to indef without prior escalating blocks is simply unconscionable and clearly breaks the not punative guidelines that are supposed to be followed by admins. Frankly it is an abuse of the tools and must not be allowed to stand. - Nick Thorne talk 22:46, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
- You request a return after a significant period of reflection, that's how. Unlike you, I'd respect that person more for doing that rather than coming out with a lame apology, purely to get their editing rights back again. I couldn't really care less if this exchange is deleted, I've got it off my chest and that's all that matters to me. If snowflake-like behaviour is exhibited here by the page owner deleting a civil debate on the morals of someone who can say such sickening things, then that is a matter for them. It won't be me being judged. Good evening. CassiantoTalk 20:58, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
- How do you ride out an indefinite block? It's indefinite. Yeah, he's been advised to take the 6 month offer, but that's different than a six-month block which then expires. He has no guarantee of the block being lifted, which is what "ride out the block" implies. I have previously stated on Wolf's talk page that I do support a finite block with a definite end period, so in no way am I saying that this should be glossed over. But that isn't what this is, and that's what I don't support. (At this point, I should probably wait on Nick to respond, assuming he does, and that he doesn't chose to delete the whole discussion, for which I wouldn't blame him.) - BilCat (talk) 20:24, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
- My bad. I didn't realize this cat incident had occurred at RfA/RfB. Ban him forever! - BilCat (talk) 00:34, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
- (unrelated comment) BilCat, 'inverted commas' is another way of saying 'quotation mark'. JACKINTHEBOX • TALK 10:17, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
Not generally in English, to my knowledge, as I said.- BilCat (talk) 21:36, 26 April 2019 (UTC)- Actually, I am wrong, as it's used in British English, especially for single quotation marks. We don't use the term "inverted commas" in American English, as we generally use double quotation marks. Since commas are generally used singularly, there's less of a resemblance. - BilCat (talk) 21:47, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
- ACHOO! Mumbling.... -- Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 22:15, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CLVII, May 2019
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 11:04, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CLVIII, June 2019
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:08, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CLIX, July 2019
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:01, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CLX, August 2019
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 09:41, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CLX, August 2019
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 09:42, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Backlog Banzai
In the month of September, Wikiproject Military history is running a project-wide edit-a-thon, Backlog Banzai. There are heaps of different areas you can work on, for which you claim points, and at the end of the month all sorts of whiz-bang awards will be handed out. Every player wins a prize! There is even a bit of friendly competition built in for those that like that sort of thing. Sign up now at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/September 2019 Backlog Banzai to take part. For the coordinators, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:18, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nominations open
Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:38, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
Milhist coordinator election voting has commenced
G'day everyone, voting for the 2019 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:37, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CLXI, September 2019
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 09:17, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Request for protection....Eucalyptus regnans
This would be a case where protection of the article would probably be denied (please read our protection policy, as the disruption is not big enough and just by one IP, so the way to go would be to engage the IP at the talk-page of said article (as has been tried), and later (if no discussion is ensuing) to report at AIV. Cheers and happy editing. Lectonar (talk) 09:22, 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)
Hello! Why are you reverting my edits?
I edited several articles over the last few days, and all of them were reverted in spite of poor grammar and inaccurate facts in the articles. These include;
- The empire gudgeon article (I got the incubation figure of 10-14 hrs and the status as smallest vertebrate eggs from fishbase, which was already cited as a source by the article) - Cyprinodontiforms (all I did was try to clean the article up grammar wise...it's not pretty as is) - Nothobranchidae (again, not pretty in its present form...not to mention this is an article about the family as a whole, not just the genus Nothobranchius)
Could you please tell me why they were reverted to the old versions? Thank you.
- @2601:196:180:59F0:DD40:FF11:780E:ABA4: First, please sign your posts when editing talk pages. Four tildes (~~~~) will cause the Wiki software to put your user ID or IP address and the date and time.
- Second, Paedocypris progenetica has smaller eggs than Hypseleotris compress, do not rely on a single source like Fishbase for extraordinary claims, these need more than a bare mention in one source.
- Third the other two articles are not on my watchlist and as far as I know I have never edited them. Please provide diffs for where you say I reverted your edits. - Nick Thorne talk 23:25, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CLXII, October 2019
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:40, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CLXIII, November 2019
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 21:44, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
A survey to improve the community consultation outreach process
Hello!
The Wikimedia Foundation is seeking to improve the community consultation outreach process for Foundation policies, and we are interested in why you didn't participate in a recent consultation that followed a community discussion you’ve been part of.
Please fill out this short survey to help us improve our community consultation process for the future. It should only take about three minutes.
The privacy policy for this survey is here. This survey is a one-off request from us related to this unique topic.
Thank you for your participation, Kbrown (WMF) 10:45, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
ArbCom 2019 election voter message
 | Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
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)
HARS Aviation Museum moved to draftspace
An article you recently created, HARS Aviation Museum, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Onel5969 TT me 11:10, 28 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)
Fish of Australia
Some expertise might be of use at this cfd. Oculi (talk) 00:32, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
The Bugle: IssueICLXVI, February 2020
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:04, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
March Madness 2020
G'day all, March Madness 2020 is about to get underway, and there is bling aplenty for those who want to get stuck into the backlog by way of tagging, assessing, updating, adding or improving resources and creating articles. If you haven't already signed up to participate, why not? The more the merrier! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:19, 29 February 2020 (UTC) for the coord team
The Bugle: Issue CLXVII, March 2020
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 01:51, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CLXVIII, April 2020
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 05:21, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CLXIX, May 2020
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 15:03, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
Draft:HARS Aviation Museum concern
Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:HARS Aviation Museum, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.
If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.
You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.
If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.
Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:32, 30 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)
Your draft article, Draft:HARS Aviation Museum
Hello, Nick Thorne. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "HARS Aviation Museum".
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.
If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! Lapablo (talk) 12:15, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CLXXI, July 2020
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 11:45, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CLXXII, August 2020
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 14:29, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nominations open
Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:06, 1 September 2020 (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 Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:LittleJerry reported by User:AussieLegend (Result: ). Thank you. AussieLegend (✉) 04:39, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
- I only mentioned you once in the report but it seemed appropriate to notify you anyway. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:40, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue Issue CLXXIII, September 2020
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:53, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
Milhist coordinator election voting has commenced
G'day everyone, voting for the 2020 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2020. Thanks from the outgoing coord team, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:18, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for September 18
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Galaxias supremus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Blue Lake. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:48, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CLXXIV, October 2020
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:21, 15 October 2020 (UTC)