User talk:Chaosdruid/Archive 19

Archive 15

←

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

→

Archive 24

GOCE December 2019 Newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors December 2019 Newsletter Hello and welcome to the December 2019 GOCE newsletter, an update of Guild happenings since the September edition. Our Annual Report should be ready in late January. Election time: Nominations for the election of a new tranche of Guild coordinators to serve for the first half of 2020 will be open from 1 to 15 December. Voting will then take place and the election will close on 31 December at 23:59 UTC. Positions for Guild coordinators, who perform the important behind-the-scenes tasks that keep our project running smoothly, are open to all Wikipedians in good standing. We welcome self-nominations so please consider nominating yourself if you've ever thought about helping out; it's your Guild and it doesn't run itself! September Drive: Of the thirty-two editors who signed up, twenty-three editors copy edited at least one article; they completed 39 requests and removed 138 articles from the backlog, bringing the backlog to a low of 519 articles. October Blitz: This event ran from 13 to 19 October, with themes of science, technology and transport articles tagged for copy edit, and Requests. Sixteen editors helped remove 29 articles from the backlog and completed 23 requests. November Drive: Of the twenty-eight editors who signed up for this event, twenty editors completed at least one copy edit; they completed 29 requests and removed 133 articles from the backlog. Our December Blitz will run from 15 to 21 December. Sign up now! Progress report: From September to November 2019, GOCE copy editors processed 154 requests. Over the same period, the backlog of articles tagged for copy editing was reduced by 41% to an all-time low of 479 articles. Request archiving: The archiving of completed requests has now been automated. Thanks to Zhuyifei1999 and Bobbychan193, YiFeiBot is now archiving the Requests page. Archiving occurs around 24 hours after a user's signature and one of the templates {{Done}}, {{Withdrawn}} or {{Declined}} are placed below the request. The bot uses the Guild's standard "purpose codes" to determine the way it should archive each request so it's important to use the correct codes and templates. Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators; Reidgreg, Baffle gab1978, Miniapolis, Tdslk and Twofingered Typist. >>> Sign up for the December blitz! <<< >>> Participate in the Coordinator elections! <<< To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:05, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Daphne Caruana Galizia

If you wish to hat or delete that TP discussion I have no objection. We all make mistakes. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 20:56, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Never mind, at this point you should not delete anything. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 12:34, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXIV, December 2019

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 and Nick-D look at works on aspects of the Second World War and Cold War

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) 12:47, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Your behaviour at User talk:Anthony22

If you're unaware that calling another editor an "authoritarian goon" is a personal attack, then you need to increase your self-awareness.

Anthony22 has had a long history of making mistaken, idiosyncratic edits to articles. My own interactions with them include: User talk:Anthony22 #National varieties of English, where I warned Anthony22 about changing from en-gb to en-us on an article that is clearly marked {{Use British English|date=August 2016}} in the wiki-text. Here's the diff and the edit summary: "changed organisations to organizations. This is the English Wikipedia, and articles are United States by default, not Great Britain". That's a complete and deliberate breach of WP:ENGVAR, applied with a self-righteous arrogance that is guaranteed to alienate other editors. Now tell me that he was right in your opinion and I'll know what I'm dealing with.

Not only that, but the next day, Anthony22 decided that it was wrong to use gender neutral pronouns and re-cast a gender neutral sentence into one that implied divers are male. Anthony22 has no clue about the use of "singular they" and decided that according to their own self-established rules of grammar, the article had to be changed. So now tell me that Anthony22 was correct to change an article to potentially offend half our readership.

The problem is not that Anthony22 makes mistakes; it's that they have a very limited understanding of grammatical nuances and Wikipedia conventions. Even when told about them, they tend to double down and insist they are right, and you are enabling that behaviour by encouraging Anthony22 to believe they are right. They were community banned from doing copyediting for their behaviour and you don't get to decide that the community is wrong, especially on the basis of your examination of a handful of recent edits. So back off. You're not part of the solution; you're part of the problem, and the sooner you realise that, the better. --RexxS (talk) 22:24, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Re: "Please continue on my talk page, I just need to know how I am supporting disruptive behaviour, and how I made a personal attack. This is not sarcasm, I just do not understand."

• "You come over as some authoritarian goon Macon, trying to stifle anti-communist propoganda [sic] !!" is a clear personal attack against me. Please apologize. I do not believe that you were not aware that those words were a personal attack.

• "I have a friend with Apergers [sic] who just cannot adapt to Wiki and it's community, it's a shame." implies that Anthony22 has Asperger syndrome and that this is the reason he cannot adapt. Unless you know of a place where Anthony22 has self-identified as having Asperger syndrome that is a personal attack. Please apologize. It is also a slur against all Wikipedia editors with Asperger syndrome, the vast majority of whom "adapt" just fine.

• "Your statement is ridiculous, intolerant and very annoying" is a personal attack. Please apologize.

• "It is obvious you do not care about the editor that I am trying to help" is, in my opinion, the most vicious and nasty of your personal attacks -- far worse than calling me a goon or a communist. I demand an apology.

Regarding how you are supporting disruptive behavior, your long list of "good edit" comments encourages Anthony22 to believe that their good edits (nobody has ever disputed that many of the edits are good; the problem is the bad ones mixed in) means that they can ignore their topic ban. That is clearly encouraging more of the bad behavior that got them blocked and discouraging them from composing an effective unblock request that shows that they understand what they did wrong and that they won't do it again. "I am right and everyone at ANI was wrong" is not the kind of response that leads to an unblock. The best way you can help Anthony22 is to stay away from them.

THINK CAREFULLY BEFORE YOU HIT THE PUBLISH CHANGES BUTTON ON YOUR REPLY.

If your response contains further personal attacks or claims that making good edits means that it is OK to violate a topic ban, the discussion will then be about your behavior and what we should do about it. You are free to disagree with anything I just wrote, but you would be well advised to disagree in a calm, civil, and collegial manner. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:06, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

I do disagree with most of it.

I am allowed to have an opinion, and I felt attacked. I thought that attack WAS ridiculous.

I DO have a friend with Aspergers who DOES have issues and cannot adapt to Wiki - in other words, "Anthony, if you do NOT have Aspergers (etc.), then you have no excuse."

I was trying to help an editor IMPROVE and to encourage them to change so they could return to the fold in the future, and to point out to them that, though they thought they were good, they were missing some important point, as oyu mentioned, the nuances were not understood.

To tell someone they are "coming over as a goon" is NOT a personal attack, perhaps they did not intend to be so ascerbic, perhaps they did not mean to be so authoritarian, I don;t know, I was simply pointing out that was how I felt I was being treated, not Anthony. THat was why I felt I was personally attacked, and that was what I was responding to. I too, felt I deserved an apology, I was simply responding to the perceived attack. If the first message had been on my talk page, asking me to quietly withdraw, or had been less agressive, we would not be here now.

I was very involved in GOCE for a few years, and I felt Anthony could be helped. I now see that the community feels he cannot be helped.

I do agree I could not possibly have know your intentions, so for my "Ridiculous, intolerant" comment, I apologise. Chaosdruid (talk) 12:16, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the apology. One minor correction: while some here think that Anthony22 cannot be helped, I am not one of them. I still believe that if they ever come to an understanding of what they did wrong and why they were blocked they will be able to appeal the block and have it lifted per WP:ROPE. I would be very happy if that were to happen. What I (and at least one other person) are trying to tell you is that what you wrote to them was pretty much the perfect message to reinforce their "I have made many good edits so it is OK for me to repeatedly violate my topic ban" attitude and to prevent them from ever come to an understanding of what they did wrong and why they were blocked. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:40, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Cool

I did, however, point out to them that they HAD made some serious errors, and that their nuanced understanding needed workingon - hence my advice on reading the essay and notes, and the advice to seek help from GOCE

I also tried to encourage them to engage in discussion more, and advised him them to be more laid back on his their expectancy of action.

They seems to expect answers and action within hours, rather than the truth - it can take days for replies on active pages, and on inactive pages it can take weeks and months to get replies sometimes.

Thanks for taking the time to chat here about it all Chaosdruid (talk) 23:25, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

The history of User talk:Anthony22 is chock-full of attempts to help Anthony22, all of which were completely ignored except when they were defiantly rejected. Over a number of years, many experienced editors have wasted substantial amounts of their volunteer time trying to help Anthony22. That is time that could have been better spent improving the encyclopedia, and there comes a time when reasonable editors say enough is enough. I submit that you have been speaking – quite verbosely – from a position of relative ignorance on this issue. The next time you're tempted to take up the banner of an indeffed or banned editor, my suggestion is to ask yourself how much you really know about the history of the issue.

What you don't seem to understand is that Anthony22 will ignore the negative parts of your comments and seize upon the positive parts as further evidence of the complete wrongness of the community vis-a-vis their contributions. Thus your comments only served to reinforce the victim stance that is a large part of the problem, and therefore were the opposite of helpful to anybody – including Anthony22. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:04, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Hmmmm. I am a little confused now - is this people piling on ME to see "the error of my ways"? If so, please, back off. The "verbose" comment is a personal attack - I will use as many words as I see fit.

I am aware of the more recent history, and read through the last three admin "actions" (ANI etc.). I am also aware of the bad points of Anthony22, having interacted with their edits in the past, on David Koresh, Alan Turing, and some other articles - from a few years ago, up until Feb this year.

I am also aware of things like this absolute nightmare of created pages, and of their reluctance to discuss. I am, however, not "taking up the banner of an indefd or banned editor", as if I am some simpleton.

You all need to calm down, and understand that you are all at defcon 4, I am not. I was not involved with the ANIs, nor the bannings, nor the conversations that got you all so riled up.

I cannot believe that Anthony will ignore the things I have said that are negative. I have to believe that Anthony is redeemable, and can change, and that they will fix themselves. Why? Because that is the very definition of tolerance. I am NOT a supporter of Anthony, just a balanced individual who has no vested interest in anything other than retaining good editing without all the drama - whichever side of this current battle the drama comes from.

Now, drop the stick all of you, he is banned, and I am sick an dtired of this tirade of being told off and threatened with blocks for speaking my mind to an editor who could not even edit and is unlikely to return. I had interactions with them in the past, and I felt that their good work was being lost to Wiki and could be redeemed with just a little "you did well, but you cannot talk to people, without that you are lost to us" - If you cannot see that is what I was doing, then go back and read it all again. Chaosdruid (talk) 14:52, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

P.S. I am also aware that Guy Macon and yourself, Mandruss, have tried for a long time to help them - for example, I read the comments form June 2018 where talks of help being offered seemed to peter out as no one had enough free time, or were willing enough to give it, or to put the steps in place - and Wiki suffers a lot from this because we are volunteers - did anyone even bother to take up the steps you had worked out with that admin? I don;t know if they did, but I feel if they had at that point, things might have been different. It's an encyclopedia, not a social venue or care-home, we just made someone homeless due to inaction a year ago, or two years ago. The fact that people said "it's gone on for years" said it all really - maybe we were all a little too kind back then. Chaosdruid (talk) 15:10, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Re: "is this people piling on ME to see "the error of my ways"? If so, please, back off". Yes. Your "ways" were indeed in error and it appears that you don't see the error of your ways. Which is fine; just don't do it again and it won't matter whether you don't do it again because you have seen the light and now understand that you are making the problem worse or whether you don't do it again because, even though you are convinced you were right you would prefer to not be blocked. Either way is fine just as long as you don't do it again. For some reason nobody liked my suggestion that we arrest people in the middle of the night and ship them off to reeducation camps in Siberia. Go figure. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:00, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

No, I did NOT make an error - I made what I think was a reasoned and balanced appeal to a good editor to stop being silly, and follow the rules.

There were peopl ewho were adamant that the editor could NOT be helped, and that anyone who even suggested that they might NOT have made mistakes was worse than them - and must be told that and hammered into submission.

I am not submitting - you have your opinions, I have mine, NONE of this is objective, in that you cannot even demonstrate that your suggestion of me "I don;t know what I am saying, something about if a then x or b then y, and whicever whatever something of nothing".

Everyone prefers not to be blocked, but having made ONE COMMENT, THAT WAS IT

I did not expect anyone to comment, just that the editor would read what I had said, take it on board, or ignore it.

Once again, I stopped becuase I had finished talking to them, the rest of it was you lot having a go at me for daring to "encourage them" (a subjective opinion not a fact) and encourage them to what? edit responsibly? so i asked them to do tha, told them where they had gone wrong, two cases where they rthought they were right and I showed them they were wrong, and that they need to follow the rules.

SO yes, I encouraged them to sotp editing, go away, read iup on grammar and copyediting, reach out to GOCE for advice and guidance when they return after their block, and to try and learn from the situation and accept that the community is as important as the editing.

Simples, you decided I was AGF when in fact YOU were telling me off as if I knew I had done something wrong when it was just the opinion of people and not fact, the fact was I was telling an editor to behave - thqat you did not understand that is NOT my fault. Chaosdruid (talk) 21:42, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXV, January 2020

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on Jim Mattis

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

Books & Bytes – Issue 37

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 37, November – December 2019

• #1Lib1Ref
• Wikimedia and Libraries User Group

Read the full newsletter

On behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:09, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors 2019 Annual Report

Guild of Copy Editors 2019 Annual Report Our 2019 Annual Report is now ready for review. Highlights: Overview of Backlog-reduction progress (a record low backlog!); Summary of Drives, Blitzes, and the Requests page; Automated archiving of requests; Membership news and results of elections; Annual leaderboard; Plans for 2020. – Your Guild coordinators: Jonesey95, Baffle gab1978, Reidgreg, Tdslk and Twofingered Typist. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:10, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

The Bugle: IssueICLXVI, February 2020

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D looks at a failed German counterattack in the Battle of Normandy

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:04, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

March Madness 2020

G'day all, March Madness 2020 is about to get underway, and there is bling aplenty for those who want to get stuck into the backlog by way of tagging, assessing, updating, adding or improving resources and creating articles. If you haven't already signed up to participate, why not? The more the merrier! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:19, 29 February 2020 (UTC) for the coord team

The Bugle: Issue CLXVII, March 2020

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Recent external reviews

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 01:51, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

GOCE March newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors March 2020 Newsletter Hello and welcome to the March newsletter, a brief update of Guild activities since December 2019. All being well, we're planning to issue these quarterly in 2020, balancing the need to communicate widely with the avoidance of filling up talk pages. Don't forget you can unsubscribe at any time; see below. Election results: There was little changeover in the roster of Guild Coordinators, with Miniapolis stepping down with distinction as a coordinator emeritus while Jonesey95 returned as lead coordinator. The next election is scheduled for June 2020 and all Wikipedians in good standing may participate. January Drive: Thanks to everyone for the splendid work, completing 215 copy edits including 56 articles from the Requests page and 116 backlog articles from the target months of June to August 2019. At the conclusion of the drive there was a record low of 323 articles in the copy editing backlog. Of the 27 editors who signed up for the drive, 21 copyedited at least one article. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. February Blitz: Of the 15 editors who signed up for this one-week blitz, 13 completed at least one copy edit. A total of 32 articles were copy edited, evenly split between the twin goals of requests and the oldest articles from the copy-editing backlog. Full results are here. March Drive: Currently underway, this event is targeting requests and backlog articles from September to November 2019. As of 18 March, the backlog stands at a record low of 253 articles and is expected to drop further as the drive progresses. Awards will be given to everyone who copyedits at least one article from the backlog. Help set a new record and sign up now! Progress report: As of 18 March, GOCE copyeditors have completed 161 requests in 2020 and there was a net reduction of 385 articles from the copy-editing backlog – a 60% decrease from the beginning of the year. Well done and thank you everyone! Election reminder: It may only be March but don't forget our mid-year Election of Coordinators opens for nominations on 1 June. Coordinators normally serve a six-month term and are elected on an approval basis. Self-nominations are welcome. If you've thought of helping out at the Guild, or know of another editor who would make a good coordinator, please consider standing for election or nominating them here. Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Jonesey95, Baffle gab1978, Reidgreg, Tdslk and Twofingered Typist To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:52, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXVIII, April 2020

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 looks at the logistics behind the Crusades and the USAF's early Cold War nuclear deterrant

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 05:21, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Issue 38, January – April 2020

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 38, January – April 2020

• New partnership
• Global roundup

Read the full newsletter

On behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --15:57, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXIX, May 2020

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D and Hawkeye7 look at fortifications, the German Army, and post-Cold War conflict

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 15:03, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

GOCE June newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors June 2020 Newsletter Hello and welcome to the June newsletter, a brief update of Guild activities since March 2020. You can unsubscribe from our mailings at any time; see below. All times and dates stated are in UTC. Current events Election time: Nomination of candidates in our mid-year Election of Coordinators opened on 1 June, and voting will take place from 00:01 on 16 June. GOCE coordinators normally serve a six-month term and are elected on an approval basis. Self-nominations are welcome. If you've thought about helping out at the Guild, or you know of another editor who would make a good coordinator, please consider standing for election or nominating them here. June Blitz: This blitz begins at 00:01 on 14 June and ends at 23:59 on 20 June, with themes of articles tagged for copyedit in May 2020 and requests. Drive and blitz reports March Drive: Self-isolation from coronavirus may have played a hand in making this one of our most successful backlog elimination drives. The copy-editing backlog was reduced from 477 to a record low of 118 articles, a 75% reduction. The last four months of 2019 were cleared, reducing the backlog to three months. Fifty requests were also completed, and the total word count of copy-edited articles was 759,945. Of the 29 editors who signed up, 22 completed at least one copy edit. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. April Blitz: This blitz ran from 12 to 18 April with a theme of Indian military history. Of the 18 people who signed up, 14 copyedited at least one article. Participants claimed a total of 60 copyedits. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. May Drive: This event marked the 10th anniversary of the GOCE's copy-editing drives, and set a goal of diminishing the backlog to just one month of articles, as close to zero articles as possible. We achieved the goal of eliminating all articles that had been tagged prior to the start of the drive, for the first time in our history! Of the 51 editors who signed up, 43 copyedited at least one article. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. Other news Progress report: as of 2 June, GOCE participants had processed 328 requests since 1 January, which puts us on pace to exceed any previous year's number of requests. As of the end of the May drive, the backlog stood at just 156 articles, all tagged in May 2020. Outreach: To mark the 10th anniversary of our first Backlog Elimination Drive, The Signpost contributor and GOCE participant Puddleglum2.0 interviewed project coordinators and copy-editors for the journal's April WikiProject Report. The Drive and the current Election of Coordinators have also been covered in The Signpost's May News and Notes page. Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Jonesey95, Baffle gab1978, Reidgreg, Tdslk and Twofingered Typist. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 15:46, 5 June 2020 (UTC).

Books & Bytes – Issue 39, May – June 2020

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 39, May – June 2020

• Library Card Platform
• New partnerships
  • ProQuest
  • Springer Nature
  • BioOne
  • CEEOL
  • IWA Publishing
  • ICE Publishing
• Bytes in brief

Read the full newsletter

On behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:12, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXX, June 2020

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D looks at the naval siege of Japan in 1945

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 04:21, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXI, July 2020

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D on Hadrian's Wall and Hawkeye7 on the British military Op-ed: Nick-D on diversity and military history

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 11:45, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

The Black Hole (2016 film) moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, The Black Hole (2016 film), does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Celestina007 (talk) 00:21, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

I have no idea why you ignored the "Under Construction" template, so I have reverted your move.

Similarly, you marked the article as a "requested review" - I did NOT request a review, you got a bit .... well, a LOT ... ahead of yourself there in all aspects of your decision to move the article.

Next time, maybe look at the article, think "Oh, there is an under construction template, so I'll manke a note and come back in two days and see if it is still needing workl"

THEN - just add the {{CN}} template. THat will stop you getting bad press from annoyed editors who might feel you overstepped into arrogance. Chaosdruid (talk) 03:40, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

PS note that the message banner you twinkled into my talk page, even says "Information that can't be referenced should be removed" - NOT "Information that ISN'T referenced should be moved" - I even wonder if you actually understand the processes you are using.

The Bugle: Issue CLXXII, August 2020

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Recent external reviews Op-ed: Nick-D on 1945

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 14:29, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nominations open

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:04, 1 September 2020 (UTC)