User talk:Otr500

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

Contents

Welcome[edit]

Hello, Otr500! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking Button sig.png or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already loving Wikipedia you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Happy editing! Marlith User_Talk:Marlith|T]]/C 20:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Otr500 (talk) 14:31, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[[

Getting Started
Getting Help
Policies and Guidelines

The Community
Things to do
Miscellaneous
Welcome roadfan

Welcome, roadfan![edit]

Hello, Otr500, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like this place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.

If you are interested, there is already a community of users who are roadfans or who edit articles about roads, just like you! Stop by any of these WikiProjectsWP:HWY (worldwide), WP:CRWP (Canada), WP:INR (India), WP:UKRD (United Kingdom), or WP:USRD (United States) — and contribute. There is a wealth of information and resources for creating a great article. If you have questions about any of these WikiProjects, you can ask on each project's talk page, or you can ask me!

If you like communicating through IRC, feel free to ask questions at #wikipedia-en-roads as well. Here, there are several editors who are willing to answer your questions. For more information, see WP:HWY/IRC.

Again, welcome! Rschen7754 18:41, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

  • I am sorry I did not reply earlier and don't know why I didn't. I read the welcome and though, "Wow! this is cool", but read it again and wondered why I didn't acknowledge the welcome. With all that said, thank you for the welcome, and I hope I have been (and will be) adding information of importance. Thank you, Otr500 (talk) 21:30, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Edits to this page[edit]

I would like to ask that comments to this page conform to the following style as examples; First person to comment with no indentions.

Second person to comment like this.
Third person to comment like this.
Fourth person to comment like this.
Second person with additional comments.
Fourth person with additional comments.
  • This provides a better flow in comments and extended comments do not end up against the right side. Otr500 (talk) 09:56, 25 March 2011 (UTC)


My take

My take[edit]

I have my beliefs just as everyone else. I am passionate concerning how and why I believe the way I do. Although lacking in formal education I believe my informal education, being somewhat equal to the lower echelon of the adequately papered intellectuals, except maybe lacking a little finesse, to be at least rounded enough to sustain my need to search for knowledge. I try to be thorough in research and my quest to obtain knowledge is only matched by my intentions to be productive in life. I do have the propensity to appear "dry" in my discussions but, as I am lighthearted in person, I strive to be dedicated to factual information. Any perceived "dryness" is unintentional but I will not hasten to be bold when called for.

I probably differ from many in that I feel it is not my direction to try to discuss, and certainly not "preach" (and I am no preacher), to anyone not willing to listen. I also feel that it is not anyone's job description to determine, try to determine, or even think about the possibility of a persons direction in the afterlife. There is one judge and I will be satisfied (like there would be a choice) with the Judge's decision. I have taken a liking to Wikipedia and the idea so adding information when I can is rewarding.
Please be understanding if there is some delay in any responses. We recently lost almost everything in a house fire and by necessity changed towns and soon will begin a new job. It is a challenge to begin to gather things all over again but we were not home so no one was hurt. Otr500 (talk) 01:00, 25 July 2010 (UTC)


Unblock

UNBLOCK -Please. Otr500 (talk) 02:29, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[edit]

Artículo bueno.svg

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

Autoblock #1917010 lifted or expired.

Request handled by: Kuru (talk)

Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.

  • I do not know this person. I am Not on a shared computer or network. I am the only person on this computer and we live in the country. I do not know what the mix up is but would someone please unblock my account--check out the problem and let me know what the problem was? I am pretty sure that someone out side Wikipedia could not randomly guess or pick an 8 digit code utilizing numbers and letters--that includes capitals but if this could be remotely possible I will go to a 10 digit code. Again--I would like to know the possible reasons why or how this could happen and any solutions since I am pretty sure this Mr. "Tommy2010sucks" has no way--or should have no way--to access my IP address.
  • Thanks - Otr500 (talk) 02:29, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, no idea why you would have been hit with that autoblock. I've cleared that one. If it happens again we can make your account exempt to those kinds of blocks. Kuru (talk) 02:45, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Thank you. I hope it doesn't happen again but if so it is good to know there are solutions.


Venting

Reasons some should not edit[edit]

Below are examples of how not to have a NPOV;

  • )- This article should focus on the Trinitarian view, and summarize the other views in enough detail (doesn't have to be that much) that the reader knows the main issues of divergence. However, to avoid confusion and maintain WP:NPOV, this article should always make it clear, at least from the context, that it is referring to the Trinitarian view, and avoid endorsing Trinitarianism or assuming that it is the only view. 1:20 pm, 15 May 2009, Friday (1 year, 2 months, 6 days ago) (UTC−5)
  • 2)- I disagree, I think it does give too much prominence to fairly small groups like Non-Trinitarian and Pentecostal sects. And while it is maybe okay to mention other religions like Judaism, Islam or Rastafarianism, their views are very similar to the non-Trinitarian groups that are not accepted within mainstream Trinitarian Christianity. The Catholic-Orthodox-Protestant Church should get the most space because it has 99 % of all Christian believers. 10:02 am, 15 May 2009, Friday (1 year, 2 months, 6 days ago) (UTC−5) -Otr500 (talk) 01:11, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
  • 3)- I agree with ----- suggestion, assuming that we leave a sufficient summary in this article. There ought to be a Religious perspectives on the Holy Spirit article which would focus on the divergent views, and include both nontrinitarian and non-Christian views. This article should focus on the Trinitarian view, and summarize the other views in enough detail (doesn't have to be that much) that the reader knows the main issues of divergence. However, to avoid confusion and maintain WP:NPOV, this article should always make it clear, at least from the context, that it is referring to the Trinitarian view, and avoid endorsing Trinitarianism or assuming that it is the only view. ----- 1:20 pm, 15 May 2009, Friday (1 year, 2 months, 6 days ago) (UTC−5) Otr500 (talk) 01:11, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


ANI on Moses

ANI notice on Moses[edit]

Since you commented on earlier discussions of this subject, you can hopefully add some input to this ANI on Moses. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 20:35, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I would but I can't because it fell into an ANI black hole. Otr500 (talk) 12:46, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
It seems that new topics eventually moved this one (see #35) off the main page. I think any new comments should be just added to talk:Moses. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 17:03, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
I've replied to your question at ANI, but in case that disappears before you see it too I thought I'd paste it here:
There's a big search box at the top of this page that searches the ANI archives. Entering 'moses' gives this result. Olaf Davis (talk) 18:48, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


Duplication

Duplication[edit]

Hi. I noticed a fair amount of duplication in this post you made. Would you mind refactoring it? Thanks!   — Jeff G. ツ 17:30, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

A "fair amount" was sort of a nice understatement. Thank you. Otr500 (talk) 15:17, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


DYK for La. hwy 975

DYK for Louisiana Highway 975[edit]

-- Cirt (talk) 06:03, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Claus Schenk Graf von Stauffenberg

Claus Schenk Graf von Stauffenberg[edit]

In Claus Schenk Graf von Stauffenberg you removed the {{fictionrefs}} tag. Whoever put that tag in did so incorrectly as it is only to be used in wikiarticles about works of fiction. The more appropriate tag to have used would have been {{In popular culture}}, which reads:

This "In popular culture" section may contain minor or trivial references. Please reorganize this content to explain the subject's impact on popular culture rather than simply listing appearances, and remove trivial references.

Do you think that, had that one been the one used, it might still apply? Thanks! — SpikeToronto 20:33, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
This tag is more appropriate so I included it,--Thanks. Otr500 (talk) 02:34, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Yeah I just noticed that. By the way, you should not cut and paste another editor’s actual signature with the colors, formatting, etc. It makes it look like they signed it. Usually one just types something like User:SpikeToronto to refer to another editor. Thanks Otr and have fun! — SpikeToronto 04:09, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I appreciate the help and cooperation. Sorry about the unintended proxy signing. I wanted to credit you with the suggestion since there are issues, save a step we agree on, and learned about signatures (and unintended forgery) along the way. I am glad you realized it was a mistake. Learn every day right? I am looking into what can be done for improvements but this is a difficult section that I will steer away from on my articles for now. --Returns thanks. Otr500 (talk) 14:51, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
LSU Ambassador invitation

Wikipedia Campus Ambassadors wanted at LSU[edit]

Hi! I'm leaving you this message because you are listed as a Wikipedian in Louisiana. The Wikipedia Ambassador Program is currently looking for Campus Ambassadors to help with Wikipedia assignments at Louisiana State University, which will be participating in the Public Policy Initiative for the Spring 2011 semester. The role of Campus Ambassadors will be to provide face-to-face training and support for students on Wikipedia-related skills (how to edit articles, how to add references, etc.). This includes doing in-class presentations, running workshops and labs, possibly holding office hours, and in general providing in-person mentorship for students.

Prior Wikipedia skills are not required for the role, as training will be provided for all Campus Ambassadors (although, of course, being an experienced editor is a plus).

If you live near Baton Rouge and you are interested in being a Wikipedia Campus Ambassador, or know someone else from the area who might be, please email me or leave a message on my talk page.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 17:14, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the invitation but I live about 135 miles from Baton Rouge.
User page error

Re: your userpage[edit]

Hi there. Just stumbled onto your page in my Wayward Wikipedia Wandering ;). I noticed in the section titled "Interests" you mention being a "WikiInfant" and that you "made these words up". I found this amusing because (and you may be surprised at the coincidence) there already existed a page which mentions these same words and describes them tongue-in-cheek as various 'stages' in a Wikipedian's 'editing career'. Have a look at Wikipedia:Seven Ages of Wikipedians and see which you best classify as. ;) -- œ 14:31, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you so very much and I absolutely did not know this so am surprised. I am also glad that you are a "Wayward Wikipedia Wanderer" and wonder if this name is mentioned somewhere. I will look at your observations and edit accordingly. Goes to show that I am new right? Otr500 (talk) 15:05, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
WPUS invitation

Invitation to join WikiProject United States[edit]

Flag of the United States.svg

Hello, Otr500! WikiProject United States, an outreach effort supporting development of United States related articles in Wikipedia, has recently been restarted after a long period of inactivity. As a user who has shown an interest in United States related topics we wanted to invite you to join us in developing content relating to the United States. If you are interested please add your Username and area of interest to the members page here. Thank you!!!

--Kumioko (talk) 20:13, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Welcome to the project. --Kumioko (talk) 13:58, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Thank you but I will be going inactive for a while and maybe permanently. I dislike the direction that one has to take to continue good things and if the merits of argument can not be weighed fairly, and replies can not be offered using sound reasoning, then they are of no use. I think I will explore a more useful vehicle for my time. Thanks again. Otr500 (talk) 06:13, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Claus Stauffenberg talk

Talkback: Claus von Stauffenberg[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Otr500. You have new messages at Talk:Claus von Stauffenberg.
Message added 06:58, 18 January 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
SpikeToronto 06:58, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Find a Grave comments

Comments made about Find a Grave...[edit]

Hi, I saw your notice that you were leaving but I am taking the chance that you will pop in to see this message. I was very impressed with your research and comments about this site. I have commented a couple times to what you have said but I would like to bring to your attentions specifically my last few comments here. I go on to suggest that we should go and try to have the site blacklisted. I am hoping you will see and be able to give some more input on what I am recommending. I hope to see you there and thank you for such a wonderful comments about what you found. --CrohnieGalTalk 11:28, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Although I din't agree that we shoudl eliminate the Find a grave site from WP I was also very impressed and grateful for the time you took in detailing that. Great job. --Kumioko (talk) 14:42, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your comments. I am just upset at things I see going on that seem to be allowed by process of time or by Wikilawyering. The whole idea of consensus is hampered when a few no more of how to work the system than a majority and use this to further an agenda.
I have added a lengthy comment on the page. I understand the intent of suggesting a blacklisting but the problem is that with a plan and consensus there can be a solution implemented to ensure Wikipedia integrity. I have poked around a little and think the idea of links that might provide other areas of research not detrimental. The mention of pictures of graves does not seem bad. Propagating the creation of articles that are not sourced is a serious problem.
The whole Find a Grave project needs to be examined. There needs to be stringent guidelines, warnings not to use any of these sites as an only source, warnings concerning the possibility of linking to sites that might contain copyright infringements, and other such things to protect Wikipedia as well as new editors. Integrating copy right material is still copy right infringement even if by proxy. The point is that there is a problem (big) and any solutions have been hampered (by and for whatever reasons) so that it just continues.
Making a project page, that really serves no purpose except to appease some, and that will not actually change anything, is not a solution. It is a start but so not complete. A group of editors that realize there is a problem can find common ground that will benefit Wikipedia. If there are any that has another agenda they need to either leave or be ferreted out.
If some solution can not be found, and I hope all will await some outcome, then I will start tagging an enormous volume of articles with the intent of seeking AFD's. It would not take a rocket scientist to calculate that this would involve many articles. This is not my intention at present. It is also not my intent to make threats. I could simply have started a cowboy crusade that would be supported by policy and Wikipedia. I really do not want to do this and prefer a group (the more the merrier) to work up a solution with consensus. Consensus will not only solve the problem but will result in guidelines and/or policies that will prevent things like this from happening in the future. I am not experienced in wordings or the process that will garner support and pass review. I can tell the difference in feeble wording. I have not performed any edits or made suggestions for the project page because I must see that there is serious intent. I have also not edited any articles that involve Find A Grave (or the others) because if consensus can not be achieved I will simply concur that an alternative (maybe radical) plan is needed.
If there is an agenda to prevent this it will become obvious. In that case I will, after learning more or with help, change the way I approach things. Maybe I am an idealist but does this not seem fair? Otr500 (talk) 15:28, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
The major problem I am seeing with process is being told there is no consensus, without a dif(s) unless I missed this, or being told that we are at the wrong location to attain a consensus. I have now asked again, I believe this has been asked before since I started this discussion, where this discussion should be held where editors wouldn't be accused of forun shopping. Like you, I am getting frustrated about this discussion. I can understand that editors have discussed this many times in the past are also tired of the discussion going on again. It's tiring to keep having the same discussion over and over again, at least that's my experience. That said, my experience has only been in article talk space or places like AN/i. I don't usually get involved in discussion at policy pages mainly because of the behaviors now seen though the behavior for the most part has been pretty polite which is nice. To be honest, I was going to unwatch this page after my question which got called, well you know so no need to say it again, got hatted. I was very upset by that and felt it wasn't worth it to be treated that way when I was polite and was trying to get a feel for how editors in the discussion felt about blacklisting. As seen, it apparently seriously backfired.  :( I am open to changing my mind about Find a Grave and even imdb.com if someone(s), anyone could give a convincing reason for them. I do not feel that F-a-G should be used a source and from the discussion, I thought everyone agreed to this. I went to an article and removed it from an article that looked like it was expanded after the F-a-G was added as a source and to EL. I got reverted. I thought that WP:ELPEREN was allowable to use as a reason for removing this yet I was told that it wasn't a policy or a guideline (which I understand).

If you decide to go to what you call 'radical plans' please ping me because I would be happy to help you. I would like to get this resolve so, yes, count me in as someone who would like to help. I like you ideas and your thoughts are along the same as my own. I still think going to blacklist or even whitelist should be checked into to see if this is a way to go with this. I still do not understand where or when and who decided the Find a Grave and Imdb are acceptable. I remove Imdb as source and that I get support for but if you remove it from EL you will probably get reverted in quite quickly at that. If you check out different articles about actors/actresses you can't miss that imdb is in the EL. There are wiki project WP:Films and WP:Actor in case you are not aware of this. --CrohnieGalTalk 19:22, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I just want to bring this to your attentions so you don't miss it. Well it does explain why it's in so many articles EL section. Now I think is the time to remove the coutesy of putting it in so many articles since most editor are aware of the site by now. Thoughts? --CrohnieGalTalk 13:34, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
I have a question for you if you don't mind, I hope you don't. :) With F-a-G and the research you are doing, do you have a subpage or something that you are working from that lists the different articles and things you have been discussing or are you going from memory to make the comments you have made at WP:ELPEREN? As you should know, I agree with what you are saying about the use of this site and would like to help where I can. Just so you know, we recently had a family member murdered so I will be on site very limited since I will be away from my computer starting later today. This has also caused a flare up of my Crohn's disease so I really have a lot going on in RL. That being said though, I find Wikipedia to be very helpful to me to forget about RL when I have something I believe in to work on, like this. I should be back to my computer either Monday or Tuesday. I work on WP usually every morning (est) for a few hours. So, now that you know what's going on with me, how can I help you? Seriously, I want to help and since the idea of blacklisting the site failed so far it will make the work in my opinion much more difficult. Blacklisting at least we could have asked for the aid of a bot to clean things up. I'm not sure if a bot could help with the clean up that is now being discussed though. This might be something worth checking into though. With thousands of articles the work is going to long and hard unless there are a large group of us willing to check every article and do what is needed to make sure everything in the article is in compliance with core policies. I have to admit my shock when I saw that the F-a-G link was put into articles as a kind of thank you. We also need to figure out I think the editors who are interested in keeping this site, why they want it. I think the same thing goes for the imdb.com site because I've seen editors admit that they are actors in minor rolls who want the imdb in so they are seen which brings us to WP:COI violations. I have to admit that when I brought my questions about these two site I did not expect what has happened with the long discussion and the disagreements. I thought my question was I guess kind of a 'slam dunk' situation meaning that it was easy to see that the two sites shouldn't be used the way they are being used. I have asked a couple of times now how it became policy to have these links put into EL, but I have yet to see an answer. Maybe it has been answered and I just missed it. (?) Well anyways, please let me know how I can help. aIf you wouldn't mind please ping me on my talk page (the talk back template is allowed on my talk page), also my email is enabled at my talk page, feel free to use it but keep in mind I am leaving late today. Thank you again for your research into all of this. I am very impressed, --CrohnieGalTalk 14:08, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Cronie Gal, I am sorry to hear of your loss. I do not have a place with things written. I just remember them (at least most) when I research. I have been working 12 hour days so will reply when I can. I will wait until you return and discuss things then.
I think you are misunderstanding what was said. I can't speak for why other editors where adding the link but I believe most editors including myself were not putting it there as a thank you but as an acknowledgment that the site has additional information relating to the individual. With that said I still believe that to not allow the site to be used for specfic information is a major mistake as it will make it difficult to find information on certain Notable biographical articles which will thereby extend a disservice to our readers. --Kumioko (talk) 17:46, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
I understand what you are saying. My problems are still with the use as an EL when it is an only link. My concerns are still that there are copyright issues. I have a serious issue as to why all articles that are on a Find a Grave list needs to be linked back to that site in articles. If I had an issue with Find a Grave period I would seek a different direction. I have not advocated removal at all, but there are issues that must be resolved. Otr500 (talk) 07:00, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Personally I agree that not all need the link especially for such people like Albert Einstein, Douglas MacArthur and the like whose lives have been documented in great detail. However the site does offer information in most cases that is not otherwise available on most other notable biographies including images of the grave or details (or links to the Find a grave articles) about family or relationships that either aren't allowed or are innapropriate to be placed here. Good examples are, as I have mentioned before, Medal of Honor recipients, Victoria cross recipients, other military personnel, actors, politicians and sports figures, etc who meet wikipedias general notability requirements but whose lives have not been documented in as great of detail. I also believe that although there may be copyright or other issues with some of the Find a grave entries it is fairly rare and much of the discussions that would state that this represents the majority is unfair and an assumption of bad faith. I also believe that the arguments that this site shouldn't be used due to being a commercial site are irrelevent. --Kumioko (talk) 17:16, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Taken off talk page
}}

Please consider what your statements about the intent of people really mean...[edit]

Taking this off the discussion page....

WP:NPA is a pretty important policy. You have made statements about the intent of people working on the Find-A-Grave project, claiming - just about - that they intend to do harm to Wikipedia. It'pretty hard to not read you as making statements about my intentions when I'm a major contributor on that project - statements that I feel are attacks on my integrity as a Wikipedian.

Please - think carefully about what you're saying. And if it's what you intend to say .... we have a problem. --Alvestrand (talk) 16:56, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I have no idea to what you are referring. I did not know that you were a major contributor to the Find a Grave project, in no way was making personal attacks directed at you or any particular editor, and certainly did not attempt to attack your integrity. I only looked up your user name because of your comments here. I also noticed what seems to me (my opinion is allowed) to be back door comments from other editors. The comments you removed (I looked up trying to see what I said to offend you) as being stated in anger includes, "I see statements (that I think are from you)", and I wonder why you didn't ask for clarification. I am fairly new to Wikipedia, state this regularly, and as in this case, I feel you may have read more into my ability (or inability) than I am deserving of. I learn pretty fast, feel I have a decent education, and strive for 100% fairness, but outside of reading the policies a few hundred times I can get lost concerning Wikipedia fairly easy. I can just as easily make an inadvertent statement, although I try to proof read to help ensure the unlikeliness, I can and do make mistakes. With that said I feel it would have been far more productive for you to comment on concerns before taking arms.
I am seriously hurt that you issued a warning comment, that also carries what I perceive as a threat (And if it's what you intend to say .... we have a problem) since I have no idea to what you are referring to be able to know if it is actually what I intended to say. Your warning includes (as justification) the words, claiming - just about -. I have no idea to what you are referring but yet you chose to feel I attacked you, hence the warning, and not assuming good faith and just asking for clarification. Guessing (especially the claiming - just about - part) and making serious unfounded (in my opinion) accusations do not help the project or Wikipedia. I would point out that the above mentioned WP:NPA includes, The appropriate response to an inflammatory statement is to address the issues of content rather than to accuse the other person of violating this policy. Accusing someone of making personal attacks without providing a justification for your accusation is also considered a form of personal attack. Because you use "Please consider" before what I feel is serious accusations does not make it any less serious just polite. Surmising and hypothesis are not justification for accusations and not providing the instances that provoked your comments do not help. I can not explain or defend something without knowing what is being referred to.
I may have a problem with some of your actions but I do not have a problem with any editor. Unless you can point to comments directed at you I will politely ask you to refrain from unsubstantiated accusations as it is too easy to ask for clarification and then you can have the opportunity to know if there is a problem.
I still have issues with the Find a Grave project instructions (listed on the essay) as well as Find a Grave being used as a source or reference. I have actually supported the use of Find a Grave as an external link even though having issues. It is my opinion that Find a Grave used as a source or reference does harm to Wikipedia. It is also my opinion that certain instructions (Find a Grave project) are worded to cause confusion and are conflicting. I do not feel either action was by intent of harm by any editor. I also feel that it is my right as an editor, in good faith, to comment on these things. If we have a problem because of this then let me know and we can seek appropriate measures to alleviate the problem or exculpate one of us. I had chosen to ignore your comments but decided I must reply to the accusations. I ascribe to staying cool and can let water run under the bridge unless this is not possible. I am open to comments but please be civil in any response. Otr500 (talk) 17:01, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
WPUS newsletter

New WikiProject United States Newsletter: February 2011 edition[edit]

Starting with the February 2011 issue WikiProject United States has established a newsletter to inform anyone interested in United States related topics of the latest changes. This newsletter will not only discuss issues relating to WikiProject United States but also:

  1. Portal:United States
  2. the United States Wikipedians Noticeboard
  3. the United States Wikipedians collaboration of the Month - The collaboration article for February is Nineteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
  4. and changes to Wikipolicy, events and other things that may be of interest to you.

You may read or assist in writing the newsletter, subscribe, unsubscribe or change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you by following this link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page or the Newsletters talk page. --Kumioko (talk) 20:45, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Skivington

Skivington[edit]

Good spot! That's probably been sitting there a while! GedUK  11:08, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Mileva Maric

Mileva Maric Talk page: Notes and references[edit]

Otr500: I appreciate the point you make in the new section "Notes and references" on the Mileva Maric Talk page, but it involves quite a lot of work, especially for someone who has no idea (without researching the appropriate Wikipedia instructions) how to set about condensing repeated citations. Anyway, from a personal point of view, although I have contributed to the Mileva Maric page, at the moment I am too busy to take on this task. If you can't do it, we can only hope someone else will notice your new comment and take the appropriate action. Esterson (talk) 11:26, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

John Rutledge

John Rutledge[edit]

So we are quite clear and there is no misunderstanding, I did WP:undo one of your prior versions, but I never "WP:reverted" it. 7&6=thirteen () 23:17, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Well thank you I guess. I did not know there was a difference. I read, "The MediaWiki software sometimes enables editors to easily revert (or "undo"), so what is the main difference? Otr500 (talk) 11:25, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Leaking spam

You're leaking spam[edit]

See what you did there. Palosirkka (talk) 12:43, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

WOW! Thanks, I wonder how that happened? I don't even use IE-4. Otr500 (talk) 02:09, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
MFD on External links/Perennial websites

Please see[edit]

Please see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:External links/Perennial websites. The essay has apparently been nominated for deletion in response to the long comment you posted there earlier this week. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:23, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I have chosen to abstain for a short time to see if others thought I was doing anything wrong. It is apparent that there is pronounced fairness and research before comments from editors that have replied. Otr500 (talk) 21:56, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
I just read the comment you made that WhatamIdoing mentions above. I also noticed your concerns about an editor saying that AN/i should be used when the links are removed or moved. Do not worry about this since the work you do you utilize the talk page and the edit summary showing the policies and guideline that you are going by to make your changes. If you end up at AN/i though please ping me at my talk page to let me know because I would definitely be interested in making a comment about whatever is being said esp. I would think that it would be a major point violation to bring anyone to AN/i who is making edits in regards to policies and guidelines with assumption of good faith being ignored. I find your arguments to be very solid and your use of the proper policies and guidelines makes it even stronger to argue against what you are saying which is part of the problem I think some editors are having in trying to debate you. When an editor argues with the proper policies and guidelines backing them up it can get very frustrating to debate that editor. I know of another editor who uses policies and guidelines when he makes his arguments and he also gets a lot of heat from editors who disagree but don't know how to counter what he said with other policies to back them up. Like I've said before, but it's worth repeating I think, if you need any help please do not hesitate to ping me. I will try to give a fair and honest answer to whatever it is you would like another opinion about. I am not saying I will agree with you or disagree with you, only that I will try to give my opinions on any given situation. With the way things keep spirilling lately, I am about to take the time to read about WP:Whitelist and WP:BLACKLIST to see if this is route to take already. Also, I don't know if it would be forum shopping if we were to take a couple of articles that uses the Find a Grave and other external links that are just automatically dropped into EL's without any concern for anything, like policies and guidelines. I am thinking that maybe we could try for a consensus at either reliable source noticeboard or maybe this could go to WP:Village pump. I'm not sure which would be best to go to try to get a consensus on this already. Maybe I'll ask around to some of the editors and/or administrators that have been here a long time to see what suggestions I get. Would you be up to doing something like this if I can find where to go to? The reason I ask is you make your arguments much clearer and precise than I do so I was hoping that if I can find the right location that you would be willing to make the first comment with me following after you. Thanks again for all your hard work. --CrohnieGalTalk 14:01, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your support. It is amazing how one can be attacked on so many different levels and for nothing more than doing the right thing. I have not replied to the MFD yet and my suspicions have been verified that Wikipedia, as with all things in life having flaws, but the idea envisioned by the founder is validated in instances such as this. I have seen fairness, attention to facts, and the ability of others to see through smoke that is astounding. I do not fear an ANI and only had some apprehension about a nomination to delete that I actually was certain to be forthcoming. Your support and acknowledgment of my intentions and actions are appreciated.
Ignored concerns: What is ironic is that my concerns, that have been repeatedly ignored by members involved that support Find a Grave, are not only justified but will continue to be an issue until resolved. I have a problem understanding why my comments about concerns of the Find a Grave project instructions have been ignored. If this is not addressed I feel that those pages involved should be presented to the community for examination. In the end I feel it will be determined that instructions from a project that violate Wikipedia policies and guidelines are detrimental. Instructions that are worded to be vague, thus inviting errors, as well as instructions that are self-contradictory and confusing are not exempt.
I felt with certainty, even while continually asking for collaboration and involvement for consensus before action, that my beliefs and subsequent actions are supported by Wikipedia. It is amazing that for unknown reasons my comments, concerning my intentions lacking constructive involvement, was ignored. It also did not surprise me that someone would attempt a fishing expedition with something such as an ANI comment. If others saw any violations and commented there would be justification to proceed. I do feel that such comments, totally unfounded, are unnecessary personal attacks and by comments, " I still think the solution is to take editors involved to ANI for their actions ", even (plural being editors) includes you. ::ANI comments: The (ANI) comments are amazing since there is no evidence of wrong doing or any actions that are in violation of any Wikipedia policies and guidelines or actions not in good faith. The good news is, as this certainly would be an option, I feel such unwarranted action would backfire and I would, lacking any evidence, advise against it. Of course my opinions have not seemed to matter before now so who knows right! I feel the Wikipedia community will take serious exceptions to editors using any unfounded tactics to disrupt Wikipedia.
My involvement from the beginning has been that external links are inappropriately used on Wikipedia. The evidence I presented also includes the use of Find a Grave as a source or reference, that is clearly against consensus, the Find a Grave project instructions, and the many mentioned policies and guidelines. Repeated calls for discussions and corrections have gone unheeded. Repeated comments concerning the Find a Grave project instructions have been ignored. I feel that this will not have a positive outcome for Find a Grave as any link in the future. It makes me wonder if my lack of experience on Wikipedia could have been confused with something akin to ignorance, inability to follow established policies and guidelines, or ability to research and be thorough. I am just stating that my many concerns and comments referencing observed violations to these policies and guidelines, what I perceive as serious issues with the Find a Grave project guidelines, lack of comments or corrections, and what I perceive as hostilities and obvious decisions to ignore me, surely had to have a beginning. I felt I was clear, showing that I want to be fair, but that issues need to be corrected. There was an edit to make some changes to the instructions but I feel that consensus will ultimately prove this to be feeble and inadequate.
The MFD: I feel that a consensus of editors will see the immense benefits of this essay as an important part of Wikipedia. I would sincerely like to see more neutrally involved editors to gain a wider community consensus so that external link issues could be resolved now and in the future.
The essay: I find it strange that I would be accused of using the essay, as if it were policy, as reasons to "mass delete" Find a Grave links when my actions, noticed and noted by other editors, proved the accusations false. I have not even edited the essay because there was such animosity that I felt it would be yet another battle that would only be a distraction from my serious concerns.
Possible future actions: With the lack of willingness to examine, let alone admit there are errors, no attempts to correct these errors, editors attempts (this is my opinion which includes the MFD, circular discussions with no intended solution, what I perceive as talk page attacks, and comments concerning ANI) to disrupt Wikipedia. I feel that I will have to admit that all the stated good in Find a Grave as an external link, at this time, is far outweighed by what I feel is the current and future damage to Wikipedia. If there is some consensus involving two or more editors, that this route is necessary I would participate. It would take editors, especially some of those involved with the Find a Grave project, to be open to discussions concerning correcting the instructions, assistance to correct the multitude of errors in articles, and this would include a willingness to compromise, that I also believe will be difficult. I will not take any actions until the conclusion of the MFD. If there is a consensus to keep then I will be prepared to make more informed decisions. This does not mean I will stop my edits to correct errors in articles and with that I would appreciate help. Otr500 (talk) 21:56, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
The only problem with the very long discussion here is that yourself and a couple of the other users would not be satisfied unless those of us that do use the find a grave website agree that it be banned and stripped from all articles. Since that isn't likely to happen there is no reason to have the discussion you are speaking of. The find a grave website has continuously received consensus or at least deleting it couldn' get consensus and continuing to submit it every month is just wasting people time. Deleting this site and banning it from WP would lead to large chunks of vital information such as birth, death and burial informaton to be deleted from articles, likely leading to the article itself being deleted due to the non availability of any meaningful content. That would be a far greater detriment to WP than allowing the link to be used. --Kumioko (talk) 01:40, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
You are absolutely 100% wrong and my comments have shown this over and over again even recently. I am now so utterly amazed at your statement that it just boggles my mind. I am asking in a nice way if you make these statements to pick fights or just do not actually read comments. I will post this in the best English I can; I have had no intentions now or from the beginning to have Find a Grave deleted from Wikipedia. If there is no plan, as you have so plainly stated are your intentions not to be part of, to work on correcting obvious problems then, and I have plainly stated this, I will look at other options. I have had two editors enter tentative dialog to address concerns and am willing to discuss these. So it will be perfectly clear; I have had no intentions to have Find a Grave banned or deleted from Wikipedia. Surely I do not need to type this again. If you or anyone else has grievances with the fact that Find a Grave is not acceptable as a source or reference then I am not the one you should be addressing. I was not involved in the discussions to form the consensus. I have plainly stated my issues and just recently was told that repeating them would not make them more serious. This is actually amusing as now you make me look back to see what would make you post these comments. I assume it is because you have taken a position that you are right about something (not sure what) and that you have no plans to compromise. I would also not be so secure that consensus can not ever change and that there may be more willing to step up to the plate than you think. If you have gotten the just of my comments now then possibly you can move on from the deletion thoughts to improving Wikipedia. If not then have a nice day. Otr500 (talk) 03:47, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
I would like to have the editors posting here, along with the others, to see my comment here. I checked into the VA and a couple of others that S. Rich said was dumping a large amounts in the the Find a Grave data base. What I found was that individuals were adding that bunch of inforamtion to the F-a-G site. Now I couldn't find where to search for the VA account there so if the VA and the other sites mentioned by S. Rich have an account please post it for all to see so it can be researched. Also, I don't know if I was one of the editors mentioned that was said should be taken to AN/i. That being said, when I removed the Find a Grave site from the body of an article it was done because I believe a consensus was reached stating that site was not a reliable site. When I removed it from the external links, it was because another site was used in the body of the article that was a reliable source which would make the Find a Grave link not needed. I used the WP:PEREN in my edit summary. I know this esay is not policy or a guideline. My mistake was not saying essay in my edit summary. I don't believe that there are anyone just removing Find a Grave from articles. I really believe that Otr500 and of course myself are doing the research necessay to make an educate decision. If there are other editors removing this site from articles I not aware of it. Thanks, --CrohnieGalTalk 15:09, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Suggested articles to edit

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot[edit]

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs
German Waldheim Cemetery
Interstate 210 (Louisiana)
Phoenix First Assembly of God
Netherlands American Cemetery
Elevation Church
Cemetery for Hebrew Confederate Soldiers
Hill City Township, Graham County, Kansas
Coopers, Louisiana
Assemblies of God in India
40th Virginia Infantry
Houma – Bayou Cane – Thibodaux metropolitan area
Mermentau River
Simpson, Louisiana
Memphis Miracle
First United Methodist Church (Kissimmee, Florida)
Interstate 110 (Louisiana)
New Albany National Cemetery
Drifton, Florida
Lake Charles I-10 Bridge
Cleanup
Iraq
Georgia (U.S. state)
William Wallace Burns
Merge
Monmouth order of Battle
2010 NBA Finals
Birth control
Add Sources
Gender of God in Christianity
Calcasieu River
Speed limits in the United States (rail)
Wikify
Riverside Cemetery (Saddle Brook, New Jersey)
Westwood Cemetery (Michigan)
Theater in Washington, D.C.
Expand
Holy Sepulchre Cemetery (Cheltenham Township, Pennsylvania)
Pentecostalism
Interstate 10 in Mississippi

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 02:45, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Preference changes

Notification: changes to "Mark my edits as minor by default" preference[edit]

Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.

On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was true. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to false in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and you will still be able to manually mark your edits as being 'minor'. The only thing that's changed is that you will no longer have them marked as minor by default.

For established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. If you are familiar with the contents of WP:MINOR, and believe that it is still beneficial to the encyclopedia to have all your edits marked as such by default, then this discussion will give you the details you need to continue with this functionality indefinitely. If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.

Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 18:15, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Find a Grave

Recent Find a Grave edits[edit]

I just wanted to let you know that I reverted a couple of your recent edits of removing Find a Grave entries. The only ones I reverted either:

  1. The edit you made broke the link to Find a Grave and the link was creating an error (there are a lot more of these)
  2. A picture of the grave with the sourced information clearly visible is available on the Find a Grave entry validating the information.
  3. Medal of Honor recipients whose information cannot so far be gained from any other source without using original research.

I also noticed a couple were B class or better and I will attempt to find a reference. If I cannot I will have to downgrade the articles due to a lack of sourcing of the information. Also, the link you provided on the External links talk page showed a list of articles with the Find a Grave link but there are a lot of images on that list as well. Is it your intention to submit these images for deletion since they are derived from what you perceive to be an "unreliable source"? Surprising as this might be I do not think we should be using images from Find a Grave so if that is your intention I might support you on that one. --Kumioko (talk) 15:10, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I looked at your user page today and was surprised. I estimate you would have to stop editing on Wikipedia about 10 years for me to catch up with you. This would also depend on me winning the lottery so I wouldn't be working 70 to 90 hours a week. These facts also perplexes me at times concerning some of your comments. Since I do not plan on getting into an edit war with you, but have absolutely no plans to ignore clear violations of Wikipedia policy, then I guess the next step is necessary. I left a comment on one of the edits you reverted and if you really feel you are right then we will have to pursue Wikipedia remedies for a solution. This saddens me as I really, really, really, do not want to to argue against something that I actually like. A problem with a part of your statement that I perceive to be an unreliable source, that I have provided policies to back up, are supported by consensus and many edits.
I have always heard there is more than one way to skin a cat, and glad to learn it was a metaphor, but here would be an example that did not take a lot of work and just might be one solution for your Medal of Honor recipient concerns;
  • Julius A. R. Wilke (a Medal of Honor recipient), found here on Find a Grave, lists Arlington National Cemetery as the place of burial. This is contrary to the Find a Grave entry so I researched a little. I have an emailed copy of a letter from the Department of the Army, Arlington National Cemetery, that states they have no information on the man named in the Wikipedia article. I also have an email from the man that claims to have visited "2,800 sites or 99% of the known recipients (Medal of Honor) graves in the United States", and is a member of the Medal of Honor Historical Society of the US. It is also listed that he has taken 3,014 Photos. This individual is willing to release pictures he has taken, to conform to Wikipedia GNU Free Documentation License, and help in any way he can. I would think this could be an important thing, especially concerning Medal of Honor recipients (lack of reliable sources) and the picture issue (two of your numbered concerns), where information is rare. Since this is not an area I am familiar with I would think it would be of interest to someone such as yourself. If this is so then let me know and we can proceed from there. This will not solve your concern of broken links so this is something you will have to work on because, no matter how much it is desired, Find a Grave can not be used as a reliable source. Otr500 (talk) 14:08, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I saw the entry you made and replaced the information with the information available although it was via Find a Grave. I also appreciate you doing that research on the Medal of Honor recipients and getting the images of the graves would be great and it would be good to get them and add them to the articles but it still doesn't fix the sourcing problem. We can't, as far as I know, use an image as a source although we can use it as corroboration when we link to a site or source that contains the image. Even if we could I am not sure that it wouldn't breach the original research criteria. Adding it to the find a Grave site gets around that just as if an author added Original research to a book. --Kumioko (talk) 14:23, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

A grave marker could be cited as a reliable source (for its contents), just like you could cite a billboard or historical plaque. Their contents are 'available to the public' and thus the signs are 'published', even though the medium is typically stone or metal rather than paper. See {{cite sign}} for one standard format. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:24, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Thats interesting I never knew about that one that might be an option. I'm not sure if everyone would interpret it that way and I'm still not sure it wouldn't constitute original research but its worth looking into thanks. --Kumioko (talk) 21:43, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind I altered the format. I read this is an option (see above) to the indenting that ends up against the far right side on long discussion so I am experimenting.
If a picture was not considered a reliable source it could not be used in the body of an article. As far as I understand OR would take place if additional comments were offered that was not supported by the picture or another reliable source. To state what is in the picture would not be OR.
Kumioko, I do not have the ease of use of Wikipedia, nor the time, to undertake collecting pictures and all it entails to have them uploaded to commons. If you are interested in this then you can go straight to the horses mouth. If you are only interested in Medal of Honor recipients then possibly there is another editor with Find a Grave interests that is interested. Otr500 (talk) 08:59, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Removal of find a grave[edit]

I noticed that you removed Find a Grave from a couple of articles that were on my watchlist and wanted to let you know I just reverted a couple. If there is a better reference of the information then I agree, by all means replace the find a grave link but removing it from articles with only 2 links or causing an article to be unreferenced (though by it a weak reference) is not, IMO, a good way to improve the pedia. --Kumioko (talk) 03:10, 10 May 2011 (UTC) :I have been correcting articles that I will follow up on (placed on my watch list), have stated my intentions, have followed up on some (a large task), and I have explained what I am doing and asked for assistance.

Through many edits where policies and guidelines were disregarded articles have been created. Those that created many are long gone and the articles just sit taking up space. If a person is only notable for one thing and there are no (or even one) reliable sources or references then notability is an issue. I had no current plans to even consider seeking removal of articles but the Find a Grave project has no plans to correct problems that now exist. You can not seem to decide about retiring but seem to have no plans to edit. You have stated that you reverted articles and I will review this. If you reverted good faith edits against Wikipedia policies, guidelines, and consensus I will issue a warning on your retired talk page.
I have undertaken a monumental task of correcting articles that have improper references and have Wikipedia policies, guidelines, and consensus to back up my edits. I also plan to (and currently do so) revisit articles at a point to seek improvements. I have recently done this (Willard Brown) as a direct result of my project concerning Find a Grave. I will not be daunted by setbacks as the Find a Grave project was allowed a few years to create unacceptable articles. Some members or proponents have weighed in on keeping the "status quo" with no plans for any corrections.
I have chosen to use what I feel is an exemption to use Find a Grave as an external link (compromise) even though there are many that are against it. Those that are have not raised any objections so I continue to do so. It is not my job to stop what I am doing to correct links so if one is constructed to require a lot of work I have deleted it. You had the option to place the link under an external links section.
Reverting and placing back as a reference is against long established policies, guidelines, and consensus and thus I must act accordingly. Please be advised again (as many times before) that Find a Grave is not considered reliable as a reference not even, "though by (I assume be) it a weak reference ". This has been established beyond controversy, reaffirmed more than once, and you choose to continually ignore this. I have stated that I do not support banning Find a Grave, as long as it is not detrimental to Wikipedia, just fixing the errors and mistakes. You have stated that this has been tried before but I was not involved and I feel I can prove the Wikipedia project, without corrections to follow Wikipedia policies, guidelines, and certainly consensus, is more harmful than good to Wikipedia. I have repeatedly taken the path to avoid such a confrontation but actions in defiance of Wikipedia standards will leave me no choice.
I really do not care if an articles will be lacking if Find a Grave has to be used as a weak reference to prevent not having references. Since Find a Grave can not be used as a reference without violating policies, guidelines, consensus, and even the Find a Grave project instructions, then an article probably does not meet the criteria for space on Wikipedia. Correcting the articles places them in the proper category for eventual work or removal. If you want these articles then find references that are out there. This will be a little more work than creating unreferenced articles but will be worth it in the long run.
I feel sad that you choose to take a cowboy position of no compromise, continued circular arguments, and what I consider a "do or die" stance with regard to your continued defiance. A good way to improve the pedia will be to provide sources and references for lacking articles, or to remove these from the site, not circumventing all that Wikipedia stands for to further a cause by blatantly disregarding policies, guidelines, and consensus, or by using unreliable sources and references while hiding them under an external link.
I would hope that you would not underestimate my determination in what I have undertaken and maybe you should not retire but stick around for the inevitable challenge that will be forth-coming. Otr500 (talk) 05:38, 10 May 2011 (UTC) Placed on hold at this time. Otr500 (talk) 05:50, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Anthony T. Kahoʻohanohano[edit]

I noticed the cite check flag you dropped. could I ask which reference you are questioning so I can fix it? --Kumioko (talk) 21:40, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I left a message on the talk page. Let me know if what you find is consistent with what I found. Otr500 (talk) 22:08, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
I see what you mean. I added a couple of links under external links but I don't have to fix them all right now Ill go back and do it later. --Kumioko (talk) 15:49, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to MILHIST[edit]

The Bugle 2011

The Bugle: Issue LXI, March 2011[edit]

The Bugle.png
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 04:22, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXII, April 2011[edit]

The Bugle.png
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 23:21, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXIII, May 2011[edit]

The Bugle.png
To begin or stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 23:16, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXIV, June 2011[edit]

The Bugle.png
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. BrownBot (talk) 23:42, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXV, July 2011[edit]

The Bugle.png
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. BrownBot (talk) 22:49, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXVI, August 2011[edit]

The Bugle.png

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 18:29, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXVII, September 2011[edit]

The Bugle.png

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 02:37, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXVIII, October 2011[edit]

The Bugle.png

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 08:36, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXIX, November 2011[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 here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:58, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle 2012

GOCE July 2012 (Bugle) Copy Edit Drive[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 Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:18, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXX, January 2012[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 Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:30, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXI, February 2012[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 Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 10:17, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


The Bugle: Issue LXXII, March 2012[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 Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:30, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXIII, April 2012[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 Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:31, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXIV, May 2012[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 Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 15:11, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXVI, July 2012[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 Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:41, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXVII, August 2012[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 Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:07, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXVIII, September 2012[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 and/or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Nick-D (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:53, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXIX, October 2012[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, Nick-D (talk) and Ian Rose (talk) 02:54, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXX, November 2012[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) 01:28, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXI, December 2012[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) 09:08, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle 2013

The Bugle: Issue LXXXII, January 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) 13:05, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXIII, February 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) 07:19, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXIV, March 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) 03:50, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXV, April 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) 15:15, 23 April 2013 (UTC)


The Bugle: Issue LXXXVI, May 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) 13:08, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXVII, June 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) 08:45, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

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) 16:09, 25 July 2013 (UTC)


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) 00:45, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

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) 00:43, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

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) 23:28, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

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) 06:35, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

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) 00:34, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCV, February 2014[edit]

The Bugle: 2014

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) 13:46, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

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) 23:53, 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) 12:32, 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) 14:55, 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) 22:46, 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) 15:37, 21 June 2014 (UTC)


The Bugle: Issue C, July 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) 03:47, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CI, August 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) 15:23, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CII, September 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) 02:25, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CIII, October 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) 14:32, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CIII, October 2014, Redux[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

NOTE: This replaces the earlier October 2014 Bugle message, which had incorrect links -- please ignore/delete the previous message. Thank uou!

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) 01:52, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CIV, November 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) 12:27, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CV, December 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) 12:51, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle 2015

The Bugle: Issue CVI, January 2015[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) 13:28, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CVII, February 2015[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) 22:50, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CVIII, March 2015[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) 09:36, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CIX, April 2015[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) 06:33, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

2011 Newsletters for WikiProject United States

April 2011 Newsletter for WikiProject United States[edit]

WikiProject United States logo.svg

The April 2011 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

 
--Kumioko (talk) 01:00, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Otr500. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 April 10.
Message added 19:18, 10 April 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:18, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

May 2011 Newsletter for WikiProject United States[edit]

WikiProject United States logo.svg

The May 2011 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

 
. --Kumioko (talk) 15:47, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

June 2011 Newsletter for WikiProject United States[edit]

WikiProject United States logo.svg

The June 2011 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

 
--Kumioko (talk) 22:22, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

July 2011 Newsletter for WikiProject United States[edit]

WikiProject United States logo.svg

The July 2011 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

 
--Kumioko (talk) 13:14, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

September 2011 Newsletter for WikiProject United States[edit]

WikiProject United States logo.svg

The September 2011 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

 
--Kumioko (talk) 03:12, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

December 2011 Newsletter for WikiProject United States[edit]

WikiProject United States logo.svg

The December 2011 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

 
--Kumioko (talk) 01:25, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Problem edit[edit]

Hi, can you take another look at this edit it appears to have added some characters to the end of reference 3. Is it some code for the publication or just a slip of the finger? Keith D (talk) 18:00, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you so very much. I am still laughing at that slip. I was getting my grandson something to eat and the only thing I can figure is that he wanted to help edit. Otr500 (talk) 20:00, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

"African American" vs. "African-American" vs. "African–American"[edit]

The phrase "African American" (with no hyphen) is a noun. The phrase "African-American" (with a hyphen) is an adjective. In the past, there has been some confusion in terms of naming Wikipedia articles, but I think they've been straightened out for the most part.

Nobody should be confused by "African-American" (with a hyphen) into thinking it has anything to do with relations between Africa and America. That would be signified by "African–American" (with an en-dash).

If you have a problem with Wikipedia's long-standing naming convention concerning African Americans, please start a centralized discussion instead of leaving similar messages on the Talk pages of many articles. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:42, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply and advice. I do not have a problem with any naming convention of course I really didn't know there was one concerning African Americans. I guess it just takes some figuring out; "African-American naming convention", and "the naming convention concerning African Americans". So where would African American Civil War Memorial place in all of this?
I have somewhat of a different view. I have Irish ancestry but regardless of that I am American. To me, no matter what the sentence placement, I prefer to use Irish-American when the need arises. Although only a vague hope it would be a monumental time when there would be less need (other than historic) to micro define ethnic groups, that are all considered American, and to eradicate ethnocentrism. Concerning your advice I will reply that there are several reasons I did what I did that is certainly acceptable by Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I need not go any farther because your reply was sufficient to cover my questions and or concerns. There is a discussion going on at WP:Manual of Style#dash drafting. Otr500 (talk) 06:21, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

No solution[edit]

Just when someone makes sense of something and appears to know what is going on a bomb is dropped. I thought what Shabazz said was valid, although there was no reference as to where the information was obtained, so I referenced this (here);
  • Concerning titles please comment on these quotes;
  • "The phrase "African American" (with no hyphen) is a noun. The phrase "African-American" (with a hyphen) is an adjective. In the past, there has been some confusion in terms of naming Wikipedia articles, but I think they've been straightened out for the most part."
  • "Nobody should be confused by "African-American" (with a hyphen) into thinking it has anything to do with relations between Africa and America. That would be signified by "African–American" (with an en-dash)." Otr500 (talk) 8:54 am, 29 May 2011, Sunday (14 days ago) (UTC−5)
This actually made sense but a reply indicates that it is false meaning the whole discussion was flawed especially since it appears not one person has a real idea what should be, or is an appropriate us of hyphen, en-dashes, or en-dashes. The reply was;
  • Neither is discussing the English language as it actually exists anywhere. Both are efforts to create a dogmatic Newspeak, and if both are genuine quotes from our talk pages (neither shows up on searching), the editor responsible should be ignored until he goes to play on the Newspeak Wikipedia, with its much simpler Manual of Style: "Hyphens are ungood." Septentrionalis PMAnderson 12:44 pm, 29 May 2011, Sunday (13 days ago) (UTC−5)
So much for figuring things out and certainly for "...but I think they've been straightened out for the most part." Otr500 (talk) 09:12, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Guy Gabledon[edit]

I just noticed the edit you made to Guy Gabeldon removing the retrieved as dates from the external links. I am not going to revert it but I do not think that this edit was helpful. Regardless of what the "Standard" is for external links I have found that it is frequently helpful to have the retireved date on links (citation or otherwise) especially when those links are using the archiveurl parameters and the rules do allow it. I also think that the comment you left on the talk page was meant for another article. Cheers and happy editing. --Kumioko (talk) 15:24, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

  • Have to agree with Kumioko on this one. In regard to PFC Guy Gabledon MoH nomination, I can't understand it either, I believe that it is all politics. I have worked with various organizations to have his medal upgraded to the MoH, I even recently wrote to Pre. Obama, but nothing so far. Another case that comes to mind is that of Maj. Herman Bottcher. I once spoke to two former soldiers who served in different units with him and they both agreed that Bottcher was the bravest man that they ever knew. Tony the Marine (talk) 16:33, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
I can see your point Kumioko. Would I be correct that these dates would have no actual importance to the casual reader? Using archiveurl parameters while still having some form of article consistency, and at the same time following guidelines that appear to have consensus since not being contested, could be accomplished using "hidden comments" that would suffice to satisfy all. We can go this route, unless you and Tony have valid reasoning in having these dates visible on the article page, in which case we can seek a guideline change. I added back the dates per above, if I did it correctly, so tell me what you think? Otr500 (talk) 02:31, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
I suppose that would be ok although I don't think I would invest much time in going through the articles to make the dates into hidden comments. They really don't harm anything by being there. --Kumioko (talk) 03:07, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
It is actually the first article that I recall seeing this on. I don't intend on looking for articles formatted as such but if I run across any I may do this. You are right and it probably doesn't really hurt anything ----but---- it is in the guidelines. I realize that this may not be that important to some but it is just the way I am.
When I make edits I look for potential improvements that will enhance the article. When there are guidelines I really try to observe them. Articles I start I have resolved to begin at start and not stub class when possible and I do not want to begin or even work on articles that I think are never going to be anything but a stub. This does not mean I will not make mistakes as that will be a given, but I really think, even though consensus can actually change daily, that some form of consistency does make a better encyclopedia. I do like "retrieval dates", and especially "access dates" that are somewhat current, as this means someone followed a link and this means it is obviously a good one. Otr500 (talk) 03:31, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

List of United States Military Academy alumni (Union Army)[edit]

Hello! In this edit to List of United States Military Academy alumni (Union Army), you added a ref name of "Chief of Ordnance" with two new entries on the list, but no source was included. Could you revisit the article and add the source you intended? Thanks~ - Salamurai (talk) 07:29, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, sorry for the delay but worked 107 hours so have been busy. If not called out I will look at this tomorrow because I do see I also need to correct the box. Otr500 (talk) 07:00, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Yes check.svg Done and repaired another while I was at it. Otr500 (talk) 23:15, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

US National Archives collaboration[edit]

US-NARA-Seal.svg
United States National Archives WikiProject
Would you like to help improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to the National Archives and its incredible collection? This summer, the National Archives—which houses some of America's most important historical documents—is hosting me as its Wikipedian in Residence, and I have created WP:NARA to launch these efforts.

There are all sorts of tasks available for any type of editor, whether you're a writer, organizer, gnome, coder, or image guru. The National Archives is making its resources available to Wikipedia, so help us forge this important relationship! Please sign up and introduce yourself. Dominic·t 15:22, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Stub tags[edit]

When adding a stub tag to an article such as Populus heterophylla, please remember to put it at the end after everything except inter-wiki links (per WP:LAYOUT): it saves the time of the stub-sorter who otherwise has to move the tag to the right place while stub-sorting it. Thanks. PamD (talk) 08:11, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Otr500 (talk) 00:02, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Luis Barbero[edit]

Hi Otr500. I've replied on the talkpage of Luis Barbero regarding the issues you raised. Hope this helps! Thanks. Lugnuts (talk) 11:36, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks...[edit]

...for updating the EOBR article. I was planning on expanding it but I started driving local and got burnt out on article editing and as you can see it has been sitting around for years with no work. --ErgoSumtalktrib 00:03, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Well thank you. I plan to do more on several others but worked 89 hours last week. After 17 years I sort of went local, in the oilfield industry, but actually get paid more when I don't drive. Stand-by time, with oilfield exemptions and a 24 hour restart, make it nice. Otr500 (talk) 00:11, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notifications

Disambiguation link notification[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited Riverstone Holdings, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Desert, California (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:01, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited Will Rogers Shrine of the Sun, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Cripple Creek and Native American (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:57, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for Jan 2012[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited Norris-Penrose Event Center, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Native American (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:51, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for Feb 2012[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited Hualapai people, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page William Hardy (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:57, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for Mar 2, 2012[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited Canon de 105 mle 1913 Schneider, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ansaldo (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:07, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 20, 2012[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited Transportation Security Administration, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Young Turks (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:03, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 28, 2012[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Transportation Security Administration, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Japanese and Federal (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:48, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 23, 2013[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited El Camino Real de los Tejas National Historic Trail, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sabine River (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:07, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 5[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited United States Lighthouse Service, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Department of Treasury (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 16:47, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 4[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Chuck Connors, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Kamala Devi and Branded (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 23:09, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Fixed: YesY. Otr500 (talk) 04:36, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 14[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited USRC Woodbury (1837), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Veracruz, Mexico (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:05, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Green tickY Fixed

Disambiguation link notification for September 21[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sabine Pass, Port Arthur, Texas, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page San Jacinto (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:36, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Green tickY Fixed

Disambiguation link notification for October 5[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Constitution of Louisiana (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Civil law, Richard Johnson, Josiah Quincy and William Giles

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:43, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Green tickY Fixed

Disambiguation link notification for October 12[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Constitution of Louisiana, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page University of Louisiana (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:56, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Green tickY Fixed

Disambiguation link notification for May 30[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Livonia, Louisiana, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Indian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:54, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Green tickY: Done

Disambiguation link notification for June 22[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Lacassane Company, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Conservation and Casitas (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:52, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Green tickY: Done

Disambiguation link notification for September 25[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Cajun cuisine, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sage. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:16, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Green tickY: Done

Disambiguation link notification for November 29[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Crescent Plantation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Santa Gertrudis. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:10, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Green tickY: Done

Disambiguation link notification for December 27[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Pembina Territory, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages British, Treaty of Washington and Northern. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:39, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 13[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Richard H. Keith, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Bowman (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:26, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Green tickY: Done, removed link causing disambiguation.

Disambiguation link notification for March 30[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kissel Motor Car Company, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page William Ruger (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:59, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Green tickY: Done


Disambiguation link notification for June 8[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ashland Plantation, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Gonzales and Alexander Stewart (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:57, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Green tickY: Done

Disambiguation link notification for June 15[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Chretien Point Plantation (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Confederate, Thomas Green, Big house and Cavalry Division
Abe Hawkins (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Freeman

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:56, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Green tickY: Done

Military Historian of the Year[edit]

Nominations for the "Military Historian of the Year" for 2011 are now open. If you would like to nominate an editor for this award, please do so here. Voting will open on 22 January and run for seven days. Thanks! On behalf of the coordinators, Nick-D (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:00, 16 January 2012 (UTC) You were sent this message because you are a listed as a member of the Military history WikiProject.

Reliable Source Response

Reliable Source Response[edit]

I wanted to personally thank you for responding to my message on the reliable source noticeboard. I'm new to Wikipedia, and I'll take your suggestions to heart as I learn the ropes. I do contend that the value of International Futures is beyond a mere interesting bit of trivia. Policy is made through calculated analysis of potential futures, and this model is the largest integrated model in the world, spanning more issue areas than any other in the world. That being said, I appreciate your opinion. I do have one further question that you may be able to help with. As I mentioned in my first message, I was directed to the noticeboard to seek consensus at the suggestion of another seasoned veteran of Wikipedia. Ultimately, is there a listing of reliable sources if the source does achieve consensus? Is there a next step? Thanks again for taking the time to work with me. (Shredder2012 (talk) 15:54, 24 January 2012 (UTC))

Thank you for your comments. Our very lives are affected by International Futures. You are thinking about this a little backwards. I do not want to even think about creating a proverbial monster but spend some time just looking Wikipedia over.
You have added the link to the Angola article in December. The edit was not reverted nor did I see anything on the talk page. At this time (remember consensus can change) consensus already approves the addition, at least in this article. If the same applies to other articles you already have achieved consensus by silence there also. Being bold, as in your edit, is one thing encourage on Wikipedia. There is even a process referred to as bold, revert, discuss (BRD) as a way to improve articles. However, if the site is argued against on an article you may just have run into local opposition. This is why a good edit summary as well as possibly a prior link introduction on the talk page can be a good thing. Some editors (groups, cabals, whatever), seem to demand prior discussion (not in the "rules" I have read) and this brick wall will be very tall.
BRD would include adding content or the link (in this case), possible reversion (or deletion), and discussion on the talk page. PLEASE! Do not ever assume anything bad, or against you, or even the link. You have included the link in "External links" and you will find editors that do not want (will fight) external links (mare than two or three if any) in an article they are involved in. If the article is rated high enough with a certain number of major contributors, they will have broad consensus to effect control of content. This is not a bad thing as you will not want to see an article you helped get to WP:FA get demoted for such a reason.
I will make this very easy for you. As for as I know, and at this time without digging deeper, there is no reason that the site can not be used as a source for relevant material. I can also not see where the site, again where relevant, can not be used in a "See also" section. It can be used in an external links section because that is the nature of the section. However, one thing to remember is that content or links that can be used as a source or reference should be used and not simply placed in an "external links" or even a "See also" section.
You stated you are new to Wikipedia so I would like to welcome you and hope that you will be a contributor and not one that just adds links or references or templates and certainly in some mass form. I am a contributing editor but became involve in reference and external links by necessity of circumstances. It is an uphill "battle", if you will, and I have studied extensively on these areas and still yet that does not mean much. You will find articles are "protected" by individuals as well as groups. This in itself is not a bad thing, and you will learn this first hand especially when you are a major contributor to an article, but if the editors involve are not open to discussion or if they (one or more) exhibit ownership that goes beyond "protection" of an article, you will hit a brick wall. This does not mean progress can not be accomplished but that any progress will not be easy.
You will also find editors that have their own ideas this sometimes actually works to the detriment of expanding a great encyclopedia. If someone edits any article I am involved in I welcome this. If they "cowboy" in I would not be pleased but as long as article expansion with encyclopedic content is achieved I think this is a good thing. The editor that suggested you find out about the link you are concerned with (I haven't looked) is either supportive, objective, open to new ideas, or all three, but at any rate seems fair.
As an editor you should really not add links (you can but just a suggestion) that you are not actively editing or plan to edit. This prevents being labeled a "fly-by" editor or someone just adding frivolous links. This is why I suggested alternative methods of adding links. Unless there is reasons against you can add a link to a "See also" section and use this to keep track of the article for future reference. You can also seek input on the talk page which will give feedback as well as place the article in your "My contributions". You will learn a lot by trial and error but don't take things personally. That happened to me and it can be detrimental. I just decided I will do what I can, pick any "battles" I feel are worth fighting, and not worry about the rest. Remember that there are venues for seeking "outside help" and learn how to use these. Don't be too hard headed or hot tempered, always try to assume good faith even when it seems to the contrary, and seek resolution as apposed to extended, and sure be be circular, arguments.
  • Make good contributions, have fun, and remember that Wikipedia practices editorial reviews by consensus. You may be in the "majority", maybe not, and you just might not find a consensus (even if it appears to be a fantastic idea, thought, or contribution), might not materialize. Otr500 (talk) 18:11, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice and words of encouragement. The learning curve on Wikipedia can be a bit steep, as the rules of the road can sometimes be unclear. It's good to know that editors like you are welcoming. If I could, I'd like to get in touch with you if I encounter any bumps in the road. Cheers. (Shredder2012 (talk) 22:10, 24 January 2012 (UTC))
You can get in touch with me any time you want. I work erratic and sometimes long hours but I try to not miss a 2nd day in a row. While I have my opinions like everyone else, and like all but one person ever I can be wrong at times, I strive to be fair.
There are some that say we don't actually have "rules" as the idea that consensus can change means any "rules" can also. I consider that the only concrete rules we have are concerning WP:BLP's, WP:COPYVIO's, and WP:AGF. The first two are by necessity for legal reasons and the third is to keep peace considering Wikipedia is run by a consensus of editor-in-chiefs.
I have a pretty varied interest spectrum but my advise would be to focus on what you like to do that keeps you returning to Wikipedia. Otr500 (talk) 09:26, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

USRD WikiProject Newsletter, Winter 2012[edit]

USRD Newsletter header.svg
Volume 5, Issue 1 • Winter 2011 • About the Newsletter
This edition is going out to all USRD WikiProject members (current, former, or potential) in addition to other subscribers as part of a roll call to update the participants list. Anyone that would like to continue to receive this newsletter in the future needs to update the subscription list if they are not already subscribed.
Departments
Features
State and national updates
ArchivesNewsroomFull IssueShortcut: WP:USRD/NEWS
Imzadi 1979  22:12, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Military history coordinator election[edit]

The Military history WikiProject has started its 2012 project coordinator election process, where we will select a team of coordinators to organize the project over the coming year. If you would like to be considered as a candidate, please submit your nomination by 14 September. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact one of the current coordinators on their talk page. This message was delivered here because you are a member of the Military history WikiProject. – Military history coordinators (about the projectwhat coordinators do) 09:39, 10 September 2012 (UTC)


Wikipedia Loves Libraries Seattle[edit]

Decemmber 8 - Wikipedia Loves Libraries Seattle - You're invited
Seattle Public Library
  • Date Saturday, December 8, 2012
  • Time 10 a.m. – 3 p.m.
  • Location Seattle Public Library Meeting Room 1 on Level 4, Central Library, 1000 4th Avenue, Seattle WA, 98104
  • Event An editathon on Seattle-related Wikipedia articles with Wikipedia tutorials and Librarian assistance on hand.
  • Hashtag #wikiloveslib or #glamwiki.
  • Registration http://wll-seattle.eventbrite.com or use on-wiki regsistration.

Yours, Maximilianklein (talk) 03:28, 1 December 2012 (UTC)


On names of US lighthouses[edit]

Lighthouses in the US are invariably named "placename Light", not "Lighthouse", by the governing authorities. Please at least discuss this with others before overriding this convention. Also, the cut-and-paste move of Sabine Pass Light creates a disruption in the article history. If you cannot accomplish a proper move yourself, use Wikipedia:Requested moves to ask an administrator to do it for you. Thank you for your work. Mangoe (talk) 12:48, 9 May 2013 (UTC) I answered at Talk:List of lighthouses in the United States. Otr500 (talk) 09:15, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Love history & culture? Get involved in WikiProject World Digital Library![edit]

Center Line: US roads

The Center Line: U.S. Roads WikiProject Newsletter, Winter 2013[edit]

The Center Line header.svg
Volume 6, Issue 1 • Winter 2013 • About the Newsletter
Departments
Features
State and national updates
ArchivesNewsroomFull IssueShortcut: WP:USRD/NEWS
EdwardsBot (talk) 19:49, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

The Center Line: Spring 2013[edit]

The Center Line header.svg
Volume 6, Issue 2 • Spring 2013 • About the Newsletter
Departments
Features
State and national updates
ArchivesNewsroomFull IssueShortcut: WP:USRD/NEWS
EdwardsBot (talk) 22:25, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
World Digital Library Wikipedia Partnership - We need you!
WorldDigitalLibraryLogo2.png
Hi Otr500! I'm the Wikipedian In Residence at the World Digital Library, a project of the Library of Congress and UNESCO. I'm recruiting Wikipedians who are passionate about history & culture to participate in improving Wikipedia using the WDL's vast free online resources. Participants can earn our awesome WDL barnstar and help to disseminate free knowledge from over 100 libraries in 7 different languages. Please sign up to participate here. Thanks for editing Wikipedia and I look forward to working with you! SarahStierch (talk) 22:29, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
The Centerline: Summer 2013

The Center Line: Summer 2013[edit]

The Center Line header.svg
Volume 6, Issue 3 • Summer 2013 • About the Newsletter
Departments
Features
State and national updates
ArchivesNewsroomFull IssueShortcut: WP:USRD/NEWS
EdwardsBot (talk) 22:20, 10 August 2013 (UTC)


Kurdish separatism in Iran campaignbox[edit]

Hello Zirguezi, since you were active on the Kurdish Iranian topic in the past - i would like to notify you the following: Recently an article Kurdish separatism in Iran was forced a split into new Rebellions in Iranian Kurdistan; In addition, the campaignbox was as well split [1]: from template:Campaignbox Kurdish separatism in Iran into the new template:Campaignbox Kurdish–Iranian conflict . I proposed to remerge the campaignboxes via a community consensus, with the rationale that the split of articles was made artificially and without any real need (the user who did it, had wanted to rename the Kurdish separatism in Iran article, but when failed - he started a "competitive" article). You are welcome to express your opinion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2013_September_3#Template:Campaignbox_Kurdish.E2.80.93Iranian_conflict.Greyshark09 (talk) 14:31, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history coordinator election[edit]

Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election, which will determine our coordinators for the next twelve months. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September! Kirill [talk] 16:38, 16 September 2013 (UTC)


Center Line: Winter 2013

The Center Line: Winter 2013[edit]

The Center Line header.svg
Volume 7, Issue 1 • Winter 2014 • About the Newsletter
Departments
Features
State and national updates
ArchivesNewsroomFull IssueShortcut: WP:USRD/NEWS
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:15, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Reasons for lack of editing[edit]

I have slowed down editing on Wikipedia as lack of edits will show. The reasons are what can be referred to as "mythical":

  • 1)- Guardian editors; These are mythical editors with good intentions but if they alone do not like something in an article, even if relevant and sourced, it will be reverted, resulting in unnecessary complications.
  • 2)- What I call a Cabal even if I am assured they do not exist so are mythical. I have had the displeasure of meeting such a mythical group (I may have only been dreaming) that I (my personal opinion) feel can be humorously referred to as "The Knights of NPOV Cabal" or "The Never Finishes an Article Cabal". It is my opinion, and with considerable proof, they (if they were to exist) rename articles in violation of Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines, only creating a majority of stub articles with many being misnamed. Pages of evidence to the contrary will result in pages of verbiage, and any attempt to change this will be a battle. Some editors just want to edit. Sure, knowing there is irrefutable evidence, I "could" battle through the process but finding the Wikipedia mythical room is complicated.
  • If you are some of these editors, that belong to the mythical secret project Cabal that does not exist, you know who you are. I know, that you know, that you are wrong. "If" I were to get the time and will to "do battle", I would even try to expose these editors if only you were not so mythical. This would only be after enough editors (OMG would that also be a Cabal?) have had enough of something that is presented as not being actual, while in reality really is, yet is referred to as mythical because Wikipedia protocol is to deny it, and attempts to do something about it is complicated. There is not even a real Wikipedia protocol to attempt to deal with naming conventions of projects gone awry, that blatantly disregard Wikipedia even in article naming (as a group), to try to address this without a long term battle. If something is wrong it should not be so hard to correct without mythical editorial bloodshed.
  • See; Even trying to explain it is comical so there is really nothing short of confrontation that can resolve it. I may not be editing articles but I feel better. "IF" someone takes offense at any of this, or tries to make an issue of any, OR becomes tired of some of the same things and would like a change, let me know (tag it) or join in, as I can provide links to substantiate any of the above "mythical" information. If you are one of the "mythical" editors misnaming articles all over Wikipedia, and would like to report me, this would be a good reason to "do battle" to expose you. Since you are "mythical" I can not imagine how you could possibly be insulted. My mythical thanks, Otr500 (talk) 04:00, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Notification of automated file description generation[edit]

Your upload of File:Beauregard Parish Jail caption2.JPG or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 12:56, 25 January 2014 (UTC)



Center Line: Spring 2014

The Center Line: Spring 2014[edit]

The Center Line header.svg
Volume 7, Issue 2 • Spring 2014 • About the Newsletter
Departments
Features
State and national updates
ArchivesNewsroomFull IssueShortcut: WP:USRD/NEWS
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:05, 8 June 2014 (UTC) on behalf of Imzadi1979


The Center Line: Fall 2013[edit]

The Center Line header.svg
Volume 6, Issue 4 • Fall 2013 • About the Newsletter
Departments
Features
State and national updates
ArchivesNewsroomFull IssueShortcut: WP:USRD/NEWS
EdwardsBot (talk) 03:11, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

The Center Line: Spring 2014[edit]

The Center Line header.svg
Volume 7, Issue 2 • Spring 2014 • About the Newsletter
Departments
Features
State and national updates
ArchivesNewsroomFull IssueShortcut: WP:USRD/NEWS
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:05, 8 June 2014 (UTC) on behalf of Imzadi1979

Request for comment[edit]

Hello Otr500, I'm here onbehalf of WP:ORPHAN in which you are also a participant. So, we want your opinion to a WP:ORPHAN related matter. It is a proposal by Technical 13. Please have a look here. Your opinion (i.e support, oppose etc) are very much appreciated there. Thank you. By Jim Cartar through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:02, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Backlog drive[edit]

Wiki letter w.svg

Hello Otr500,

WikiProject Orphanage is holding a month long Backlog Elimination Drive to de-orphan articles which have orphan tags!
The goal is to eliminate the backlog of orphan articles. There are currently 140765 articles which have orphan tags. The drive is running from April 12, 2014 to May 12, 2014.

Awards will be given out for all editors participating in the drive in the form of barnstars at the end of the drive. To add your name in the participants list click here.
So start de-orphaning articles! Click here to see the list of articles need de-orphaning.
Visit Suggestions for how to de-orphan an article to know more!

Thanks. Opt-out Instructions by Jim Cartar on behalf of WikiProject Orphanage through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:21, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Green tickY Added name to list.


A barnstar for you![edit]

Kindness Barnstar Hires.png Barnstar for de-orphaning articles
Thank you for your efforts to de-orphan articles, Although we are unsuccessful to make a dent on the huge backlog, but your efforts to de-orphan articles are very much appreciated. Happy editing! -- From: Jim Carter onbehalf of WikiProject Orphanage through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:24, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
My first barnstar: Thanks.

Redirect[edit]

Hello. I've undid your blanking of Magnolia Lane Plantation because you didn't give a valid reason in the edit summary. If you wish to delete the redirect, please nominate the redirect under one of the speedy deletion criterion or nominate the article at RfD. Also, you don't have to sign your edit summaries with four ~s. Thanks. KJ «Click Here» 07:24, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you as I did not intend to leave a blanked page but fell asleep while adding content to the article. I removed the redirect again but not in contest of your edit but in order to add content and correctly list the article. I did not know about not signing the edit summary as there is insufficient liking on this information and I just never saw it so thanks again. Otr500 (talk) 13:37, 1 July 2014 (UTC)


Playboy

Deletion of "List of Playboy Playmates of X"[edit]

Regarding your comments ending with [2]: I really don't understand the details and extent of your concerns. I'm starting to put together the AfD. I wish you could explain yourself more clearly so I could determine what, if anything, should be added. --Ronz (talk) 16:12, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for this reply and your intended direction. I started out with "I am not up to speed on this yet, nor the relevant discussions, and know there are a lot of affected links.", and that is exactly what I meant.
While you clarified your position concerning your opinion your total possible involvement was still not entirely clear until now. My reasoning on this is that if a person is the only one in a burning building and "only" shouting, "fire; put it out", then it is likely the building will burn down. In reality there has to be a beginning to get to an end and this has not happened. Your comment about putting together an AfD makes it apparent you have grabbed a fire extinguisher.
I got involved in a deep problem with Find-a-Grave being inappropriately added to every bio of a deceased person on Wikipedia as an external link and oftentimes used as the only source or reference. It seemed to me to be a horrible "battle" to right something that was so clear. A good thing that resulted, with all it's current flaws, was the Wikipedia:External links/Perennial websites, and a consensus to stop the "project" from inundating every like article. There is still much to do but it seems it is far more easier to find bored editors to plunge into a project than to gather support to stop and reverse it.
I have been researching as many of those "List of Playboy Playmates of..." that I can. My initial thought is, aside from the fact that I do not mind there being actual Playboy "article" coverage on Wikipedia, is that:
  • 1)- the "lists" I ran into are not actually "lists" but articles classified as lists. Those that have argued for keep (and thus far successfully) have done so with ridiculous reasoning.
  • 2)- The "lists" are biographical in nature and any people covered by an article that are living --- are BLP's.
  • 3)- Using the "fact" that the articles are lists has allowed, as you pointed out concerning the Wikiproject proposal, "these articles were created to get around the decision". What I can find is that it "just worked" because it is not a real way around the policies and guidelines.
  • 4)- These "list's are not just of "people", as the titles suggest, but all are "playmates of the month" so the titles are misleading.
A list is still an article and subject to Wikipedia criteria for inclusion. An example of how these "lists" have survived is an AfD on List of people in Playboy 1990–99, found here. The two most notable are, "this is not an instance where Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Lists of people applies since this is not a stand alone list but a list based on magazinecontent." The second; "In any case, the vast majority of names are blue links and therefore prima facie notable.". The first is most amusing because as I understand it there are lists within articles and "stand alone" (separate article titles) lists but apparently a third is a "list based on magazine content".
Wikipedia:Avoiding harm#Pseudo-biographies covers two instances covering a biography "article". A)- "An article under the title of a person's name should substantially be a full and balanced biography of that person's public life. B)- "If the person is notable only in connection with a single event, and little or no other information is available to use in the writing of a balanced biography, that person should be covered in an article regarding the event, with the person's name as a redirect to the event article placing the information in context." This does not mean redirect to a "list".
You are putting together an AfD so if you would like to let me know what you are including (one in particular or more than one) I will be glad to let you know the level of my support. So you will be clear on my concerns: I am open to solutions that help build a better encyclopedia and presently these articles do not do that. A major concern is that all the article titles that were created as redirects to lists only will have to be dealt with. My initial (possible cursory) thoughts are that "List of Playboy Playmates of the Month" would not be bad if all the inappropriate blue links, that did not correspond to an actual article (or actual event article; so no list redirects), were deleted. This seems complicated as each link is now considered an article (even though redirected) thus subject to certain deletion policies. Do you have an idea concerning these? Any names on the list (after improvements) with actual links to actual articles would be referenced as many are WP:NOTABLE as well as the Playboy playmate events. As I said, improvements are needed, and I will support a move in that direction as long as you are willing to be negotiable to a point. Otr500 (talk) 21:49, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. There's a lot here to digest... Yes, the cleanup of all the redirecting articles and direct links is going to be a chore. Gimme some time to review your comments further. --Ronz (talk) 23:22, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
I was going to reply at Talk:List of Playboy Playmates of 2014 but will here:
I did a quick (accuracy not guaranteed but somewhere close) calculation. There are approximately 735 affected articles (related to the "lists") and I sampled 386. A 35% (average) of article titles (to Playmates) were linked to actual articles and 65% (average) were redirects to lists. This could mean there are approximately 477 articles that would be affected by a mass deletion.
  • An article can not just be blanked and once a redirect target article is deleted would not a speedy delete or AfD have to be initiated for each article title? The actual total would not change but the manageability would be eased on using selected AfD's. This is why I made mention of needing a place to start.
I would also like to ask your opinion. Many article names (playmates) that redirect will show a picture of another model. An example is years 2010-2012. If one hovers over the first link a picture of that model appears. The same picture appears on each link in that line for the three years. I assume Playboy pictures hold copyrights so is there some free use rationale that allows the use on Wikipedia? Is there no legal problem (WP:COPYVIO) with a picture being attributed to the wrong person? I have some information on several of these articles that I can post here for you to review and some of the info may help if you like. Whatever you decide just let me know. Otr500 (talk) 00:30, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
I cannot find what you're referring to. Hover over which specific link where exactly? --Ronz (talk) 17:30, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
It is located at the link ""An example is...". Maybe it is just my browser. I have Google Chrome. When I go to the link I posted and hover my mouse over any of the playmates a picture appears. If the article does not have a picture, and certainly if it is a redirect, the picture of another Playmate is shown. Anyway, if it does not do it for everyone I suppose it must not be a problem. Thanks, Otr500 (talk) 23:52, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm lost. We're talking years 2010-2012? All I see is a table by month and year of names. There is no "An example is..." of any sort that I see. Placing the mouse cursor above any of the names gives the name of the article that the link goes to eg "Jaime Faith Edmondson" gives Jaime Faith Edmondson, "Anna Sophia Berglund" gives List of Playboy Playmates of 2011. Maybe you have some special browser plug-in? --Ronz (talk) 15:45, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
That's what I figure. I do have Power Zoom, an extension that allows me to view Wikipedia enlarged pictures when hovered over, but I did not know it would "create" pictures. On another note; Have you made any decision on a direction with the Playboy related article lists? Otr500 (talk) 16:18, 12 July 2014 (UTC)


Proposed deletion of The Lacassane Company[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article The Lacassane Company has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Is this company notable?

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Plantdrew (talk) 04:10, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 30[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Carter Plantation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Spanish (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:57, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 3[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Pillow Place, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Clifton Place. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:39, 3 September 2014 (UTC)\

Green tickY: Done

Talk:Sabine Pass Light‎[edit]

In Talk:Sabine Pass Light‎ you have made a move request with an initial edit of 9,264 bytes (which can be seen as an addition to your contributions to last years request where you contributed over 16,000 bytes). Which means that you have contributed over 20,000 characters (at 80 characters a line that is about 250 lines), about 10 pages worth of A4, to the question of what is the best name for the article.

Given the above, I think you should consider if your most recent posting to the page, which at 4,007 bytes (about 8 times the size of the posting by Nyttend) was on reflection a wise course of action. Do you think that reply of about 2 pages of A4 was necessary or helpful (as a closing conscientious admin is expected to read it). Perhaps in future you will consider the advise in WP:TALK "Be concise", as very long answers tend to be counter-productive.

-- PBS (talk) 13:30, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice. It probably won't matter but: You might have noticed that in the initial request, after I posted intent and waited 7 days to change the name (I screwed it up), I changed the name. I worked on an article that sat since 2006 and the name was changed back because a project chose another name. An RM was started, I had stated my case, another edited did a better job even with additional persuasive comments, and 6 opposes after that is when I began to wonder what in the world was going on. I still edited the article and made improvements and, it appeared to me, to show me who could and couldn't edit on Wikipedia, my edits were reverted and incorporated as a glorified stub. That was enough. I had edits revered (changed), was told there was a not a snowball chance the name would be changed, and so I waited over a year. I thought I would try again so I presented my case. The RM said not to be vague so I put a lot into trying to be persuasive the first time. My one reply (oppose) was like the last--- "If you disagree with the naming convention, try to get the convention changed.".
I know that "votes" are not suppose to be counted, just what evidence is presented, but in the real world it seems they are related. This time (day 7) is 1 with support and one against, = no consensus.
To tell you the truth I just figured, since nobody had taken interest in 6 days (now 7), I had listed the RM in several places in accordance to Wikipedia policy, and I was going to be working all day with the last RM was closed the way it was anyway, that there was not going to be any chance of it going through. The one case I saw where a name change was allowed it was noted this was an exception. I had resigned to continue not to work on lighthouse articles so just vented.
What I didn't know, and just found out, was that one "proof of name" that is accepted according to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) was the GNIS that lists Sabine Pass Lighthouse (historical) (1980 and 1983) here as a consistent past and present name. All I presented, and I didn't find this information. Go figure right?
Anyway I do not plan to edit lighthouse articles now, and maybe not in the future, so they (the lighthouse project) can name everything "light" if they want to. I "had" interest in all lighthouses but to have to battle so much for something so simple and clear on one article, it is just not worth it. Wikipedia can just have 20 year old stub "light" articles and I will just work on other NRHP, and history articles.
I do so appreciate your investment of time and advice. Otr500 (talk) 21:47, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Your reply which is double my initial suggestion, indicates to me that you do not "get" what I mean. You can make your point much more succinctly. Verbose off! See here, here and here -- PBS (talk) 20:07, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Ordinals in USAF articles[edit]

Since you have participated in past discussions on the use of ordinals in U.S. military articles, you may be interested in the move request I started at Talk:132d Fighter Wing. —innotata 04:34, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

On making military unit articles more consistent[edit]

Here's an expansion on my reply at Talk:132d Fighter Wing, with some stuff about what I'm working on. First, you've been able to describe why we should use what happen to be the common names, and how we follow or don't quite follow official usage quite well. I definitely agree with you that we can make improvements as we go. I also am not for making standardising moves on a blanket basis, so I'd support doing this with classes of articles or individual articles (hence my current move request for Fighter Wings only, all of which I checked). And ordinals aren't the only renames some need, I'm sure. Anyway, as SchreiberBike, who has done a lot of work on standardising style in the past, has expressed interest in working on ordinals in U.S. military units, I'll probably keep track of discussions on U.S. military units, but step out myself. Actually, I came across this matter while working on standardising and correcting articles on other countries' militaries, which I'm more interested in contributing to, since there's less about them on Wikipedia. I started this effort because I'd like to start expanding our coverage of units, formations, and personnel in countries like Afghanistan and Ukraine, which I hope will be useful for rather obvious reasons. I've learned about military organisation and how to write about military topics, corrected plenty of misinformation, expanded and created articles with the basics, and so on; I found out about the incredible story of Irene Morales while improving categorisation (and take a look at the article I wrote on her), as well as creating Sikkim Scouts, and (earlier) 2nd Dragoon Regiment (France). So that's exactly what I'm doing. Anyway, thank you for all your work on style but more importantly on content. —innotata 06:32, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I hope you can take a little time (or SchreiberBike) to insert content and some of the references you listed in the 132d Fighter Wing article.
The "vote" (if you will) is not in yet and does not have to go the way of logic. I have seen closures that use the rationale that references do point out the reasoning to allow a move. I "just" found out I have an early call to work in the morning and may--or may not-- get back early. If I do I will look at that article next. Thanks, Otr500 (talk) 04:26, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Copying from U.S. military sites[edit]

I thought I'd let you know it is allowed to copy or closely paraphrase text from U.S. military websites and publications, as long as you attribute it (see Template:Citation-attribution). U.S. federal government works have no copyright so the only issue is plagiarism. That said, it probably isn't the best idea in most circumstances, due to neutrality and the different style of writing, etc. So, you can choose to add attribution, or remove the text where you see it. I leave it to your judgment, just letting you know this choice exists. —innotata 02:52, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes--and attribution should be clear. Copy/paste is actually direct plagiarism (word-for-word) in the absence of copyvio or attribution and not good editing. To swap mid-sentence from normal practices of editing to copying or copy/pasting text just should not be done. An editor (my beliefs) should not "mix it up" within a sentence, as this allows a lot of latitude to creep in OR. Reality is that all content on Wikipedia is a form of plagiarism as it is OR if not referenced somewhere. The difference is to use content not "directly" copied word-for-word from a source to blatantly show direct plagiarism.
Using This article incorporates public domain material from websites or documents of the Air Force Historical Research Agency, in the reference section is not a blanket authorization to copy/paste right?. The template you referenced can be placed at the end of a sentence, lacking any other "source specific template", to show "sentences or a paragraph that incorporates text from a source that is not under copyright". It can, and I think should be, placed within ref tags.
I do have a method to my madness. Content on many of these article were added to by an editor that has been banned and some not active, thus comments on the talk page will go unanswered. I do not have time to stop, investigate these things to determine this, correct every instance, then take the next step of contacting the editor, so I hid the content, in lieu of sending it to the talk page, so I can look at it later. I hope I clarified my actions and I do appreciate your comments. Otr500 (talk) 04:10, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
You can either have attribution at the end of an article incorporating some copied text, or after each sentence that has some elements copied. Personally I prefer the second, but giving attribution once is more popular and some people prefer that; it's customary for the USAF HRA and such sources we've copied from a lot before. I totally agree, I just wanted to point out that it would work to keep some of the copied text if you decide to. —innotata 04:16, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Gotcha. Otr500 (talk) 04:28, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
IF that works without being contested thus far I can use the time to look at other areas and come back to any "direct" copying as I do not like it even if it is easier. Night-- Otr500 (talk) 04:32, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history coordinator election[edit]

Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election, which will determine our coordinators for the next twelve months. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:07, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

September 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Richard Norton (actor) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • ] in 1993, and with [[Jackie Chan]] in 1997, [[Inside Kung Fu]], MA Training published 1988 to 2000), Martial Arts & Combat Sports (published 1999 to 2002), and Martial Arts & Combat Sports.<

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:47, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

The Center Line: Summer 2014[edit]

The Center Line header.svg
Volume 7, Issue 3 • Summer 2014 • About the Newsletter
Departments
Features
State and national updates
  • None submitted
ArchivesNewsroomFull IssueShortcut: WP:USRD/NEWS
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Imzadi1979, 21:50, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Interview for The Signpost[edit]

This is being sent to you as a member of WikiProject Orphanage

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Orphanage for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (interview) @ 18:29, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Green tickY Done: Answered interview questions. Otr500 (talk) 02:17, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

RM notice[edit]

You might be interested in the 12-article move discussion at Talk:Aspromonte (goat)#Requested move 07 November 2014, since it raises the same question on which you had previously given a fact- and policy-based rationale in very similar requested moves discussions.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  15:33, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Italian goat breeds[edit]

Hi! I see you've made a change in a large number of articles to the number of Italian goat breeds of limited distribution for which the Associazione Nazionale della Pastorizia maintains a registro anagrafico, or non-genealogical herd book. Unfortunately you seem to have miscounted them. There are forty-three, as can be clearly seen in this document, which lists them along with the eight national breeds for which it maintains a stricter genealogical herdbook. Would you be kind enough to fix those articles? Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:47, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Thanks for the message. I will not make any more changes until a determination can be reached. I will list my reasoning and we can go from there. The reference I was going by, and the one you referenced, Associazione Nazionale della Pastorizia, states: It maintains genealogical herdbooks for seventeen principal indigenous breeds of sheep and eight goat breeds, and also maintains less stringent herdbooks for forty-two autochthonous sheep breeds and thirty-three goat breeds of limited distribution.. There is a goat count in a reference that is in conflict with a direct link that states thirty-three, there may be a reason why the total number wasn't used. I went by the information on a link, that appears to be the authority that maintains the registry, and the provided inline link in the article. What is plainly stated without adding anything up is the number thirty-three. In other words the count is plainly stated. There is a list and the count does add up to forty-three. Questions would be:
  1. Why does the Wikipedia article, that makes it appear to be of authority, use thirty-three when there are plainly a count of forty-three breeds listed?
  2. Is minor breeds not counted or is there some breeds that are extinct?
  3. Is the information in that link that is on the article and now that you and I have referenced again (the authority on the subject) wrong?
  4. Is the information on that link from them or has some editor corrupted Wikipedia with false information?
I will look at this, and I hope you will also, but unless you are stating the authority that is listed as an in-line link is flawed, or they can't count, we need to come to a conclusion before we make any changes or revert what is stated so very much plainly in the registry authority.
I am going down the list and as you can see I am adding alternate names, any synonyms I can find, other common names, moving names up to the beginning of the lead, and looking for other references. Maybe we can determine why the count of the breeds listed does not agree with the number as stated in the registry authority.
NOTE: Some of the names listed in the link you provided might (possibly) be duplicates or alternate names. My rationale for this would be the breed Valgerola listed in the reference. According to the article Orobica (one of the eight) they are the same. If that is true then the bottle of beers on the wall has just dropped to 42.
    • IF** what is stated at that link is wrong then that MUST be corrected as it is very VERY misleading and is very much splattered on pretty much EVERY single article about Italian goats. We need another link (or more) to clarify this. I am sure you will agree about this? I trust you will look into this and help me straighten it out. Otr500 (talk) 08:37, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Nominations for the Military history Wikiproject's Historian and Newcomer of the Year Awards are now open![edit]

The Military history Wikiproject has opened nominations for the Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year. Nominations will be accepted until 13 December at 23:59 GMT, with voting to begin at 0:00 GMT 14 December. The voting will conclude on 21 December. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:35, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Nominations for the Military history Wikiproject's Historian and Newcomer of the Year Awards are now open![edit]

The Military history Wikiproject has opened nominations for the Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year. Nominations will be accepted until 13 December at 23:59 GMT, with voting to begin at 0:00 GMT 14 December. The voting will conclude on 21 December. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:41, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

This message was accidentally sent using an incorrect mailing list, therefore this message is being resent using the correct list. As a result, some users may get this message twice; if so please discard. We apologize for the inconvenience.

Voting for the Military historian and Military newcomer of the year now open![edit]

Nominations for the military historian of the year and military newcomer of the year have now closed, and voting for the candidates has officially opened. All project members are invited to cast there votes for the Military historian and Military newcomer of the year candidates before the elections close at 23:59 December 21st. For the coordinators, TomStar81

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:33, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 15[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Toggenburg (goat), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Werdenberg. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:56, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

December 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Bryde's whale may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • '''Bryde's whale''' or '''Bryde's whale complex''' ({{IPAc-en|ˈ|b|r|uː|d|ə}{{respell|BREW|də}}) putatively comprises two species of [[rorqual]] [[baleen

Green tickY: Done


  • in Bryde's whales from the central western North Pacific and Baja California Peninsula. SC/56/PF15). ''Unpublished report to the Scientific Committee of the International Whaling Commission''.</ref>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:07, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Jens Voigt[edit]

Thanks for picking it up on GA, take your time and Merry Christmas :) Mattsnow81 (Talk) 00:51, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

You are welcome. are you and/or any other editor(s) going to be available for any discussion or do you just want a decision and deal with it then? Otr500 (talk) 10:31, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
I'll be available for discussion :) I think Lugnuts and User:7&6=thirteen will be interested as well. Where will the discussion take place? (I'm new to GA) Mattsnow81 (Talk) 17:35, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
I suppose Talk:Jens Voigt would be more appropriate so I will reply there. Otr500 (talk) 20:19, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
I read your critique so far, very good thanks, I'll bring the changes necessary in a few days, I'm pretty busy at the moment :) Mattsnow81 (Talk) 03:34, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
I understand and there is Christmas around the corner. Otr500 (talk) 03:38, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Sorry for being so slow! I'm moving at snail pace, I have a hectic schedule right now. I should be more available after 1st January. Mattsnow81 (Talk) 05:22, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
I'll be taking a wikibreak, I think you'd better make a decision whether it is a good article or not, as nobody else is stepping in to help. Happy New Year :) Mattsnow81 (Talk) 07:07, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. If you agree with concerns I listed you could have just removed the nomination and I would have closed it as withdrawn. I will close it later today. Otr500 (talk) 08:58, 6 Janua

The Center Line: Fourth Quarter 2014[edit]

The Center Line header.svg
Volume 7, Issue 4 • Fourth Quarter 2014 • About the Newsletter
Departments
Features
State and national updates
ArchivesNewsroomFull IssueShortcut: WP:USRD/NEWS
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Imzadi1979 (talk · contribs) 10:38, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 26[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Paterson, New Jersey, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page British (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:37, 26 January 2015 (UTC)


The Center Line: Winter 2015[edit]

The Center Line header.svg
Volume 8, Issue 1 • Winter 2015 • About the Newsletter
Departments
Features
State and national updates
ArchivesNewsroomFull IssueShortcut: WP:USRD/NEWS
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Imzadi1979 (talk · contribs) 18:37, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

deOrphaning script[edit]

Hello everyone! I was just working on responding to a couple bug reports for a script that I worked up as part of a request from this project, and I noticed that only a couple people (who weren't even on this mailing list) are actually using the script. A little history on the script: In March of 2014, Jim Cartar came to my user talk page and said he needed some help in acquiring a script for a backlog drive that he was working on that could keep track of and score deOrphanings for a scored backlog drive. I took that request to the project's talk page (BackLog Drive "DO" (De-Orphaning) script proposal) and there was near unanimous support for this. I thought about the proposal and decided the best way to do it was to build a new script (which is still no where near as comprehensive as Manishearth's OrphanTabs) and build into it a mechanism that will make BLD scoring easy.

What I'm wondering at this point is, since there appears to be only two people using the script, should I continue to develop this script with a goal of using it for scoring BLDs or just debug the existing script and leave it at that. Thanks for any replies or comments.

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list or alternatively to opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Opted-out of message delivery to your user talk page.

  • This message was sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 14:04, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
    Thanks for the info. This reply is to give you some un-technical information. I have been editing a while and it appears there are two specific types of editors; computer literate and those in my class then there are those new to the project. When I research a topic I think that links to other articles are fundamental to being afforded the best possible experience in assisting that research and to me a problem with orphan articles is it produces a stumbling block. I did not know about the script and don't really know how to use them. This does not mean I will not try to learn to use something that is helpful. You stated that only two were using it and I see in a reply that it was being inquired about. Debugging (I hate bugs) and testing sounds good but not many will use it if it can not be found.
  • Recognition is a good thing (as seen above) and my first and thus far only Barnstar is for de-orphaning articles. I think you deserve one for your efforts in trying to improve the Wikipedia experience for editors. From the comment I saw you "may" have a third user so I would also suggest debugging but also "continue to develop" as BLD scoring seems a good idea.
  • Can these "scripts" not be placed somewhere on the project page in a "Scripts" section so editors can find them? Otr500 (talk) 10:45, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CX, May 2015[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) 23:03, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

The Center Line: Spring 2015[edit]

The Center Line header.svg
Volume 8, Issue 2 • Spring 2015 • About the Newsletter
Departments
Features
State and national updates
ArchivesNewsroomFull IssueShortcut: WP:USRD/NEWS
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Imzadi1979 12:16, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Psychological resilience[edit]

Hi, I saw the comments you made on Talk:Psychological resilience and I have made some major changes to the article. I am inviting you to review my changes and see what I can do further. Thanks, My name isnotdave (talk/contribs) 17:07, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I will look at it in the next couple of days. I have been working extremely long hours and want to be able to be refreshed. Otr500 (talk) 00:59, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Religion in infoboxes of nations[edit]

There is an RfC that you may be interested in at Template talk:Infobox country#RfC: Religion in infoboxes of nations. Please join us and help us to determine consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:10, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXI, June 2015[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) 13:38, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

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

Disambiguation link notification for July 30[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Cuckolds Light, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page First-order (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:32, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Green tickY Done

Please take a look at ...[edit]

Wikipedia_talk:Harassment#Support_or_oppose and just above it. It concerns the bold edit you made to WP:Harass.

BTW, nice to meet you. Smallbones(smalltalk) 20:01, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

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

High drive?[edit]

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

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

Thanks Andy Dingley (talk) 13:01, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

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

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

Leo Frank GA[edit]

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

The Center Line: Summer 2015[edit]

The Center Line header.svg
Volume 8, Issue 3 • Summer 2015 • About the Newsletter
Departments
Features
State and national updates
ArchivesNewsroomFull IssueShortcut: WP:USRD/NEWS
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) delivered on behalf of Imzadi1979 05:23, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

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

September 2015[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Germanic peoples may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • or the Egg|talk page]])|url=http://www.imperialteutonicorder.com/id43.html|date= September 2015)}}.{{About|Germanic peoples as an ethno-linguistic group|the term Germanic as used in reference to
  • does the vowel length (contrast with inscriptional ''Garmangabi'' (UK) and ''Garma'' Alise, G-257)). Others have proposed a Germanic etymology *''gēr''-''manni'', "spear men", cf. [[Middle Dutch]] ''

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 11:55, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Robert Dollar[edit]

Under Construction since 3:38 pm, 25 September 2010, Saturday (4 years, 11 months, 29 days ago) ~~ Xb2u7Zjzc32 (talk) 19:52, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

LOL --- US government style progress. Otr500 (talk) 23:04, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history coordinator election[edit]

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

The Center Line: September 2015[edit]

The Center Line
Volume 8, Issue S1 • September 2015 • About the Newsletter

Happy 10th Anniversary!

ArchivesNewsroomFull IssueShortcut: WP:USRD/NEWS

—delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Imzadi1979 (talk) on 23:58, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Drafted article: Pembina Territory restored as Pembina Region[edit]

I became involved in a deletion discussion of "Pembina Territory" that was deleted but moved to my draft.
When the deletion discussion began the article appeared to be a stub that likely could (or would) not be improved, titled under the wrong name, and if I remember correctly not sourced. I expanded the article to at least "start class", referenced it far better than hundreds of other articles, presented evidence that the information was historical, encyclopedic, and therefore warranted on Wikipedia. I did not know (but found out) that I could appeal the decision but it was moved to draft and that seems a viable alternative as I was rushed to make improvements in a short time. I do think I did a pretty good job, and felt that would have been considered in the decision. The only other editor responding (after improvements) agreed (seemed to me) but had concerns over the capitalizing of "Region". I didn't get to discuss that with the editor (with reasoning I presented concerning other like articles) as the article was drafted and redirected.
  • Information:
The region was part of an area that belonged to what became Canada then Minnesota. The Treaty of 1818 solved the Canada issue but all that did was separate the history. When Minnesota became a state the area was again thrown into unincorporated status and this was not solved until North and South Dakota became states. Pembina, ND was considered the administrative seat of the area but after 1818 (until 1823) it was considered to be in Canada which left the area without even a town. The issue was not solved until March 2, 1861 with the creation of the Dakota Territory. This means that from 1818 (the time from when the Brisish/Canadian history became separated, until the time from March 3, 1849, until May 11, 1858 (the Minnesota Territory]] and then until 1861, the area was populated but not represented and this would be 34 years. The history did not stop so it should be covered.
This does not even account for the fact that the region, from a geographical point of view (to be addressed), never failed to exist but was politically separated between two countries.
Aside from all the above I can show where other articles; Republic of Indian Stream (unsourced but I will look into it), Oregon Country, and Provisional Government of Oregon exists and so should this article. The "Treaty of 1818" is far too broad to try to include specific information from this article and will just likely result in article content battles.
Add to that the fact that the other editors that weighed in on the deletion discussion did so at the beginning, before I became involved, and only editor replied after the fact.
The "Pembina Region" of the US, actually unlike the Pacific Northwest ("Though no agreed boundary exists") is defined with boundaries.
The bottom line is I became involved to decide if an article should be deleted or not. Instead of just looking at what was evident (there at the time) I looked more closely and made improvements. I would actually have thought that would have been enough to stop the request with a move to the discussed name. In a short time the article was improved and had more references than the "Treaty of 1818", that the article it was redirected to.
I changed the article name and moved the article to main-space. This may not have been the correct approach so I am recording this for any future discussion. Otr500 (talk) 17:11, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

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

Disambiguation link notification for October 19[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Frawley Ranch, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page CVC (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:31, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Green tickY Done.

Thank you...[edit]

...for silently placing those two barnstars on my page :) My name isnotdave (talk/contribs) 13:50, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 3[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2005 Gujarat Flood, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Anand (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:46, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Green tickY Done.

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

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:45, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

The Center Line: November 2015[edit]

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

ArchivesNewsroomFull IssueShortcut: WP:USRD/NEWS

—delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Imzadi1979 (talk) on 22:59, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Nominations for the Military history WikiProject historian and newcomer of the year awards now open![edit]

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

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

Disambiguation link notification for December 25[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Demographics of Europe, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Macedonia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:40, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

  • Green tickY Done.

MfD nomination of User:Otr500/new article name here[edit]

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

Disambiguation link notification for January 3[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Johnstown flood of 1977, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mineral Point (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:01, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Green tickY Already done

Disambiguation link notification for January 10[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Victor Heiser, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Plague (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:13, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Green tickY Done.

RfC announce: Religion in infoboxes[edit]

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

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

1997 Red River flood listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

Information.svg

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

Disambiguation link notification for February 26[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Articulated hauler, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Komatsu (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 15:19, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Green tickY Done.

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

Disambiguation link notification for March 4[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bulldozer, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Komatsu (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:33, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

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

DAB[edit]

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

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

Disambiguation link notification for June 4[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of lighthouses in China, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Qingyi (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:24, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

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

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

PB articles[edit]

If you ever PROD / AfD any Playboy Bunny articles, please ping me -- I'd be happy to vote "delete". If every one of them has an article, that's ridiculous non-encyclopedic. This is not the space I track myself, but would support any trimming there for sure. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:45, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Two years ago there was a mess there. I was accused having moral issues on an encyclopedia that is uncensored, and attacked for attempting to make improvements. I did have problems but it was that there was so much over-coverage, redundant coverage, and circular coverage that it is ludicrous, and the articles were screwed up. There were arguments that because there were no actual articles but lists that BLP didn't apply. There are List of Playboy models, List of Playboy Playmates by birthplace, by month, by year, by decade, List of Playboy models, List of Playboy videos with zero references, Lists of women#Swimsuits and nudes where the lists are listed all over again, and placed in "See also" sections.
The main problems I had (have) were 1)- Articles were blue links but were redirects to lists that would redirect to other lists so were circular, 2)- Lists would have 12 entries, with an "External links" section in the body of the article under each entry, and an "External links" section at the end. When I started cleaning these up per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout I was hit with "Removing valid references, whether in an EL section or otherwise, is almost always a bad idea.". After I deleted EL links in the article body it was reverted with the summary "Nothing there justifies your removal of ALL external links here.", but another editor didn't think I was wrong.
Articles have the lists of lists in "See also" sections. Many of these have been corrected but with hundreds of links there are still many not corrected.
I would like to think I helped effect some changes but it was a battle and still not finished but at least better. Otr500 (talk) 05:33, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

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

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

Military history WikiProject coordinator election[edit]

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