User talk:Locksmith1865/Archive 2
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Locksmith1865. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
3RR
I know what 3RR is. And you just did 3RR on this page. That's why I posted here that you should be aware of 3RR, but it seems that it didn't work out... 188.61.3.218 (talk) 22:39, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
- It's my own talk page and you were harassing me by copying and pasting notices seemingly just because I warned you on your page of legitimate violations and disagreeing with you in a content dispute. - SantiLak (talk) 22:41, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
- Oh, so 3RR doesn't apply to your own page. Good to know. And you started copying and pasting notices in my page. But I can't do it... 188.61.3.218 (talk) 22:48, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
- Actually it doesn't when its harassment and it's my page, and I posted notices on your page for actual violations, you violated 3RR on CFK, I did not, you don't seem to be able to tell the difference. - SantiLak (talk) 22:52, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
- Additonally, "Reverting edits to pages in your own user space" is a WP:3RR exemption. Additionally, WP:REMOVED was followed. DJAustin (talk) 22:54, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
- My notice here was that you engaged in edit war and therefore you should be aware of 3RR. Which part don't you understand? 188.61.3.218 (talk) 22:55, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
- You were harassing me with the exact same copied and pasted warnings from your own talk page, seemingly for warning you for your own violations and for disagreeing with you in a content dispute. -SantiLak (talk) 22:59, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
- See, you didn't even tried to deny that "you engaged in edit war and therefore you should be aware of 3RR". It's easier to just call "harassment" I guess... 188.61.3.218 (talk) 23:06, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
- You were harassing me with the exact same copied and pasted warnings from your own talk page, seemingly for warning you for your own violations and for disagreeing with you in a content dispute. -SantiLak (talk) 22:59, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
- My notice here was that you engaged in edit war and therefore you should be aware of 3RR. Which part don't you understand? 188.61.3.218 (talk) 22:55, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
- Additonally, "Reverting edits to pages in your own user space" is a WP:3RR exemption. Additionally, WP:REMOVED was followed. DJAustin (talk) 22:54, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
- Actually it doesn't when its harassment and it's my page, and I posted notices on your page for actual violations, you violated 3RR on CFK, I did not, you don't seem to be able to tell the difference. - SantiLak (talk) 22:52, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
- I stopped myself from engaging in an edit war by discussing with you the issue on talk, albeit endlessly because you seem to be in denial that Pinedo ever was acting president. And yes, you were harassing me, with the copied and pasted un-constructive edit warnings and the edit warring warnings. - SantiLak (talk) 23:09, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
- If you stopped yourself from engaging in an edit war, then you was engaged in an edit war. Hence the notice. A fair notice, not a harassment, since you engaged in an edit war. 188.61.3.218 (talk) 23:29, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
- I don't really see a need to go in circles with you on this, you were copying and pasting those notices to harass me, I had stopped editing the article by then and you were reverting another editor. - SantiLak (talk) 20:01, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
- Wow. "I don't really see a need to go in circles with you on this", and then back to the circle again with the harassment. YOU said that you was engaged in an edit war, then the notice is fair. End of story. And provide one serious source about the topic. The media doesn't have any power to define who is president or not. 188.61.3.218 (talk) 21:43, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
- "I stopped myself from engaging in an edit war by discussing with you the issue on talk." I never said that I was engaged in an edit war, I said I wasn't and that I stopped myself, all of which is true. It's not a circle with the harassment, it's just plainly clear, thats what you were doing, the circle is what you are in, repeating the same inaccurate statements again and again. I provided reliable sources, thats part of how wikipedia works, we use reliable sources to back up assertions, I provided 5, detailed references with quotes from RS, all of which said that Pinedo was the acting president or president for those 12 hours. - SantiLak (talk) 21:51, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
- Those sources doesn't prove that "acting president" is not a loose translation. On the contrary, in one of your sources, Pinedo clearly states "I'm not president". And there are several sources of Pinedo and lawyers saying that "acting president" is a misnomer. And there is the Constitution, the Law, and the judge ruling which never mention that Pinedo can be "acting president". End of story. 188.61.3.218 (talk) 21:56, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
- RS says he was acting President. Pinedo says there is a law says he had to take the position. The source you seem to claim supports your position says clearly that he was the president. RS backs up unequivocally that Pinedo was the acting President. - SantiLak (talk) 22:03, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
- Please, stop the edit war and continue the discussion in the Macri article. 188.61.3.218 (talk) 22:05, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
- I'm still discussing it on the Macri talk page and here, I cited 6 sources on the Pinedo article, but you ignored them all, i'm not going to violate 3RR so it'll stay your way for now. - SantiLak (talk) 22:14, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
- Please, stop the edit war and continue the discussion in the Macri article. 188.61.3.218 (talk) 22:05, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
- RS says he was acting President. Pinedo says there is a law says he had to take the position. The source you seem to claim supports your position says clearly that he was the president. RS backs up unequivocally that Pinedo was the acting President. - SantiLak (talk) 22:03, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
- Those sources doesn't prove that "acting president" is not a loose translation. On the contrary, in one of your sources, Pinedo clearly states "I'm not president". And there are several sources of Pinedo and lawyers saying that "acting president" is a misnomer. And there is the Constitution, the Law, and the judge ruling which never mention that Pinedo can be "acting president". End of story. 188.61.3.218 (talk) 21:56, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
- "I stopped myself from engaging in an edit war by discussing with you the issue on talk." I never said that I was engaged in an edit war, I said I wasn't and that I stopped myself, all of which is true. It's not a circle with the harassment, it's just plainly clear, thats what you were doing, the circle is what you are in, repeating the same inaccurate statements again and again. I provided reliable sources, thats part of how wikipedia works, we use reliable sources to back up assertions, I provided 5, detailed references with quotes from RS, all of which said that Pinedo was the acting president or president for those 12 hours. - SantiLak (talk) 21:51, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
- Wow. "I don't really see a need to go in circles with you on this", and then back to the circle again with the harassment. YOU said that you was engaged in an edit war, then the notice is fair. End of story. And provide one serious source about the topic. The media doesn't have any power to define who is president or not. 188.61.3.218 (talk) 21:43, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
- I don't really see a need to go in circles with you on this, you were copying and pasting those notices to harass me, I had stopped editing the article by then and you were reverting another editor. - SantiLak (talk) 20:01, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
- If you stopped yourself from engaging in an edit war, then you was engaged in an edit war. Hence the notice. A fair notice, not a harassment, since you engaged in an edit war. 188.61.3.218 (talk) 23:29, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
- Oh, so 3RR doesn't apply to your own page. Good to know. And you started copying and pasting notices in my page. But I can't do it... 188.61.3.218 (talk) 22:48, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
Here you said that Pinedo sworn in as president which is false, and here that the title isn't in the law which is also false. Next time I'm reporting you. Last warning. Pinedonotpresident (talk) 00:45, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
- @Pinedonotpresident: I don't know what you are going to report me for considering I haven't violated policy but ok thanks for letting me know how you feel. - SantiLak (talk) 00:48, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
Maram Susli
Stop vandalising Maram suli's page. The Kardasiant Opinion piece is in violation of the WP:RS, not a credible reference.
As per the WP:RS "Definition of published", video from a repterable party is a valid source to site Maram's apperences in the media as an analysist. Wikipedian FW (talk) 00:45, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
- I don't think you understand what vandalism is and i'm assuming someone has already reported you to 3RR so i'd suggest you take it to the article's talk page to resolve it diplomatically. - SantiLak (talk) 01:01, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
Temple Mount page
I am still waiting for you or the "other editor" to delete all my contributions from the "protected page".--Jane955 (talk) 03:13, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 18:55, 21 August 2017 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
2017 Military history WikiProject Coordinator election
Greetings from the Military history WikiProject! Elections for the Military history WikiProject Coordinators are currently underway. As a member of the WikiProject you are cordially invited to take part by casting your vote(s) for the candidates on the election page. This year's election will conclude at 23:59 UTC 29 September. Thank you for your time. For the current tranche of Coordinators, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:39, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Invitation to discussion about Per-user page blocking
Hi there,
The Anti-Harassment Tools team is seeking input about building User Page (or category) blocking feature.
We’re inviting you to join the discussion because you voted or commented in the 2015 Community Wishlist Survey about Enhanced per-user / per-article protection / blocking.
You can leave comments on this discussion page or send an email to the Anti-Harassment Tools team.
For the Anti-Harassment Tools team SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 23:01, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Please let us know if you wish to opt-out of all massmessage mailings from the Anti-harassment tools team.
ArbCom 2017 election voter message
Hello, SantiLak. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
2017 Military Historian of the Year and Newcomer of the Year nominations and voting
As we approach the end of the year, the Military History project is looking to recognise editors who have made a real difference. Each year we do this by bestowing two awards: the Military Historian of the Year and the Military History Newcomer of the Year. The co-ordinators invite all project members to get involved by nominating any editor they feel merits recognition for their contributions to the project. Nominations for both awards are open between 00:01 on 2 December 2017 and 23:59 on 15 December 2017. After this, a 14-day voting period will follow commencing at 00:01 on 16 December 2017. Nominations and voting will take place on the main project talkpage: here and here. Thank you for your time. For the co-ordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:35, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
User group for Military Historians
Greetings,
"Military history" is one of the most important subjects when speak of sum of all human knowledge. To support contributors interested in the area over various language Wikipedias, we intend to form a user group. It also provides a platform to share the best practices between military historians, and various military related projects on Wikipedias. An initial discussion was has been done between the coordinators and members of WikiProject Military History on English Wikipedia. Now this discussion has been taken to Meta-Wiki. Contributors intrested in the area of military history are requested to share their feedback and give suggestions at Talk:Discussion to incubate a user group for Wikipedia Military Historians.
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:30, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
April 2018 Milhist Backlog Drive
G'day all, please be advised that throughout April 2018 the Military history Wikiproject is running its annual backlog elimination drive. This will focus on several key areas:
- tagging and assessing articles that fall within the project's scope
- adding or improving listed resources on Milhist's task force pages
- updating the open tasks template on Milhist's task force pages
- creating articles that are listed as "requested" on the project's various lists of missing articles.
As with past Milhist drives, there are points awarded for working on articles in the targeted areas, with barnstars being awarded at the end for different levels of achievement.
The drive is open to all Wikipedians, not just members of the Military history project, although only work on articles that fall (broadly) within the scope of military history will be considered eligible. This year, the Military history project would like to extend a specific welcome to members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red, and we would like to encourage all participants to consider working on helping to improve our coverage of women in the military. This is not the sole focus of the edit-a-thon, though, and there are aspects that hopefully will appeal to pretty much everyone.
The drive starts at 00:01 UTC on 1 April and runs until 23:59 UTC on 30 April 2018. Those interested in participating can sign up here.
For the Milhist co-ordinators, AustralianRupert and MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:53, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
1RR
Hello. You broke 1RR. This was your first revert, and this was the second one in less than 24 hours. Revert yourself or I'll report you to AE. Thanks.--יניב הורון (talk) 17:29, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
- @יניב הורון: Go ahead and report me, I made an edit (not a revert) and then I made a revert, which is not a violation of 1RR. I'd suggest reading up on Wikipedia's standards on civility instead of threatening me. If you want to discuss the op-ed (which again is not RS) then take it to the article talk page. SantiLak (talk) 17:54, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
- Actually removing or changing long-standing content could be considered a revert, but I'll ask other editors before filling a report.--יניב הורון (talk) 18:55, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
- @יניב הורון: It being there for long periods of time doesn't make it more encyclopedic nor does it make an edit to content a revert, because if it did then half of the edits on WP like it would be reverts when they clearly aren't. Go ahead and file a report or maybe instead take a look at what constitutes a revert instead. - SantiLak (talk) 18:58, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
- Commenting on our conversation on IRC: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#General 1RR restriction stipulates that "If an edit is reverted by another editor, its original author may not restore it within 24 hours of the first revert made to their edit." That seems to be the "original authorship provision" you asked about, which you technically violated. I wasn't aware of that clause which is not a standard part of WP:1RR. Huon (talk) 22:02, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
- @יניב הורון: It being there for long periods of time doesn't make it more encyclopedic nor does it make an edit to content a revert, because if it did then half of the edits on WP like it would be reverts when they clearly aren't. Go ahead and file a report or maybe instead take a look at what constitutes a revert instead. - SantiLak (talk) 18:58, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
- Actually removing or changing long-standing content could be considered a revert, but I'll ask other editors before filling a report.--יניב הורון (talk) 18:55, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Help us design granular blocks!
Hello :-) The Anti-Harassment Tools team at the Wikimedia Foundation will start building these granular blocking tools in a few weeks and we've asked WMF designer Alex Hollender to help us make some wireframes so the tools are intuitive to MediaWiki users.
We have a first draft of how we think this tool should work. You can read the full proposed implementation here but here are the significant parts:
- Granular blocks (page, category, namespace, and file uploading) will be built on top of Special:Block. These blocks will function as if they were regular blocks and allow for the same options, but only take effect on specific pages.
- We will add a new checkbox for "Block this user from the whole site" which will be checked by default. When it is unchecked the admin will be able to specify which pages, categories, and/or namespaces the user should be blocked from editing.
- Granular blocks can be combined and/or overlap. (For example, a user could be simultaneously blocked from editing the articles Rain, Thunder, Lightning, and all pages inside the Category:Weather.)
- Only one block is set at a time, to adjust what the user is blocked from the administrator would have to modify the existing block.
- Block logs should display information about the granular block
- When a blocked user attempts to edit an applicable page, they should see a block warning message which include information on their block (reason, expiration, what they are blocked from, etc.)
- If a category is provided, the blocked user cannot edit either the category page itself and all pages within the category.
- If the File: namespace is blocked, the user should not be allowed to upload files.
We like this direction because it builds on top of the existing block system, both a technical and usability wise. Before we get too far along with designs and development we'd like to hear from you about our prosposal:
- What do you think of the proposed implementation?
- We believe this should be an expansion of Special:Block, but it has been suggested that this be a new special page. What are your thoughts?
- Should uploading files be combined with a File namespace block, or as a separate option? (For example, if combined, when a user is blocked from the File namespace, they would neither be able to edit any existing pages in the File namespace nor upload new files.)
- Should there be a maximum number of things to be blocked from? Or should we leave it up to admin discretion?
We appreciate your feedback on this project's talk page or by email. For the Anti-Harassment Tools team, SPoore (WMF) (talk) , Trust and Safety Specialist, Community health initiative (talk) 20:54, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
My poem is bad but my apology for the bad links is sincere!
Good message links are blue,
My proofreading stinks,
So here's a good link for you SPoore (WMF), Trust & Safety, Community health initiative (talk) 16:35, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
.
The Right Stuff June 2018
By Lionelt
Fellow members, I'm pleased to announce the return of the newsletter of WikiProject Conservatism. And considering the recent downsizing at The Signpost the timing could not be better. The Right Stuff will help keep you apprised of what's happening in conservatism at Wikipedia and in the world. The Right Stuff welcomes submissions including position pieces, instructional articles, or short essays addressing important conservatism-related issues. Post submissions here.
Add the Project Discussion page to your watchlist for the latest updates at WikiProject Conservatism (Discuss this story)By Lionelt
After a series of unfortunate events largely self-created, bureaucrat and admin Andrevan was the subject of an Arbitration case for conduct unbecoming. Prior to the case getting underway Andrevan resigned as bureaucrat and admin. A widely discussed incident was when he suggested that some editors he described as "pro-Trump" were paid Russian agents. This resulted in a number of editors from varied quarters denouncing the allegations and voicing support for veteran editors including Winkelvi and the notorious MONGO.
Editors who faced Enforcement action include SPECIFICO (no action), Factchecker atyourservice (three month topic ban ARBAPDS), Netoholic (no action) and Anythingyouwant (indef topic ban ARBAPDS). (Discuss this story)By Lionelt
Breitbart News, in response to Facebook's decision to use Wikipedia as a source to fight fake news, has declared war on our beloved pedia. The article in Haaretz describes the Facebook arrangement as Wikipedia's "greatest test in years" as well as a "massive threat" to the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Breitbart's targeting of Wikipedia has resulted in an "epic battle" with respect to editing at the Breitbart article. The article has also recently experienced a dramatic increase in traffic with 50,000 visitors according to Haaretz. There is no love lost between Breitbart and Wikipedia where editors at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard have criticized the news websites unreliability and have compared it to The Daily Mail. (Discuss this story)By Lionelt
- There is an RFC regarding Liberty University and its relationship to President Trump; see discussion
- Activist and commentator Avi Yemini is listed at AFD; see discussion
Delivered: 11:12, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
The Right Stuff: July 2018
By Lionelt
WikiProject Conservatism was a topic of discussion at the Administrators' Noticeboard/Incident (AN/I). Objective3000 started a thread where he expressed concern regarding the number of RFC notices posted on the Discussion page suggesting that such notices "could result in swaying consensus by selective notification." Several editors participated in the relatively abbreviated six hour discussion. The assertion that the project is a "club for conservatives" was countered by editors listing examples of users who "profess no political persuasion." It was also noted that notification of WikiProjects regarding ongoing discussions is explicitly permitted by the WP:Canvassing guideline.
At one point the discussion segued to feedback about The Right Stuff. Member SPECIFICO wrote: "One thing I enjoy about the Conservatism Project is the handy newsletter that members receive on our talk pages." Atsme praised the newsletter as "first-class entertainment...BIGLY...first-class...nothing even comes close...it's amazing." Some good-natured sarcasm was offered with Objective3000 observing, "Well, they got the color right" and MrX's followup, "Wow. Yellow is the new red."
Admin Oshwah closed the thread with the result "definitely not an issue for ANI" and directing editors to the project Discussion page for any further discussion. Editor's note: originally the design and color of The Right Stuff was chosen to mimic an old, paper newspaper.
Add the Project Discussion page to your watchlist for the "latest RFCs" at WikiProject Conservatism (Discuss this story)By Lionelt
Margaret Thatcher is the first article promoted at the new WikiProject Conservatism A-Class review. Congratulations to Neveselbert. A-Class is a quality rating which is ranked higher than GA (Good article) but the criteria are not as rigorous as FA (Featued article). WikiProject Conservatism is one of only two WikiProjects offering A-Class review, the other being WikiProject Military History. Nominate your article here. (Discuss this story)By Lionelt
Reprinted in part from the April 26, 2018 issue of The Signpost; written by Zarasophos
 | Graphs are unavailable due to technical issues. There is more info on Phabricator and on MediaWiki.org. |
Out of over one hundred questioned editors, only twenty-seven (27%) are happy with the way reports of conflicts between editors are handled on the Administrators' Incident Noticeboard (AN/I), according to a recent survey . The survey also found that dissatisfaction has varied reasons including "defensive cliques" and biased administrators as well as fear of a "boomerang effect" due to a lacking rule for scope on AN/I reports. The survey also included an analysis of available quantitative data about AN/I. Some notable takeaways:
- 53% avoided making a report due to fearing it would not be handled appropriately
- "Otherwise 'popular' users often avoid heavy sanctions for issues that would get new editors banned."
- "Discussions need to be clerked to keep them from raising more problems than they solve."
In the wake of Zarasophos' article editors discussed the AN/I survey at The Signpost and also at AN/I. Ironically a portion of the AN/I thread was hatted due to "off-topic sniping." To follow-up the problems identified by the research project the Wikimedia Foundation Anti-Harassment Tools team and Support and Safety team initiated a discussion. You can express your thoughts and ideas here.
(Discuss this story)Delivered: 09:27, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Retitle the L.A. Task Force
Your attention is called to the discussion here, suggesting retitling Los Angeles Task Force to Los Angeles County Task Force. Sincerely, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 22:09, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nominations open
Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. Cheers, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:54, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
Milhist coordinator election voting has commenced
G'day everyone, voting for the 2018 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:35, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Milhist coordinator election voting has commenced
G'day everyone, voting for the 2018 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:22, 15 September 2018 (UTC) Note: the previous version omitted a link to the election page, therefore you are receiving this follow up message with a link to the election page to correct the previous version. We apologies for any inconvenience that this may have caused.
Have your say!
Hi everyone, just a quick reminder that voting for the WikiProject Military history coordinator election closes soon. You only have a day or so left to have your say about who should make up the coordination team for the next year. If you have already voted, thanks for participating! If you haven't and would like to, vote here before 23:59 UTC on 28 September. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:29, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
ArbCom 2018 election voter message
Hello, SantiLak. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Nominations now open for "Military historian of the year" and "Military history newcomer of the year" awards
Nominations for our annual Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year awards are open until 23:59 (GMT) on 15 December 2018. Why don't you nominate the editors who you believe have made a real difference to the project in 2018? MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:26, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Voting now open for "Military historian of the year" and "Military history newcomer of the year" awards
Voting for our annual Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year awards is open until 23:59 (GMT) on 30 December 2018. Why don't you vote for the editors who you believe have made a real difference to Wikipedia's coverage of military history in 2018? MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:17, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
An invitation to discussion
I kindly invite you to the discussion on Template talk:Infobox election#The Bolding issue to decide whether to bold the winner in the election infobox. Lmmnhn (talk) 19:12, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
New WikiProject Socialism membership system
Hello! I'm in the process of introducing a new membership system to WikiProject Socialism (designed as part of WikiProject X and adopted by a few other projects). The new system works by filling a form which creates a WikiProject Card. I'm manually creating WikiProject cards for current members. You can find and edit yours here. Any change to your WikiProject card will be automaticalle updated at Wikipedia:WikiProject Socialism/Members. If you have any doubt, please, feel free to contact me by replying here using the {{re}} template. Best, --MarioGom (talk) 01:16, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
Backlog Banzai
In the month of September, Wikiproject Military history is running a project-wide edit-a-thon, Backlog Banzai. There are heaps of different areas you can work on, for which you claim points, and at the end of the month all sorts of whiz-bang awards will be handed out. Every player wins a prize! There is even a bit of friendly competition built in for those that like that sort of thing. Sign up now at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/September 2019 Backlog Banzai to take part. For the coordinators, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:18, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nominations open
Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:38, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
Milhist coordinator election voting has commenced
G'day everyone, voting for the 2019 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:37, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Wikiproject Military history coordinator election half-way mark
G'day everyone, the voting for the XIX Coordinator Tranche is at the halfway mark. The candidates have answered various questions, and you can check them out to see why they are running and decide whether you support them. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:37, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
ArbCom 2019 election voter message
| Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
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
Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nominations open
Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:06, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
Milhist coordinator election voting has commenced
G'day everyone, voting for the 2020 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2020. Thanks from the outgoing coord team, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:18, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message
| Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
Nominations for the 2020 Military history WikiProject Newcomer and Historian of the Year awards now open
G'day all, the nominations for the 2020 Military history WikiProject newcomer and Historian of the Year are open, all editors are encouraged to nominate candidates for the awards before until 23:59 (GMT) on 15 December 2020, after which voting will occur for 14 days. There is not much time left to nominate worthy recipients, so get to it! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:45, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
Voting for "Military Historian of the Year" and "Military history newcomer of the year" closing
G'day all, voting for the WikiProject Military history "Military Historian of the Year" and "Military history newcomer of the year" is about to close, so if you haven't already, click on the links and have your say before 23:59 (GMT) on 30 December! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:35, 28 December 2020 (UTC) for the coord team
Greetings from WikiProject:Ukraine
|
Have a good day! |
I saw you in the list of project participants. Thank you for your contributions! The project is relying on its participants – just like whole Wikipedia does  Ата (talk) 10:04, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
|