User talk:Oldperson/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Important Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

TonyBallioni (talk) 04:15, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Important Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in governmental regulation of firearm ownership; the social, historical and political context of such regulation; and the people and organizations associated with these issues. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

TonyBallioni (talk) 04:17, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Troll-like behavior

Please calm down, think about what you are typing, use "preview" before posting comments, take time to read Wikilinks including the ones you provide yourself, and assume good faith. Your behavior is peculiar to the point of being troll-like. As a noob, there is no need to jump right in the deep end of the Wikipool and splash around madly. —DIYeditor (talk) 04:32, 29 October 2019 (UTC) DIYeditor I asked you here toprovide examples of what you complain, and in response you accuse me of being a troll. Very mature behavior. Do you think that you are some kind parent who can wag a finger at a child, when you can't answer a question, or who questions uour authority? Are you asserting authority that you don't have? Calling someone a troll, as you have, is in itself grounds for administrative action, especially when that editor is actually a contributing editor. How many articles have you created? How many editors have you tried to help? Oldperson (talk) 17:12, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

(by talk page watcher) 14  :) ——SN54129 17:42, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Solioquy

noun: soliloquy; plural noun: soliloquies

1. an act of speaking one's thoughts aloud when by oneself or regardless of any hearers

This is an extension of my talk page. although I do not have ownership rights No one is invited to participate and will be immediately reverted.

Wikipedia is a mixed bag, There are some great admins and editors in particular Cullen328, Nick Moyes, Theroadislong. Demanding, but mature and fair, no doubt that their interest is in maintaining the quality and integrity of Wikipedia.. But there are some real chunkers as well. Deletionists and exclusionists who get their jollies counting coup by the number of articles they deleted. You san see them by their contributions. They are not a credit to Wikipedia and are not doing “gods work” though that is what they would claim.

Then there are the undeclared partisan editors (paid and unpaid, such as interns) whose basic job is to maintain the PR slant of either current or historical pages like, say Ronald Reagan or Richard Nixon.

Thom Hartmann more than once mentioned on his television and radio program that he once visited the Heritage Foundation, while there he walked around the big room, desks staffed with interns and on virtually every one of the desks was a computer open to Wikipedia with the intern busy editing.

I would call that a war room. And although we are instructed to AGF, it is intuitively obvious that corporations, think tanks, foundations, even Presidential Libraries and fan clubs, employ paid staff or unpaid interns to monitor WP articles that they feel or of importance to their goals, reputation or financial interests. If not then the CEO’s or board of directors are guilty of maleficence. or incompetence and should be fired. Thus these undeclared conflict of interest editors acting as gate keepers for articles they wish to protect or disparage (such as Global Climate Change/Global Warning”. The answer has to be yes. We are told (warned) to Assume Good Faith, but that only protects the malefactors which zealously guard their charges (the articles under their care (watchlist)..

These guardians, paid or unpaid, are skilled, quite skilled, at wikispeak, wikilawyering, making it appear that they are always acting rationally by staying within the bounds of AGF, NPOV, DUE, UNDUE, using tools like revert, hat, cot/cob (collapsing comments), Which incidentally has the exact opposite of the intended effect as it draws attention to edits which might otherwise be passed over.

Apparently they can even get harmful (to their stock market price)articles deleted Such as the case of [Dutch Royal Shell per John Donovan at that site:

“I can provide Shell internal documents about Shell’s wish to covertly edit Wikipedia articles about its activities and information indicating that Shell employees did do so.

And what is the purpose of collapsing (cot/cob), hatting (hat/hab). It is none other than the same purpose as revert, but not so blatant as collapsing comments essentially hides them from view of all but the most serious reader, on the other hand whenever I encounter a hated or collapsed block on a talk page, I am drawn to it like a moth to a flame and invariably expand it, finding it more interesting than other comments.

Now there are very good and valid reasons for revert, hatting and collapsing, especially when dealing with outright vandalism. But charges of vandalism are often misused to shut out an uncomfortable fact or a threating but valid, dissenting opinion.

Apparently most, but the most inane articles are contentious. Politics, religion, ethnicity, nationality, race, even sports and such stupidity as movies and video games. There is no end to the subjects which incite the viscera of humans.

Human sexuality seems to be one prime example. It attracts opponents and advocates like fly’s to honey or feces. And apparently the ones most motivated to flock to these articles are those with religious, moral or personal axes to grind. They overwhelm other editors (pro or neutral) and are even effective, via constant complaint and whining of having an editor, who threatens their position, blocked or banned.Especially,the more experience editors, excel at civil POV pushing

Religion brings out the guardians of the “true faith”, Catholic, Muslim, whatever.

Politics is no longer about my team vs your team but a culture war, the fear of the old order, the patriarchy to hold on to their power and by that control over women and their reproduction. It is a mis-characterization by some in the media to refer to Trumpism as a cult. It is earnest and serious war, a battleground in which those threatened by a changing world are lined up to bring down the house if they can’t have their way.

The secret to effective advocacy is, besides being deceitful and dishonest, is to bide one’s time, learn the policies and guidelines (PaG), become well practiced at civil POV pushing, if not by actually adding to an article but by editing (removing or changing) via reverts and edits, information that is felt to be injurious to one’s advocacy.

This requires a a degree of learned and acquired competency. One of the charges leveled against an editor is Competence is Required (CIR), with practice, experience and study of PAG one can acquire that competency.

The point of this essay is that malefactors with a mission of pushing or protecting a POV, are expert at playing (undetectable) the wikigame, using wikispeak and undetectable wikilawyering

Am I envious. To the degree that I have not yet acquired the knowledge and skills, nor have the patience and time to acquire same.. yes. To the extent that subterfuge and dishonesty runs counter to my grain. No.

Archiving

We don't usually blank content on talk pages, we archive it, you can find out how here Help:Archiving a talk page and here Template:Setup auto archiving All good wishes. Theroadislong (talk) 16:33, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

TheroadislongThanks I did not know how to archive.Oldperson (talk) 16:37, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Neither did I for ages...someone else set it up for me! Theroadislong (talk) 16:39, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Theroadislong You are joshing me aren't you? :} I can't believe that you were once a noob. Honestly I believe that you and a few others were born fully formed wiki editors from the day you created your user page. Unlike myself who (and this is the truth) con't even own a cell phone, much less know how to use it, which is creating problems in this day and age, where on line institutions like banks require you to receive a code via text. Landline works perfectly fine.Oldperson (talk) 16:45, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Holmesburg Prison

Cullen328 Taking your advice I worked over, extensively, the following article Holmesburg Prison that was listed as needing improvement. Just so happens as I know something about the area. would you please look it over and tell me if I can removed the template. I have done as much as I can do. If all looks good could you remove the template, or let me know that I should Thanks.Oldperson (talk) 00:32, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

In my opinion, that article still has significant problems and I do not believe that your useful edits to date have resolved the issues. I suggest that you make your case for removal of the tag at Talk: Holmesburg Prison, where I will be happy to comment on the substance. Just ping me. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:53, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle

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: Willbb234 on Allied pilots, Hawkeye7 on the defence of Australia and logistics in Indochina, Nick-D on Australian commandos Op-ed: Hawkeye7 reports back on a high-profile history symposium

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 21:44, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:24, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

WP:TPO

Hi Oldperson. Please be careful with edits like this. In general, it's not really a good idea to edit (even in good-faith) posts left by other editors as explained in WP:TPO and it's the kind of thing which can create unnecessary problems between editors. If there's some typo or error in some other editor's post (something like "thsi") that doesn't really affect the meaning, then it's usually best to ignore it since talk page posts don't really need to "graded" for things like spelling or grammar. If it's something that might affect the meaning of the post (e.g. a missing word), then it's perfect OK to ask for clarification without "fixing" the post yourself. In this particular case, you edited a post made in 2012 apparently based upon the fact that the Speaker of the House today in a woman. Back in 2012, I believe the SOTH was a man, and even if it was a woman there would still be no need for this correction since the post could've been referring to the office using the masculine pronoun. Even if the IP address used "he" incorrectly to refer to a women, there would still be no need to correct it and if it was something that bothered you it better to explain why in a separate post. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:44, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

{{u|Marchjuly)) It appears that I was asking a question on the article talk page at the same time that you were making this reply. Ooops.

But I am more confused than ever. You tell me that it is inproper to correct another editor on the article page. But that is what I see all of the time, people correcting errors of others, misspellings, oversights and especially reverts. I have foresworn reverting as I know that it inflames passions. It chokes me up though, in the cause of maintaining peace and not disrupting we are to allow blatant "errors" and honest mistakes to pass by But I interpret you as saying that we are not to correct any mistakes, intentional or unintional, good faith or bad faith, in any article?.Oldperson (talk) 21:51, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Marchjuly's message was not talking about correcting articles but about changing another editor's comment on a talk page; that's what WP:TPO is talking about. --David Biddulph (talk) 21:57, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Article talk pages are not held to the same standards as articles. If you notice any spelling mistakes grammar errors, etc. in an article, then by all means be WP:BOLD and correct them; be careful of MOS:ENGVAR and MOS:DATEVAR though. There is, however, no need to go around an proof-reading/correcting others talk page posts except in certain cases as listed under WP:TPO. The only argument you could possibly make to change a "he" to "she" in this case would be that it was somehow a WP:BLP violation since the use of personal pronouns can be a very contentious thing; but be that that might be debatable per WP:BLPREMOVE and require further discussion at WP:BLPN or at WP:ANI if the IP was doing this on a wide scaling. You edited a talk page post made in 2012 apparently based upon who the SOTH is today which would be considered unacceptable refactoring and likely end you up in more trouble than the person who made the post (even if the SOTH was Pelosi back then). -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:07, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you {{u|David Biddulph|| and Marchjuly There are so many PaG's on WP. It is hard for me to keep track of them all, but I was notfamiliar with WP:TPO until now, and I really appreciate you bringing this up to me. Now I have ammunition, because I have been reverted and edited on talk pages quite a few times myself, especially the reverts. I will file this information in my essential to know folder. I believe that an alternative to revert on talk pages is to "Hat" or "Cot" them is that not so? There are a number of editors and admins that I honestly respect and admire, and I am flattered to learn that two of them deem me of such importance that they have me on their watch list.22:31, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

I can’t speak for David, but I edited the article yesterday and my preferences are set so as to automatically add the articles I edit to my watchlist; that’s how I noticed your edit. I didn’t make any connection between you and the edit beyond the fact that you made the edit.

As for others editing/removing your posts, be careful and make sure that they didn’t give a good reason for doing so before you go around reverting anything. If you re-post something that shouldn’t have been posted in the first place because it was some serious policy/guideline violation, not only will it be removed again but you likely be warned not to repeat it. Better ask for some clarification for the person who removed/edited the post or at a relevant WP:PNB if you’re not sure.

One last thing, if you want to WP:PING someone, you need to format the template correctly for it to work. Your first ping to me and your ping to David were malformed. — Marchjuly (talk) 23:00, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Marchjuly and David Biddulph I do it all of the time (type the wrong brackets on one end of a ping. I should preview but because of edit conflicts, and the loss of time and thoughts, I get in a hurry. I have, it seems, a form of dyslexia. I habitually mistype their for there and vice versa but catch it when I review. I have no idea, but has something to do with cerebral wiring, guess it is the same thing with (( and{{ brackets. I seem to mess them up at one end or the other of a ping. In fact I did it this time, but caught it and typed this off line, because of another edit conflict.

one last thing. BLP. I know that higher standards are in order for legal reasons. However if I happen to mention a living person in a negative context, on an unrelated page, for instance Authoritarianism I mentione Putin, Erdogan or Kim Jong Un in a disparaging or negative tone is that a violation of BLP. even though the comment is not made on their page, but in an unrelated talk page?

As regards a good reason for reverting a talk page edit, what are good reasons? I don't mean the obvious of obscenity and threats?Oldperson (talk) 23:21, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

WP:BLP applies to all pages and all living persons (even if they are not the subject of a Wikipedia article or not even mentioned in a Wikipedia article). If a inappropriate comment can be associated with a specific identifiable living person, then you should probably be careful about making it, even if you don’t identify the person by name but it’s clear from context who you’re referring to.

Some examples of when it might be considered OK to “edit” another editor’s talk page posts are given in WP:TPO, but that is just meant as a guide; when in doubt, it’s best to ask an administrator for help. In some cases, WP:OVERSIGHT may be required if the violation is serious enough such as WP:OUTING or WP:LIBEL.

Editors make mistakes with pinging all the time; so, no big deal really. Be aware though that over pinging can make some people pretty angry and some editors have set their preferences to receive no pings at all. Nobody is really obligated to respond to a ping or even a post about if they choose not to; so, don’t be the person who stands there constantly tapping the bell trying to get someone’s attention. They’ll either respond when they’re ready or not at all. At the same, if you ping someone and they don’t respond, you don’t need to wait to they do; if a reasonable amount of time passes and there’s no response, just move on to something else or seek input from others. How you define reasonable is up to you, but don’t ping someone and the state they’re ignoring because they don’t immediately respond. People edit from all around the world and thus follow different schedules than you. — Marchjuly (talk) 23:45, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Pinging and reverts

MarchjulyThanks very much good advice and you very clearly answered a question currently in my mind (BLP). As regards pinging and reverts. Could you do me a favor. Please check Ivan (gorilla) My edit was reverted, almost immediately, hence the editor was paying attention. I responded with a polite request on the talk page and explained my edit. No response after waiting hours. so I made a follow up edit and ping them. Is this appropriate?Oldperson (talk) 00:00, 22 November 2019 (UTC)−

The edit you made was WP:BOLD which is fine. Another editor felt differently and WP:REVERTed you which also happens occasionally. They left an edit summary explaining why so there revert wouldn't automatically be considered outright vandalism. So, you should assume good faith and follow WP:BRD in this case. You seem to be doing that on the article's talk page, but setting 24-hour deadlines isn't really a good idea (see WP:NODEADLINES) here because it will may lead to edit warring; moreover, your post seems to immediately assume the worst of the other person and is planting the seeds for an WP:USTHEM and WP:BATTLEGROUND type of discussion. Wikipedia editing is not really about winning and it's best to assume at least at first that other editors are WP:HERE when engaging them; if they're WP:NOTHERE, you and everyone else will no soon enough by how they respond. Ask yourself these two questions: (1) How would I respond if someone posted something similar addressed to me on an article talk page? and (2) Would I feel attacked and respond defensively? WP:CIVIL might seem like an unattainable ideal, but it's something we should strive for. When engaged in a content dispute like this, it's best not try and personalize things and avoid commenting on other editors since that almost always turns out to be counterproductive per WP:TPG#YES. Sticking to discussing the merits of the content or the relevant policies and guidelines involved is how content disputes end up being resolved without anyone's behavior ending up being discussed at WP:ANI. You could have easily queried why the edit was reverted in a much more neutrally worded manner.

As for your edit, it does seem a little promotional sounding and is not typically the kind of prose deemed WP:NPOV enough for Wikipedia. Maybe take a look at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch for more on that. Moreover, we as editors don't literally "tell" readers to go check out this article for more info in the bodies of articles; we summarize what we read in reliable sources in our own words and than cite the source in support. You can use some short MOS:QUOTES from the newspaper article if you like, but not too excessively and WP:UNDUE. One last thing, please take a look at MOS:SECTIONCAPS for reference.

How you proceed here is up to you, but if you restore that section as is, it's likely going to be reverted again and not necessarily by the same editor. Maybe see if you can rewrite it a bit to make it more inline with WP:NPOV and remove the bit about "check on the Seattle Times for more info, and then re-added it because it then at least seems as if your trying to find a compromise. If it's removed again, engage in further discussion or try and seek feedback from others per WP:DR. (Be careful of how you seek feedback though per WP:CANVASS. You might also want to add a section heading to your talk page post as explained in WP:TPG#Fixing layout errors. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:46, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Marchjuly My problem in the above analysis is that I tend to expect the same behavior from others as I engage in. For instance, unless it was a hostile or negative comment on my talk page, which I might choose to ignore and move on. I would, if pinged, respond relatively quickly and not put the person on what I feel is ignore. I've run into this before,so the pump is primed, more than once I have left a question on an article talk page only to have the person ignore it.

As regards your evaluation of my edit on Ivan. I take your words to heart, and as I state below. It just isn't worth my time to continue to try and improve it. Other than seeing Ivan every time I visited the B%I Store. I don't have any further interest. It is tiring and getting old to have most of your good faith edits reverted, because I don't live up to some one elses standards/opinions. My wife is addicted to the Impeachment Hearings, I've been keeping myself preoccupied elsewheres (with WP). After 80 years and brushing up against my own mortality, I realize that regardless of our emotions and opinions shit happens, the world continues rotating and the best I can hope for is to get through it all as unruffled as possible. I sure don't have the power to change anything, much less editors on WP. I sincerely thank you for the time you have taken to help me and educate me. One of the reasons why you are one of the editors here that I hold in high regard. Now to actually take the time and study the links that you so graciously provided. Commencing now.Oldperson (talk) 01:32, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

comment Marchjuly Actually it seems like too much effort for something that is pretty obscure. I think I will just move on and realize that most of my article edits will be reverted. Maybe stepping on toes or WP:CIR, seems best option is to pursue aome other interest.Oldperson (talk) 01:14, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Lots of stuff in your last post or last two posts, and not quite sure how to respond so I'll pick the easiest one first. We don't have any ownership claim over our user pages or user talk pages as explained in WP:UP#OWN; however, nobody should really be editing your user page without your permission without a really good reason for doing so like some of the things mentioned in WP:UPNO. As for your user talk page, this is how we communicate with each other as editors so people posting here is sort of expected. You can, however, remove posts/ warnings etc. from your user talk page as long as you follow WP:BLANKING. You can also ask others not to post here if you want, but you can't really block them from doing so per se. If anyone is harassing you (be careful though with accusing others per WP:ASPERSIONS, WP:AOHA and WP:HA#NOT) by posting here, then that's wrong. If they don't stop after asking them politely to do so, then seek help at WP:ANI. Getting an administrator involved should help. All of this applies to your user talk page though; please don't blank other editor's user talk pages or article talk pages with out a really, really, really strong policy/guideline based reason.

As for the rest of your post, Wikipedia editing should be fun and when it's not it can be a drag, particularly if when you're new and just learning as you go. Don't worry about making mistakes since everyone does, but just try and avoid repeating them (particularly the serious ones). Also, try to understand that Wikipedia is a WP:COMMUNITY with members from all around the world from all types of backgrounds and of all different ages who are all WP:VOLUNTEERs; so, not everyone is going to see eye to eye on each and everything. At the same time it's not a free for all where anything goes just so editors can have fun. So, if you end up in a content dispute, follow WP:DR and give the process a chance to work. You do, however, need to realize that sometimes this means it might not work the way you want it to work. The ultimate goal for us all should be to try and be WP:HERE as much as possible and sometimes means that we don't always get to do what we want. All I can say is that many experienced editors have experienced what your experiencing (at least in a Wikipedia sense) and it sometimes take time to get a feel of how things work on Wikipedia. There are lots of ways to contribute to Wikipedia that might not seem as glamorous as creating lots of great content; maybe check out to see if there's a WikiProject which interests you where you can find other ways to help out. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:07, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: added a section title "Pinging and reverts" to top of this section; by permission. Mathglot (talk) 02:56, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Talk page section titles separate different topics

Hi, Oldperson,

Different sections on a Talk page that have their own bold heading, separating discussions on different topics. Your last comment above in the previous section (00:00 22 Nov) where you asked about Ivan (gorilla) was about a new topic that has nothing to do with the TPO topic. You should start a new section, below this section, with its own section title (perhaps, "Pinging and reverts", or whatever you choose), and copy the text there. If no one has responded yet to your comment above, you can just cut-paste the text into a new section. If they already responded, you have a couple of options, the best of which is probably to just introduce a few blank lines above your 00:00 22 Nov post, insert a new heading right above it, and drop the indentation colons. I would do that for you, but it would be a TPO violation. However, if you are confused, and tell me that it's okay to do it, I will fix it for you, but I need your okay first. If you reply, please ping me with {{u|Mathglot}}. Thanks! Mathglot (talk) 00:41, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Mathglot I would appreciate it if you performed the function, don't worry about WP:TPO, if I see what you did I can understand and maybe do it myself next time.The reason I didn't create a separate section for Ivan was that the Ivan question followed in the footsteps of my other issue. Probably should have separated the two.. next time I will separate questions or issues. Thanks.Oldperson (talk) 01:14, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Done. Another alternative, if it is slightly related, but kind of different, is to set it off as a subsection, instead of a whole new section at the top level. This is your Talk page, so feel free to alter it, undo it, or whatever you please. Mathglot (talk) 02:58, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Talk page archiving

Oldperson, you had a brief interchange above about archiving Talk page discussions, instead of just blanking the page from time to time. Would you like me to set up Talk page archiving for you, so that stale discussions get archived if nobody has added anything to the discussion for, say, two months? (You can pick any time period you like. Complete archiving config can be found here.) I can also rescue the discussions that were blanked earlier, if you like. Let me know with a ping, or just ignore this if you're not interested. Mathglot (talk) 08:49, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

MathglotThank you I will take you up on the offer. Truthfully the instructions went over my head. There is some truth about not teaching old dogs new tricks (so I am forced to acknowledge). I have a test page which I use to test out syntax (or whatever you call it), eventually I will remember some. Some of the pages I blanked, to be honest, were not because they were too long, but because of their negativity. I don't need that in my life, and warnings and contentious posts (I knew we are supposed to call them edits, but they are rely postings) have a distinct tendency to poison the well, and provide meat to chew on to editors with whom one has interpersonal "disagreements". When ready to archive I will let you know. Again thanks for the offer. I am mature enough,hopefully, to take my own inventory and readily acknowledge (after some reflection and cooling down, where I was wrong in a dust up, however I have received, on this talk page, a number of "warnings" and tags but persons whose real motivation was being miffed over something said or down (and not at all personal, however their ego was wounded. I also have noticed a propensity amongst editors with wounded ego's to shop diff's in contributions, looking for ammo to use. The real problem is agenda's and POV's. We all have them, and despite the PaG about AGF, they do bleed through. (There are glaring exceptions, you included, and it is those admins and editors for whom I have a deep admiration (and envy). When I detect someone using wikispeak and scribing with the guidelines of PaG to push a POV, as if they were editing ingood faith, well I haven't been able to help myself, and so I am trying to stay out of these areas (trying, not so successful).Oldperson (talk) 17:30, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

So, all the deleted stuff should be archived now, and a bot will be archiving old discussions that have gone 45 days with no response. The bot will always leave a minimum of three discussions on this page no matter how old they are; but once there are four or more, the stale ones will get archived after 45 days. You can change any of those parameters by editing the MiszaBot config at the top of this page. See User:MiszaBot/config for instructions how to do that. You don't have to do anything for this to happen; everything should be on autopilot now. If you want a particular discussion to stick around longer than that and not get archived, let's say, for one year, then add {{DNAU|365}} somewhere in that discussion. To make a topic "sticky" so it is never archived, make it {{DNAU|20000}} Ping me if you notice any problems. Mathglot (talk) 13:21, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

RFC re Trump what to say preceded impeachment inquiry

The threads cut off now, but re your question what goal is was to get inputs for wording with reasons to prefer each, and re your question of what seemed wrong was the lead mention of “September report” that seemed a confusing misnomer/typo/oops. There’s a Mueller report and a Schiff report, but here there’s a “whistleblower complaint” in August, and a “IC IG letter” in September. The long thread talk page discussion linked to at the “Removal of consensus” thread has that appear and questioned by Starship.paint if “September report” is trying to go for the August whistleblower complaint, but talk fell idle there.

I tried to simply fix it and mentioned in passing TALK the edit ... but got reverted and pointed to needs own thread. I posted it as an open ask, because I saw several recent choices and saw no explanation why “report” so wanted explicit reasoning stated.

Even the smallest thing turns out to be hard though... just asking was shouted down by the three editors most involved in that long thread.

Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:17, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

December 2019

Alexbrn You are consistently reverting my edits, despite the fact that I corrected a sentence to put it in line with the citation. As stated on the talk page the sentence that you and Doc James keep protecting states the exact opposite of the citations. I have brought this to yourattention onthe talk page and you will not address that fact. So let's take this to ANI.Oldperson (talk) 18:18, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

I have no intention to go to ANI (yet). Of course, if you wish to file a report this is your privilege, but my advice would be to beware the WP:BOOMERANG. I suggest if you want to contribute to Wikipedia more fruitfully, you should read the sources we are citing with more care. Alexbrn (talk) 18:21, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

{u|Alexbrn}} I am well are of boomerang and suspect that is the reason you won't take it to ANI. You never addressed the issue I raised. That the sentence in the lead which I dispute is contradicted by the references in that sentence. So tell me in plain English why you are ignoring that fact. If you provide a reasonable explanation I will desist and concede. Ball is in your court.Oldperson (talk) 21:39, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

I answered on the article Talk page. We must follow the source faithfully. You are wrong about contradiction. Alexbrn (talk) 21:44, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

AlexbrnHave you even read the citations in that sentence? Have you even read my comments on the talk page? I have gone so far as to actually quote from the references in that sentence. I may be a lot of things, but I am not illiterate and Ican read. That sentence says There is a strong relation between cannabis use and the risk of psychosis,[28][29] though the cause-and-effect is debated.[30] If you read those references (28)(29)(30) they say just the opposite.

What they say ranges from cannabis has an ameliorative effect on psychosis or that (ref #30)Evidence reviewed here suggests that cannabis does not in itself cause a psychosis disorder. Rather, the evidence leads us to conclude that both early use and heavy use of cannabis are more likely in individuals with a vulnerability to psychosisAllow me to translate. Cannabis does not cause psychosis (hence there is not a strong relationship, and individuals with a vulnerability to pyschosis are prone to early and heavy use. The citations do in fact contradict the sentence. How you can assert the opposite is beyond me. I assume that you are of above average intelligence and have developed reading skills, so how do you read three citations and come to an opposite conclusion? Oldperson (talk) 13:42, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

I have made my position very clear on the article Talk page, with a direct quotation from the source. Please reply there so that other editors can see. I shall not reply here on this topic further. Alexbrn (talk) 13:50, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Something breaking section edit links on this page

An earlier problem corrupting edit links on this page has been resolved.

Something is breaking the wikilinked '[edit]' link at the right margin of sections on this page below the #WP:TPO section. I believe the problem is something in that section, and I will be making minor tweaks on this page, in order to locate and fix it. By necessity, some or all of these changes will be technical violations of the TPO guideline concerning altering other editors' comments, but the purpose is to fix a slightly broken page, so I hope that meets with your approval. You may, of course, revert any or all of my edits to this end. Mathglot (talk) 22:48, 4 December 2019 (UTC)  Resolved.   This problem has been resolved, after escaping three unmatched pairs of curly braces. Mathglot (talk) 23:06, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Mathglot I consider you a trusted agent, and grant you full access to my talkpage. :} Thanks for fixing the problem, but the technicalities of it made as much sense to me as if you had spoke Esperanto. I am that computer illiterate. I do understand the curly braces problem. I seem to have some kind of keyboard dyslexia. I will type {{ and then close it off with a )) and I don't know why, even when I slow down. I have the same problem with there and their. I have to slow down and carefully preview my edits, but that means self behavioral modification and pretty difficult for an Oldperson (talk) 04:39, 5 December 2019 (UTC) heh heh how about that segue . If up to it would you check out the difficulty I am having getting across that there is a contradiction in the lead to cannabis. If you tell me I am wrong and to leave it be, I will follow your advice. Not asking you to jump into the middle of my shit.. That isn't mature or fair. I just need another set of eyes and ones that I trust.Oldperson.

Pretty funny response, because in typing the {{ above, you broke the page again , but no worries, I fixed it up! (Wiki markup is more forgiving of unmatched parentheses, as they are not considered metacharacters.) As to your other points:

• Esperanto just happens to be crazy easy to learn. With some background in a couple of Romance languages, you can read it after a few hours; and in a good week or two, you can have a decent command of it.
• Cannabis issue – I actually started a response to you about this several hours back; but as I often multitask well beyond the number of hours in a day to accommodate it, it's sitting there half done. Sneak preview: I haven't come down on either side of it (on purpose), but I do have some tips for you that may help. You can get a head start by reminding yourself about Causation and correlation. I'll try to finish it today, if I can, but no promises.

Hope this helps, Mathglot (talk) 04:55, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Mathglot for the reminder. I do not think that this is the issue,though Ithink that those who object to my edit and revert it are guilty.

They consistently refer to something in the body, which I have not yet read, as I can't get beyond the contradiction in the sentence references.

They take the sentence, which supposedly summarizes the body, and claim that it is WP:V. however the references that are used actually contradict the sentence. The references state that Cannabis ameliorates psychosis, but the sentence states that there is a strong relationship between cannabis and psychosis. I don't give a rats ass either way as I am not a user of cannabis, although it is legal where I live. I do not do drugs legal or illegal, (exception triweekly infusions of Keytruda which has been suspended as I appear to be in remission. I jumped in to the article when reading and checking references and found the contradiction. When Iget past this current dustup I will continue reading the article, but as it stands when I find an internal contradiction, which is evident in the sentence in the lead being contradicted by the citations use to justify the sentence,then it is obvious that the rest of the article is full of fallacies and/or misrepresentation. Apparently they base their objections (reverts) using the argument that the sentence is supported by the body, however the sentence is contradicted by it's own citations. And I just can't get over that fact. Now if you tellme that I read the sentence and it's citations incorrectly I will let it go.ThanksOldperson (talk) 18:15, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Facepalm so you're arguing about a source you haven't even read. What an utter waste of time. Alexbrn (talk) 18:22, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Alexbern You don't get it do you. I read the source, the source are the three references in the lead sentence that says there is a strong relationship between cannabis and psychosis. The sources contradict that sentence. You are stuck on the sentence itself, ignorning the sources, apparently claiming that the sentence is supported by the body (hence WP:V), totally ignoring the internal contradiction where the source contradict that portion of the lead. What you are engaging in, unwittingly is myopia or tunnel vision. You relate the sentence to the body, however you ignore the sources which supposedly support the sentence in thelead. capiche?Oldperson (talk) 18:31, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Again, read WP:NOABSTRACT. Abstracts are not sources. They often inadequately summarize articles, and sometimes flat-out contradict them. Two editors now have given you chapter & verse of what sources say on this matter, and you are apparently fixed on trying to pick something out of the abstract? Alexbrn (talk) 18:36, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

AlexbrnExactly "Abstracts summarize the research" and the summary says that Cannabis ameliorates psychosis not causes them, and you are in no position to claim that the summary is "inadequate" and the two editors you refer to are yourself and Doc James, and neither have you have provided chapter and verse anything of those citations, what you have done is wave your hands as if you are some kind of authority. If your case is built on those three citations, then there is some fraud going on as the summaryo f the research contradicts the research itself, and such would never pass peer review, would it? Rather the abstract does summarize the research and if the research is what the article is based on then there is wilful misinterpretation. Situtation is that abstract says that A helps B, and apparently you go on to claim that the research claims that A causes B. There is an inconsistency here that can't be reconciled by your claim that the abstract wrongly summarizes the researchOldperson (talk) 18:47, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

"It is misleading to give a full citation for a source after reading only its abstract". Alexbrn (talk) 18:49, 5 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) 12:48, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

God Jul och Gott Nytt År!

User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång is wishing you the season's greetings.
Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's solstice or Christmas,
Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus,
or the Saturnalia,
this is a special time of year for (almost) everyone.

Please enjoy these messages from our readers! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:14, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Your Teahouse question

I just got around to reading this question. I don't know if or where you've discussed this issue elsewhere, but I wanted to offer my opinion. I think "Native American" would be a proper term for American Indians anywhere in North or South America because they are the Americas, sometimes called "America". Now obviously my opinion is WP:OR for purposes of Wikipedia.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:10, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Donald Trump

Hi! Nice to meet you I had to undo your edit here ~ feel free to edit it back in properly ~ regards ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 19:15, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

And then you removed 33 K of text with the explanation "extra indents". Favonian (talk) 20:02, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

@Michaelhobbs and Favonian: I have responded to both on your talk pages. I am at a loss to understand what happened or why. I asked Michaelhobbs for an explanation as to why my edit was improper. and I have no idea of how my revert of Michael Hobb's revert, deleted 33k of text. Here is hopng to here from both of you.Oldperson (talk) 20:32, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Nice to meet you ~

File:Happy New Year 2020 Images HD Download (5).jpg	~ Happy Holidays ~
	~ no biggie ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 21:49, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Jes jawbonin...but got two major gripes on WP. The first with New Page patrollers who reject an article with insufficient explanation (ex: Does not meet WP standards) I've seen quite a few and complain every time I encounter them, as the editor (generally a noob) is not offered any explanation as to why it doesn't meet standards. although the notion of mind reading seems to have a lot of popularity I know of no provable instances of such. The article creator needs to know why..what exactly is their deficiency. I have noticed much improvement in that area though. The second gripe I have is facetious, truncated and useless edit summaries, primarily for reverts. An outright edit summary for inclusion of new information is pretty much self evident, but reverts need an understandable explanation. Given that such requires time and effort to type, if it is worth reverting it is worth explaining.

I had quite a go around with one editor whose edit summaries leave a lot to be desired, like trying to make sense out of this mess, when on reading the edit he reverted or modified, it was in fact readable, grammatically correct and well sourced. The problem is that this particular editor (who is a professional ghost writer, has an emotional, ideological investment in an idea (historical).. Point is that his edit summaries are not appropriate or adequate. And there are other senior editors whose whole presence on WP seems to be confined to either reverting edits or deleting articles.I don't get that, the emotional payoff or the motivation (it really isn't a desire to improve WP). Please don't take offense. I am just jawboning, getting stuff of my chest so to speak, maybe make WP a more comfortable place and improve the whole concept.Oldperson (talk) 22:48, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Just thinking about you

Hello, and Happy New Year! For reasons unknown to me, I found myself thinking about you a few days ago, and hoping you were well as I had not heard - errm, seen - anything from you recently. Then I saw your question yesterday at the Teahouse, so assume you are indeed in good health - especially after your positive news in November. So instead of going round to my neighbours to wish them all the best for 2020, I thought I come to your talk page instead! Kind regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 12:34, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Nick MoyesThanks much Nick for the kind words and thoughts. My oncologist told me that I was the poster child for Pembrolizumab, that she knew of only one other case like mine. Iget an MRI and CT Scan in February to see if the tumors are coming back. I don't think that they will. I am blessed with one helluva immune sytem. (Never had a flu shot, never had the flu, hardly ever get a cold,so lucky draw of the genetic straws, except for insulin resistance (Mothers contribution) Dad's family live to their 90's, unless felled by war, accident, environmental caused diseases. Anyway Happy New Year to you and yours. Hope the New Year finds everyone in good health next December.We do take things for granted.Oldperson (talk) 18:27, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

January 2020

Hello, I'm Pyxis Solitary. You made a comment regarding another editor in a Talk:TERF discussion that was not civil. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 06:37, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Pyxis Solitary I take notice that you have jumped into the frey in defense of your cohort, or is it a case of a stuck pig squeals. Apparently you identify with my comments and critique. if not then you would not have reacted as you did.. I tire of your condescension and threats. You apparently believe that you are my superior, that your own bias is hidden behind wikilawyering and skirting PaG.. If you want to take me to ANI do so, but beware of WP:BOOMERANG. My advice to you is that you tone it down and cease being a pro-TERF, anti Trans advocate Your bias is as transparent as the panes in my front window.. Maya d'Angelo said "If a person tells you who they are believe them" ". There are many ways to tell what a person is, other than verbal confesssion. "By their fruits they will be known". There are at least three editors on TERF that do not disguise their POV, as one can easily ascertain such from their edits. Oldperson (talk) 16:46, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

What you received is a Level-1 misconduct warning. Based on your response, are you now seeking a Level-2? Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 02:35, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Pyxis SolitaryAnd just who are you to hand out warnings and make judgements?Are you some kind of admin or bureaucrat with privileges. I really don't appreciate your smug and superior attitude and I don't like being talked down to. Misconduct? A bit of pot kettle black. Your arrogance is overbearing. Do what you must be like I said WP:BOOMERANGOldperson (talk) 04:08, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Warnings are not restricted to Administrators. As a collaborative project, Wikipedia editors who witness one editor make a personal attack against another can issue associated warnings to the offending party. I can issue a warning about your abusive behavior. You could have struck your comment. You could have apologized for it. But instead, you've chosen WP:BATTLEGROUND. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 04:35, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

ANI re personal attacks

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. See: here. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 09:59, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Time to dial it back

Listen, Oldperson, I just finished reviewing the ANI request about you, and it's... not good. I realize you're feeling provoked, but you still need to observe WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, and WP:ASPERSIONS. Otherwise, you are looking at, at the very least, a topic ban from the gender topic area. In short, you need to do better. You simply cannot continue to interact with your opponents in such an aggressive manner. That approach is, ultimately, unsustainable. Thank you in advance for your close attention. Regards, El_C 02:29, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

El C i take note of your advice and you are one of the Admin's that I truly respect. Yes I feel provoked and threatened and it is difficult beyond all measure to be WP:CIVIL when those that are bullying you are uncivil. Can I bring something to your attention. There are at least three editors on TERF that are highly aggressive as regards watering down any language on the article that that is TERF critical, and very apparently anti trans. As regards any decision by ANI. What will be will be. Those three editors have been very hostile. Being long time editors they are apparently well skilled in wikispeak and gaming the system. Acting in concert, sansovert coordination they reinforce each other. I have found WP to be a mostly enjoyable experience, but have noticed that there are way too many hall monitors/gate keepers very adept at using wikispeak and wikilawyering to maintain or push their POV, or protect their pets from objective criticism.. I am not malicious, nor pushing a POV. Take the instance which started this dustup was the reversion of my simple contribution to the lede of TERF where I inserted information and a RS that provided information about the neologism "gender critical". Evidently there is a faction who dislikes being called TERF and sought to dilute it by calling it "gender critical". My edit was reverted and the summary was specious and false. What defense or counter does one have about that? Taking it to the talk page is not effective, it just provides an opportunity to prevaricate and obfuscate and the results of that are being "tagged" and threatened.

I take note that any editor who takes a strong pro trans position, becomes banned or blocked, starting with Fæ. One new editor threw up her hands and left to join Rationalwiki. Actually they have a more rational and informative article on the subject: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Trans-exclusionary_radical_feminism.

As regards the ANI. I accept without discussion whatever verdict is handed down. I cannot, will not, bend a knee, especially when I feel the charges are unjust and manufactured by antagonists with their own agenda. I do not like being bullied.Oldperson (talk) 20:57, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Oldperson, I don't think taking a conciliatory position and bending the knee are the same. The rope you were given was about committing to change in the manner with which you interact with opponents. The way to address what you argue is ideological imbalance in the gender topic area (and TERF, specifically), is through dispute resolution and accompanying requests. Because it is a topic area that also falls under discretionary sanctions, requests at the Arbitration enforcement board are also an option. In short, there are proper channels, and then there is just the sheer chaos of reacting in a manner that contravenes the civility and the no personal attacks policies. Now that another admin has indefinitely blocked you, pretty much your only chance of seeing an unblock appeal succeed, is to make especially strong assurances that you are committed to change the manner with which you interact with opponents. This, above all other things, involves refraining from speculating about their motives, and in general, discussing edits rather than the editors. Potentially, there is still light at the end of the tunnel, but again, it would have to involve a rather firm promise from you to change on Wikipedia, dramatically. Otherwise, my prediction is that your chances of being unblocked and returning to editing are slight. In any case, good luck and best wishes. El_C 23:34, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

El CI do appreciate your recommendations. But in this case I do have to disagree. What is concillatory is, in the face of bullying, abject subjection.

I will admit to being "aggressive" but that is the only way I know to act when faced with a cabal of bullies. I would hope that they too are held to scrutiny, they have already run one editor off to rationalwiki, and now that have me blocked indef. I certainly won't make a good ambassador for WP. I have expended a lot of effort defending it from charges of bias. Best wishes and thanks for your kindness.Oldperson (talk) 02:34, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Bernard Baruch

DrmiesI would appreciate your reason for reverting my edit on Bernard Baruch.Edit summaries are suppose to explain edits, at least that is guidance from WP. Your revert gave no explanation. Of course you don't have to respond but it be helpful if you provided a reason.Oldperson (talk) 02:45, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

You didn't read the ANI discussion did you? —DIYeditor (talk) 03:53, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

As the one who originally reverted you, the source you cited was Anthony C. Sutton, an extremely prolific conspiracy theorist of the New World Order genre. Seems to have made a fairly successful academic career in the 1960s for himself, then skidded off the rails in the 70s and just kept plummeting downwards from there. --RaiderAspect (talk) 05:03, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Please be more careful with your reverts.

Your recent reverts here and especially here reverted things that (based on your edit summaries) I don't think you were actually objecting to - you removed the "alongside" verbiage (which I think reached a rough compromise on talk), the cite saying that the term has become an established part of contemporary feminist speech (which seems uncontroversial), and several unrelated tweaks to sources, all apparently when you were just disputing a single line in the lead. I don't even disagree with that part of your edit (although it would probably be good to talk it out more), but you can't do a blind revert to the entire article over one line of text - if you must revert and there's intervening edits you don't object to, just copy and paste the part you want to change back instead. --Aquillion (talk) 08:09, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Apologies I did not mean to revert your edit. I did not realize that when I chose restore this edit, that I would be reverting your edit, please do put it back in. There is no preview for reverts, BTW.Oldperson (talk) 20:57, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

I think this is particularly significant. Oldperson has been told time and time again to be more cautious, to use Preview, not to clobber others' edits, etc., but continues to do so. This is not acceptable. I hope they will visit ANI soon and offer a full explanation of why this has been happening and why it won't happen any more. —DIYeditor (talk) 08:47, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

DIYeditor} There is no preview for reverts. I have the distinct impression that you are bullying me and ganging up. If you took me to ANI over this event, then it is ipso facto that you have joined with the other TERF editors who are upset with my tendency to call out bad faith agenda'd edits.AGF is not a maxim and only goes so far.Oldperson (talk) 20:57, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

FYI, you can revert more carefully by editing the revision you want to revert to; that lets you check the diff to see what you'd be wiping out when you hit publish. That said, if there's multiple intervening edits, it's often best to just copy-paste the specific thing you want to revert from an older edit into the current page instead, to make completely sure you don't change anything unintentionally. This does have a little risk if you're not careful (eg. accidentally duplicating sources), so you still have to double-check, but it's often easier than trying to untangle five different edits when you only want to revert one sentence. --Aquillion (talk) 21:57, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't use Twinkle but I think it's well established that you are responsible for your edits, even when you use such tools. If you are using Twinkle and they are making problems for you since you don't know what you're doing, you need to find some other way to handle this. The stock undo does provide a preview but can only be used when there are no intervening edits which make it impossible for the software to only undo that part. If you want to revert to an old version for some reason, then there are various ways you can preview like that suggested by Aquillion. Frankly, on a personal level (i.e. not everyone may agree) I probably wouldn't mind if you blindly reverted provided you left an appropriate edit summary clearly indicating that you did this and plan to check what you did after you reverted. After you have reverted, you can can of course use the undo button to see exactly what you did. Nil Einne (talk) 05:11, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Email

Hi, I didn't read your email (and don't plan on it) as it was ranting about the behaviour of another editor and not talking about your own. Any appeal you may have should be done on-wiki. You should read WP:GAB first and follow the directions in the template I left you above should you wish to appeal. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:44, 10 January 2020 (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)

January 2020

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for WP:TE: aggressive editorial style, personal attacks, and inability to grow from criticism to the point of disruption..

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  TonyBallioni (talk) 21:54, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: could you provide more information on why an indef block was a necessary action, rather than escalating warnings, or a time-limited block based on a specific problematic edit(s) such as personal attacks, in order for their behaviour to change? Oldperson has been usefully contributing to difficult discussions for a significant time to the benefit of article content, so example diffs would be helpful for them to understand exactly what they need to change to be a positive contributor again. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 11:03, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

See my comment at the archived ANI thread: they weren’t engaging or listening and the only way to force a discussion appeared to be an indefinite block. Indefinite does not equal infinite and as I said when I made the block and posted at a community noticeboard announcing it, if they make an appeal and an administrator is convinced that the issues are resolved, anyone can unblock. TonyBallioni (talk) 12:49, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. You probably are indicating Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1027#Unrelated_to_the_grounds_for_the_ANI, and I note your comments there of this block being to "forces the discussion" and you are content for any sysop to remove the sanction if they "feel it is no longer needed and that the concerns have been addressed". This is my first time reading through, but comments were not all one-sided, with some of the diffs being several months old which rather muddies what the current behavioural issue is.

Your words seem encouraging for an unblock request, especially if Oldperson takes on board the headline of TE of "the connotation of repetitive attempts to insert or delete content or behavior that tends to frustrate proper editorial processes and discussions".

Perhaps a good resolution here that would aide Oldperson to return to productive editing would be for them to commit to voluntarily steer clear of engaging the few folks that they find provocative in the discussions that have been mentioned in the ANI thread; say a zero interaction commitment for a year and fully taking on board how important it is to completely "avoid speculating on the motives of opponents"? I have not followed the details, but this might be as few as two other folks that might make the difference. In this way Oldperson could make edits (not reverts or similar TE issues of repeating the similar edits) and join discussion in non-tendentious ways, but in good faith just skip comments from a couple of people, or even better ignore discussion thread where their names pop up. They may also benefit from a decent personal edit break of a month or two away from the previously contentious areas. Whether in practice that would mean changing the indef to say a month cooling off block or lifting the block completely based on an unblock request is probably debatable based on whether a sysop view of past inappropriate remarks about other editors are understandable in context or cross the line to unacceptable.

Thanks --Fæ (talk) 15:39, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

My talk page is not to be used by other editors to bait,challenge or argue, with me or other editors

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)

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)

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)

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) 04:22, 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 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) 14:30, 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) 02:07, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue Issue CLXXIII, September 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 Review Essay: Nick-D on the Historical Aircraft Restoration Society

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:53, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Milhist coordinator election voting has commenced

G'day everyone, voting for the 2020 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2020. Thanks from the outgoing coord team, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:18, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXIV, October 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 Franklin Roosevelt in World War II and Hog Farm on the Battle of Chancellorsville

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:21, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXV, November 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 & Hawkeye7 look at two aspects of 20th Century warfare Op-ed: TomStar81 on the Unknown Soldiers

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) 15:51, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

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) 06:46, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXVI, December 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 war in Ukraine

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) 22:49, 13 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

The Bugle: Issue CLXXVII, January 2021

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 Australian artillery in World War I Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on no-win scenarios

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) 00:06, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXVIII, February 2021

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: Works on the Gallipoli Campaign, Battle of Perryville and US 1st Infantry Division

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) 14:59, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXVIII, February 2021

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: Works on the Gallipoli Campaign, Battle of Perryville and US 1st Infantry Division

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, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXIX, March 2021

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 female computers, Nick-D on the Israeli Defence Forces

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, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

April 2021 WikiProject Military History Reviewing Drive

Hey y'all, the April 2021 WikiProject Military History Reviewing Drive begins at 00:01 UTC on April 1, 2021 and runs through 23:59 UTC on April 31, 2021. Points can be earned through reviewing articles on the AutoCheck report, reviewing articles listed at WP:MILHIST/ASSESS, reviewing MILHIST-tagged articles at WP:GAN or WP:FAC, and reviewing articles submitted at WP:MILHIST/ACR. Service awards and barnstars are given for set points thresholds, and the top three finishers will receive further awards. To participate, sign up at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_History/April 2021 Reviewing Drive#Participants and create a worklist at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/April 2021 Reviewing Drive/Worklists (examples are given). Further details can be found at the drive page. Questions can be asked at the drive talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:25, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXX, April 2021

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 Montgomery's doctrine and Nick-D on Mussolini's wars

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) 02:09, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXXI, May 2021

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 intelligence gathering, doctrine and strategy

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) 00:57, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXXII, June 2021

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 RAAF aircraft, Hawkeye7 on mission command and nuclear secrecy

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) 03:06, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXXIII, July 2021

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: Peacemaker67 and Nick-D on World War I

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) 12:30, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXXIV, August 2021

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 Commonwealth armies and an Australian spy, Nick-D on the American Revolutionary War and RAAF mine laying Op-ed: RobDuch on United States coastal defenses

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) 15:49, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXXV, September 2021

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 Australia and the UK in Iraq and Afghanistan Op-ed: Nick-D on writing about military procurement

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) 14:00, 22 September 2021 (UTC)