User talk:NativeForeigner/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions with User:NativeForeigner. 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

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

per Courcelles

Hello NativeForeigner,

I was wondering if you would have a look at this diff from Courcelles where I was having a discussion with him on his talk page in this thread. He is traveling right now with limited Internet access, and suggested that I bring this to you and Salvio. Thank you, — Ched :  ?  19:33, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

@Ched: I agree with your sentiments, but we do try to avoid these sort of valued user FoF for the reasons Courcelles outlined. I'm somewhat concerned that such a FoF would not pass, and I would have to consider my support as well. NativeForeigner ^Talk 07:59, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Fascinating. Well, thank you for your time. — Ched :  ?  16:52, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Problem?

You write: "In many ways I like this solution as well, although for the sake of rough consistency I somewhat doubt I'll support it." May I ask a "solution" of which problem? I look at discussions on project composers and see progress in mutual understanding. I was late to the "infoboxes wars" and so far didn't see a single battle. Where is the problem? Look at Talk:Siegfried (opera)#Infobox, - I see people enjoying a good argument, not a battle. Look at the talk of The Rite of Spring: I see patient explanation of how strange some arguments are, - not a battle. The article has an infobox now. Look at Rigoletto: where is disruption by Andy? Needless to say, the article has an infobox now. - I would also know a drastic solution: bury the 2005 conflicts in 2015, lift all restrictions on probation (all but my own of course: it's not easy to win admonition from the arbitration committee with a clean blocklog and never even a warning ;) ). We are grown-ups who can respect each other. I asked a lawyer to word my recommendations, but he didn't respond so far. Can you? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:48, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

In terms of my words, I still maintain that a full separation may have been the best outcome, one need only look at the evidence page to see disruption (and even attempts to discredit andy based upon his participation.) My comments are without bias, and would have applied to other parties as well for the sake of clarity. That being said I won't be supporting it this time around. I certainly hope that there can be a sense of mutual respect going forward although I do have some concerns. We see lots of progress, with moments of less than ideal communication. Unfortunately with some frequency some individuals have dug up issues surrounding infoboxes and make a problem out of a minor dispute or semantic issue, which I think a full disentanglement would doubtlessly solve. But it is at this point overkill, and we can only hope parties will continue to act with increasing decorum, and individuals will still act in good faith in the area of infoboxes. Based upon evidence, I'm still reluctant to lift all resctrictions, when we see so many complaints about behavior in the area. Lifting them would lower requests for clarification. However, I'm worried without some sort of restrictions, infoboxes could degrade back into the state we were in at the time of the case. NativeForeigner ^Talk 07:56, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I take your view, but would still like you to point out one "battle" supporting your worries. I am all hope, did you know? Support for my hopes: 1) I installed more than 100 infoboxes in 2014, as my restrictions allows. None of them was reverted, not even questioned. 2) The second user who supported removal of the infobox of Rigoletto (which was done then, as you will have read following my link), is the one who installed it now. I don't want to bore you, otherwise I could easily tell you more ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:26, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

All in evidence. I can pull a couple, but the FoF do show my concerns, as does the motion to impose DS (although I don't think that's at all necessary) NativeForeigner ^Talk 09:32, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I remember what "evidence" means. An edit uncollapsing an infobox and placing it in the normal position causes an arbitrator to be deeply concerned and vote for a ban, and no colleague questions that. (You commented well.) - Now we have "evidence" that Andy used inflammatory language, - he said "Poppycock". That may be my question for the next arbcom candidates ;) - You know, I hope, that the infoboxes case was not requested because of many (define many) complaints about Andy, but because too many (59) infoboxes were reverted? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:17, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not seriously considering supporting the ban in this context, but I think that it may have minimized disruption across the board. I'm still not sure what the best option is, although at the present, the total ban is not it. I will admit, dealing with arbcom cases, especially those like Wifione and gamergate does not exactly strengthen one's will to AGF. I'm concerned that the issues with Andy/Infoboxes have dragged out this long, nearly 10 years at this point. It's not the magnitude of the problem, so much as the length of it which I find to be cause for concern. It definitely sets the context for me. However, given how we have handled it in the past I think you will find my votes on the matter reasonable, although with all the calls for transparency and such I only felt it prudent to express my full thoughts on the matter. (namely, this 10 year saga might have been preventable with a few more excluding actions). In isolation, there is nothing that damning, but seen as part of a continuing 10 year issue surrounding infoboxes which has hobbled forward mostly on the willpower of the disputants involved, there is an argument for the nuclear option. However, that's not how I'll be voting, becuase on balance I agree with the argument that things seem to be winding down, and the edits have substantially improved over time, and the animosity seems to be winding down. Some issues have arisen (else we wouldn't be having a review) but this isn't a "go back 10 years and fix infoboxes" case. This is primarily a review Pigs somewhat ambiguously written sanctions review. That is the factor which will primarily guide my voting. Given the fact that the relatively strict sanctions in the last case seemed to help with disruption in the area, I do not support the full removal, although given another 6 months or so of compliance and reasonable progress in the area I would at least be willing to seriously look at an ARCA request. NativeForeigner ^Talk 13:36, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Forgive me that I review the case from my perspective. (Review means looking back. I said again and again, already in the case, that I would rather like to look forward.) I don't want to influence your vote, or criticize past votes, I only would like to understand why your view is so different from mine. There was no serious dispute I would know of in 2013. Talk:The Rite of Spring#Infobox was the hardest, - do me a favour and really read that in detail, - perhaps compare to the most recent Talk:Chopin#Infobox 3: you may see that the arguments of the opposers didn't change much whether Andy participates or not. - No further reply is necessary, - sorry, this was one more comment than I normally do, - back to writing articles. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:26, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Noted. NativeForeigner ^Talk 01:24, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

WikiCup 2015 March newsletter

One of several of Godot13's quality submissions during round 1

That's it, the first round is done, sign-ups are closed and we're into round 2. 64 competitors made it into this round, and are now broken into eight groups of eight. The top two of each group will go through to round 3, and then the top scoring 16 "wildcards" across all groups. Round 1 saw some interesting work on some very important articles, with the round leader Freikorp (submissions) owing most of his 622 points scored to a Featured Article on the 2001 film Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within which qualified for a times-two multiplier. This is a higher score than in previous years, as Godot13 (submissions) had 500 points in 2014 at the end of round 1, and our very own judge, Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) led round 1 with 601 points in 2013.

In addition to Freikorp's work, some other important articles and pictures were improved during round one, here's a snapshot of a few of them:

• Cwmhiraeth (submissions) took Bumblebee, a level-4 vital article, to Good Article;
• AHeneen (submissions) worked-up the Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 article, also to Good Article status;
• Rodw (submissions) developed an extremely timely article to Good Article, taking Magna Carta there some 800 years after it was first sealed;
• And last but not least, Godot13 (submissions) (FP bonus points) worked up a number of Featured Pictures during round 1, including the 1948 one Deutsche Mark (pictured right), receiving the maximum bonus due to the number of Wikis that the related article appears in.

You may also wish to know that The Core Contest is running through the month of March. Head there for further details - they even have actual prizes!

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs · email), Miyagawa (talk · contribs · email) and Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email)

Thanks for your assistance! Miyagawa (talk) on behalf of Wikipedia:WikiCup.

(Opt-out Instructions) This message was send by Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:54, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Comment on DS at WP:ARCA

Based on your comment regarding reviewing discretionary sanctions, I wish people would refer to the process that occurred two years ago (see Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/2013 review). You might find a lot of the same ground has been covered. Thanks. Liz ^Read! Talk! 19:39, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CVIII, March 2015

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 Australian Fleet Air Arm Museum Op-ed: TomStar81 on submarine warfare in World War I Timeline: This month in 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) 09:36, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Happy Easter!

File:Chocolate-Easter-Bunny.jpg

All the best! "Carry me down, carry me down; carry me down into the wiki!" (talk) 04:36, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

ANI Request

Hey Native - hope all is well. In December you closed this ANI discusison with a range block. I've brought up the same issue again here, if you wanted to take a look (as you're already familiar). Thank you! ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 11:18, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Teamliquid logo blue.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Teamliquid logo blue.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 16:26, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CIX, April 2015

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 reviews: Nick-D looks at the landing at Anzac Cove Op-ed: TomStar81 on the debut of poison gas in World War I Timeline: This month in 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) 06:33, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

WikiCup 2015 May newsletter

C/2014 Q2 (Lovejoy) is a long-period comet discovered on 17 August 2014 by Terry Lovejoy; and is one of several Featured Pictures worked up by The Herald (submissions) during the second round.

The second round one has all wrapped up, and round three has now begun! Congratulations to the 34 contestants who have made it through, but well done and thank you to all contestants who took part in our second round. Leading the way overall was Cas Liber (submissions) in Group B with a total of 777 points for a variety of contributions including Good Articles on Corona Borealis and Microscopium - both of which received the maximum bonus.

Special credit must be given to a number of high importance articles improved during the second round.

• Coemgenus (submissions) was one of several users who worked on improving Ulysses S. Grant. Remember, you do not need to work on an article on your own - as long as each person has completed significant work on the article during 2015, multiple competitors can claim the same article.
• Cwmhiraeth (submissions) took Dragonfly to Good Article for a 3x bonus - and if that wasn't enough, they also took Damselfly there as well for a 2x bonus.
• LeftAire (submissions) worked up Alexander Hamilton to Good Article for the maximum bonus. Hamilton was one of the founding fathers of the United States and is a level 4 vital article.

The points varied across groups, with the lowest score required to gain automatic qualification was 68 in Group A - meanwhile the second place score in Group H was 404, which would have been high enough to win all but one of the other Groups! As well as the top two of each group automatically going through to the third round, a minimum score of 55 was required for a wildcard competitor to go through. We had a three-way tie at 55 points and all three have qualified for the next round, in the spirit of fairness. The third round ends on June 28, with the top two in each group progressing automatically while the remaining 16 highest scorers across all four groups go through as wildcards. Good luck to all competitors for the third round! Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs · email), Miyagawa (talk · contribs · email) and Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email) 16:39, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Speaking Opportunity with San Diego class

Hi Brian,

My name is Sam, and I work on the Communications team at the Wikimedia Foundation. I just wanted to see if you might be interested in speaking to an information research course in San Diego about Wikipedia! We received a press request yesterday from a professor in the area, and we thought you'd be the perfect fit if it's something you'd want to take on. If so, feel free to email me at [e-mail] and I can introduce you to the professor, set up a time, etc. Thanks so much! SLien (WMF) (talk) 22:37, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CX, May 2015

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: TomStar81 and Simon Harley on the sinking of the Lusitania Timeline: This month in 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) 23:03, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Blocks

I just saw your name on Jimbo's Talk page and wanted to bring up something that was top of mind.

I've noticed that when someone is blocked, in order to come back they have to agree they won't repeat the same behavior. Logically speaking this makes sense, but in practice few are willing to admit wrongdoing and most have enough ego to feel like this is graveling. My suspicion is that there is probably only a minor statistical correlation between an editor's willingness to do the graveling and whether they will actually avoid the behavior.

I'm especially thinking of North8000, who told me if he ever came back, he would focus on more mundane, less controversial articles to avoid drama. If this is true, he would in fact avoid repeating the same incident, but he also feels he did nothing wrong, so is unlikely to ever admit wrongdoing as required to get unblocked.

It seems like it would make more sense to require promises to avoid the behavior, like promising to "treat other editor's respectfully and assume good faith", rather than requiring a confession of sorts. CorporateM (Talk) 10:17, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I mostly agree. I don't care about apologizing, but I do care about promising to not repeat said behavior. I'd rather someone say "I'm in the right, but I won't repeat it", than apologize after being compulsed to do so. I'll probably comment again further later, but those are my general feelings on the matter.NativeForeigner ^Talk 10:28, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

And I thought it was in our nature as Wikipedians and nerds[1] to disagree about everything ;-)

BTW - in full disclosure, I have worked with North on articles where I have a COI (and some where I didn't). I merely used that example, because it is one of very few that I know of and a perfect case example for an editor that is unlikely to repeat the behavior, but also unlikely to admit to wrongdoing.

CorporateM (Talk) 11:02, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	For the drafting arbitrators of the SPI block case decision. Pine^✉ 19:26, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Pine, have an excellent day. NativeForeigner ^Talk 19:32, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXI, June 2015

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: TomStar81 on the new technology of World War I Timeline: This month in 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) 13:38, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

rangeblock tool down?

Hi - getting a 502 bad gateway error when I try to access your rangeblock tool. It worked before I went to Canada last week, then I come home and the link is just sitting there, teasing me. Did I break it by taking that photo of that moose in BC? ;-) KrakatoaKatie 22:12, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Glad to see its getting usage. Not working for me either, its probably a django problem. I'm on the road right now. Expect a fix within the next week or so. Could you please provide exact dates to make my troubleshooting easier? NativeForeigner ^Talk 02:07, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

@KrakatoaKatie: Internet issues still causing me grief. NativeForeigner ^Talk 02:17, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

But just fixed sshing from phone. Technology these days. NativeForeigner ^Talk 02:19, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Sorry - I've had ISP issues too and have been under the weather the last couple of days. Glad to see it's fixed. I can calculate them manually but absolutely hate it, and I have to admit figuring the range for IPv6 addresses still throws me a little. Don't know why - same concept and all, but it just does. I like yours better than the newer ones linked from the block page because it's so similar to the old, dead rangeblock tool. I think I'm getting old and crotchety. :-/ Thanks! KrakatoaKatie 22:51, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Are there any other ipv6 tools out there now? Any feature requests? I've been meaning to fix a few bugs with the tool but arbcom work has taken priority. NativeForeigner ^Talk 23:22, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Unprotection

Could you please unprotect Steve jobs? It's been untouched for two years. Pickuptha'Musket (talk) 22:03, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

I'll look at it in a bit, the article is always high exposure and I'm a bit concerned but it might be worth a shot. NativeForeigner ^Talk 19:49, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXII, July 2015

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 sourcing articles about bombing a battleship Op-ed: TomStar81 on the role of nursing in World War I Timeline: This month in 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) 22:35, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello, NativeForeigner. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

hfordsa (talk) 11:37, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXIII, August 2015

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 reviews: Nick-D on the Second Schleswig War Interview: Featured picture participants Op-ed: TomStar81 on Indian nationalism during World War I Timeline: This month in 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) 11:46, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

WikiCup 2015 September newsletter

The finals for the 2015 Wikicup has now begun! Congrats to the 8 contestants who have survived to the finals, and well done and thanks to everyone who took part in rounds 3 and 4.

In round 3, we had a three-way tie for qualification among the wildcard contestants, so we had 34 competitors. The leader was by far Casliber (submissions) in Group B, who earned 1496 points. Although 913 of these points were bonus points, he submitted 15 articles in the DYK category. Second place overall was Coemgenus (submissions) at 864 points, who although submitted just 2 FAs for 400 points, earned double that amount for those articles in bonus points. Everyone who moved forward to Round 4 earned at least 100 points.

The scores required to move onto the semifinals were impressive; the lowest scorer to move onto the finals was 407, making this year's Wikicup as competitive as it's always been. Our finalists, ordered by round 4 score, are:

1. Cas Liber (submissions), who is competing in his sixth consecutive Wikicup final, again finished the round in first place, with an impressive 1666 points in Pool B. Casliber writes about the natural sciences, including ornithology, botany and astronomy. A large bulk of his points this round were bonus points.
2. Godot13 (submissions) (FP bonus points), second place both in Pool B and overall, earned the bulk of his points with FPs, mostly depicting currency.
3. Cwmhiraeth (submissions), first in Pool A, came in third. His specialty is natural science articles; in Round 4, he mostly submitted articles about insects and botany. Five out of the six of the GAs he submitted were level-4 vital articles.
4. Harrias (submissions), second in Pool A, took fourth overall. He tends to focus on articles about cricket and military history, specifically the 1640s First English Civil War.
5. West Virginian (submissions), from Pool A, was our highest-scoring wildcard. West Virginia tends to focus on articles about the history of (what for it!) the U.S. state of West Virginia.
6. Rodw (submissions), from Pool A, likes to work on articles about British geography and places. Most of his points this round were earned from two impressive accomplishments: a GT about Scheduled monuments in Somerset and a FT about English Heritage properties in Somerset.
7. Rationalobserver (submissions), from Pool B, came in seventh overall. RO earned the majority of her points from GARs and PRs, many of which were earned in the final hours of the round.
8. Calvin999 (submissions), also from Pool B, who was competing with RO for the final two spots in the final hours, takes the race for most GARs and PRs—48.

The intense competition between RO and Calvin999 will continue into the finals. They're both eligible for the Newcomers Trophy, given for the first time in the Wikicup; whoever makes the most points will win it.

Good luck to the finalists; the judges are sure that the competition will be fierce!

Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs), Miyagawa (talk · contribs) and Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs) 11:48, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Invitation to subscribe to the edit filter mailing list

Hi, as a user in the edit filter manager user group we wanted to let you know about the new wikipedia-en-editfilters mailing list. As part of our recent efforts to improve the use of edit filters on the English Wikipedia it has been established as a venue for internal discussion by edit filter managers regarding private filters (those only viewable by administrators and edit filter managers) and also as a means by which non-admins can ask questions about hidden filters that wouldn't be appropriate to discuss on-wiki. As an edit filter manager we encourage you to subscribe; the more users we have in the mailing list the more useful it will be to the community. If you subscribe we will send a short email to you through Wikipedia to confirm your subscription, but let us know if you'd prefer another method of verification. I'd also like to take the opportunity to invite you to contribute to the proposed guideline for edit filter use at WP:Edit filter/Draft and the associated talk page. Thank you! Sam Walton (talk) and MusikAnimal ^talk 18:22, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Please sign new Wikimedia confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information by 15 December

This is a message from the Wikimedia Foundation. Translations are available.

As you may know, the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees approved a new "Access to nonpublic information policy" on 25 April 2014 after a community consultation. The former policy has remained in place until the new policy could be implemented. That implementation work is now being done, and we are beginning the transition to the new policy.

An important part of that transition is helping volunteers like you sign the required confidentiality agreement. All Wikimedia volunteers with access to nonpublic information are required to sign this new agreement, and we have prepared some documentation to help you do so.

The Wikimedia Foundation is requiring that anyone with access to nonpublic information sign the new confidentiality agreement by 15 December 2015 (OTRS users have until 22 December 2015) to retain their access. You are receiving this email because you have access to nonpublic information and are required to sign the confidentiality agreement under the new policy.

Signing the confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information is conducted and tracked using Legalpad on Phabricator. The general confidentiality agreement is now ready, and the OTRS agreement will be ready after 22 September 2015. We have prepared a guide on Meta-Wiki to help you create your Phabricator account and sign the new agreement: Confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information/How to sign

If you have any questions or experience any problems while signing the new agreement, please visit this talk page or email me (gvarnumwikimedia.org). Again, please sign this confidentiality agreement by 15 December 2015 (OTRS users have until 22 December 2015) to retain your access to nonpublic information. If you do not wish to retain this access, please let me know and we will forward your request to the appropriate individuals.

Thank you,
Gregory Varnum (User:GVarnum-WMF), Wikimedia Foundation

Posted by the MediaWiki message delivery 23:33, 15 September 2015 (UTC) • Translate • Get help

The Bugle: Issue CXIV, September 2015

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors, coordinator elections have begun Articles: Abbasids to a Yugoslav monitor Book reviews: Economics of warfare, Japan, and light horse Op-ed: We can (not) advance Timeline: This month in 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) 05:09, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history coordinator election

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

Range Calc

Your range calc tool is down. Is there any way I could get the source to mirror it? --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 01:04, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Set up a crontab which should eliminate the recent unreliability. My VPS has been having issues recently so it's possible it will be down for short periods of time. NativeForeigner ^Talk 05:15, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Your support vote for Thine Antique Pen

I assumed you wanted to be counted as a supporter, so I changed the indentation of your comment. If you intended something else, please revert my edit and clarify your stance otherwise. Thank you, —Kusma (t·c) 11:36, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

@Kusma: thanks, defaulted to voting on arbcom case pages where the :# is the norm... NativeForeigner ^Talk 11:37, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

You're crazy

[2] Bishonen | talk 20:17, 14 October 2015 (UTC).

I refute that assertion. Any questions about the block may be directed to the arbcom mailing list. NativeForeigner ^Talk 20:20, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Although both Bishonen and Tryptofish have called for my block in the past (erroneously, IMO), I think in this instance, Bishonen has a point. Whatever line Tryptofish may have crossed was likely accidental and should be treated as such. Yes, ignorantia iuris nocet is in play, but I would like to say that Tryptofish, whatever the immediate problem may be, is a net positive for Wikipedia and should be unblocked as soon as possible. It looks like he accidentally outed someone, and this mistake should be treated with due weight in the context of a heated and overzealous atmosphere of an arbcom case. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 20:38, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I didn't see the edits that provoked this, but it's hard to believe it was the correct response. Looie496 (talk) 21:09, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Insane. Well, not NF personally — arbcom. Institutional lunacy. Bishonen | talk 21:33, 14 October 2015 (UTC).

• Ditto Looie496. If there is any doubt about whatever Tryptofish did having been inadvertent and intended in good faith, it should be resolved in his favor. This is based on several years' interactions with him. EEng (talk) 21:31, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

• Thank you very much Bish, Viriditas, Looie, and EEng. But please understand that this was not NF's fault. There are some issues of fault, but please understand that NF should not be blamed for what happened. I've discussed a lot of stuff with NF privately, and he has been entirely gracious. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:05, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXV, October 2015

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: Anotherclown and Sturmvogel 66 on war in the air and at sea Review essay: Auntieruth55 on the French Revolutionary Wars Op-ed: TomStar81 on the entry of Bulgaria in World War I Timeline: This month in 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) 21:46, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Mail

Hello, NativeForeigner. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

at ArbComL. Cla68 (talk) 01:27, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

@Cla68:. Can't find it. If you email me it I'll forward it to the list or try again and give me the title. It may have been caught or accidentally discarded, thanks for letting me know you sent it. NativeForeigner ^Talk 02:49, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Rangeblock

Thanks for that mate. Never did a rangeblock before so I figured I'd post something on WP:ANI for someone else to deal with it. bibliomaniac15 08:13, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

No problem. Saw the protection on my watchlist and had a bit of a double take. NativeForeigner ^Talk 08:14, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Responsiveness

I'm extremely busy both in real life and with the GMO case, as well as the latest Corbett fiasco. I'll try to be as responsive as possible but do expect some lag time. Quite stressed all things considered. NativeForeigner ^Talk 12:21, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

• In my world stress of any kind is relieved by Mozart though your mileage may vary. I agree that the seemingly endless editor involvement in discussing Corbett has been one of the biggest ongoing Wiki-timesinks of this decade. Thanks for your work, and stay frosty. Jusdafax 10:41, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Precious again

Precious again, your not supporting to loose the valuable admin service of Yngvadottir!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:57, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Please see...

I recall you were involved with my unblock that happened more than a year ago. After unblocked, I was put under some sanctions. Would you mind taking a look at User talk:DeltaQuad#Request_of_Removal_of_Sanctions and leaving your thoughts there? Regards, eurodyne (talk) 03:45, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for blocking x-wiki habitual violator User:Labstore's sockpuppets! --Lanwi1 (talk) 12:35, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

WikiCup 2015: The results

WikiCup 2015 is now in the books! Congrats to our finalists and winners, and to everyone who took part in this year's competition.

This year's results were an exact replica of last year's competition. For the second year in a row, the 2015 WikiCup champion is Godot13 (submissions) (FP bonus points). All of his points were earned for an impressive 253 featured pictures and their associated bonus points (5060 and 1695, respectively). His entries constituted scans of currency from all over the world and scans of medallions awarded to participants of the U.S. Space program. Cwmhiraeth (submissions) came in second place; she earned by far the most bonus points (4082), for 4 featured articles, 15 good articles, and 147 DYKs, mostly about in her field of expertise, natural science. Cas Liber (submissions), a finalist every year since 2010, came in third, with 2379 points.

Our newcomer award, presented to the best-performing new competitor in the WikiCup, goes to Rationalobserver (submissions). Everyone should be very proud of the work they accomplished. We will announce our other award winners soon.

A full list of our award winners are:

• Godot13 (submissions) (FP bonus points) wins the prize for first place and the FP prize for 330 featured pictures in the final round.
• Cwmhiraeth (submissions) wins the prize for second place and the DYK prize for 160 did you knows in the final round (310 in all rounds).
• Cas Liber (submissions) wins the prize for third place and the FA prize for 26 featured articles in all rounds.
• West Virginian (submissions) wins the prize for fourth place
• Calvin999 (submissions) wins a final 8 prize.
• Rationalobserver (submissions) wins a final 8 prize.
• Harrias (submissions) wins a final 8 prize and the FL prize for 11 featured lists.
• Rodw (submissions) wins the most prizes: a final 8 prize, the GA prize for 41 good articles, and the topic prize for a 13-article good topic and an 8-article featured topic, both in round 3.
• ThaddeusB (submissions) wins the news prize for the most news articles in round 3.

We warmly invite all of you to sign up for next year's competition. Discussions and polls concerning potential rules changes are also open, and all are welcome to participate. The WikiCup judges will be back in touch over the coming months, and we hope to see you all in the 2016 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners, and thank all participants for their involvement! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send.

Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs · logs), Miyagawa (talk · contribs · logs) and Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · logs) 18:39, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

WikiCup Award

Awarded for participating in the 2015 WikiCup. Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs), Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs) and Miyagawa (talk · contribs) 19:34, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Request review of admin statement on ArbCom Talk page

Greetings. May I ask that you review my request at the ArbCom Talk page in question? It seems clear-cut to me what the circumstances here are, and I believe the behavior calls for immediate resolution. Thanks. Jusdafax 15:49, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

• UPDATE: I see that the admin in question, JzG/Guy, has been warned. I have been calling for this admin's inclusion in this case as an obviously involved party since the beginning. At the risk of stating the obvious, a statement is placed at the top of that same page, and I quote the final sentences: Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or the clerks, will be met with sanctions. Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision. I frankly am astonished that an obvious campaign of naked intimidation by an involved administrator has been allowed to continue unabated until this warning, as the admin's harassment is plainly designed to have a chilling effect, as the warning notes. I ask that ArbCom block this admin and/or that his behavior in this case and elsewhere indeed be considered by the committee. Thanks again. Jusdafax 20:09, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

• UPDATE 2: Now an interaction ban has been emplaced, so at least I see some results. It's worth observing that JzG/Guy archived his notice within a few hours of the posting. I still feel strongly that further sanctions are justified against JzG/Guy. Jusdafax 20:51, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Crucial early decisions in the GMO case emboldened Admin JzG/Guy

As is shown on the record here at least three ArbCom members voted to take on the GMO articles subject saying JzG/Guy was uninvolved in this case and doing "the Wiki's work" which exempted him from an ArbCom case. Given the above recounted events, I ask for an explanation.

A strong argument can be made that by specifically singling out administrator JzG as uninvolved despite his clearly being involved in several of the articles, his being a blocker of a Party to the case SageRad, JzG/Guy's being an involved closer of an RfC on the Monsanto legal cases Talk page, and an enabler of other editors engaged in dubious editing practices in GMO articles, that JzG/Guy felt invulnerable, leading to JzG/Guy's harassing behaviors of SageRad.

If doing the Wiki's work includes repeated comments to SageRad like "I know who you are," something is terribly wrong, in my view. In fairness, the ArbCom member doing the warning and the handing down of the recent Interaction Ban was one of the three ArbCom members giving JzG/Guy a free pass. But that iBan will expire at the end of the ArbCom case. These facts require a statement by JzG/Guy that he acknowledges his wrongdoing and pledges to change his ways, and without this expressed contrition, in my view, stronger corrective measures will be needed. Thanks for your consideration. Jusdafax 10:04, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Noted. NativeForeigner ^Talk 10:10, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

The workshop is closed, so I'm only going to leave this comment. I believe it's been established at the case already that JzG was not considered involved at the time of SageRad's block or during RfC closes, which happened before the case opened. It wasn't until after the case opened that JzG really started editing within the topic outside an uninvolved perspective.[3]. The committee sure can discuss expected decorum for an admin trying to deal with things like vendettas, advocacy, etc. from an editor (examples of that at SageRad's block discussion and denied appeal).[4] However, I'm not going to comment on what comments were appropriate or not with the context of SageRad's history in mind because it was hard enough to document it in part at the case page much less here where this isn't quite the right forum. Seems to be one of the many areas that needs to be fleshed out in terms of evidence if one really wants to delve into the interaction. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:08, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Also noted @Kingofaces43:. NativeForeigner ^Talk 12:26, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

NOTE: have posted the following on my Talk page, and this is an appropriate spot to place it as well, given the above and regarding your remarkable addition to the PD a few hours ago.

• As amendments go, this makes the PD worse, not better. No addition of Kingofaces, which is needed in all justice, and instead his suggestions to add Wuerzele are heeded, which continues the tit-for-tat pattern of intimidation of those asking hard questions. Sill no option to site ban the chief offender Jytdog. The given explanation re: JzG/Guy, one of the most patently abusive admins in my experience, is inadequate in the extreme. I have the distinct impression if not for my repeated demands for clarity, it would be even worse. Still no reply re: why JzG's non-addition as a party is actually used as a rationale for excusing him from sanctions when Arbitrators openly and repeatedly refused to do so in the first place, despite his obvious malfeasance and subsequent convenient disappearing act. Questions can be asked at the current ArbCom elections, and there are other ways to seek accountability in this process, and to have a broad community discussion regarding the glaring inequities on display here. This overall matter has been a cancer on Wikipedia for years, it has now reached Stage 4. Jusdafax 14:02, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

• In terms of Kingofaces, if someone can actually present evidence which shows policy violations, and not waving of hands "We don't like these edits", I'll propose a remedy to match. There is relatively little evidence submitted against him that doesn't rely on there being some sort of cabal, for which little evidence is presented. I suppose we could add JzG at this point in the case, I'm not necessarily opposed to that. It was an oversight. I thought Guerillero had (an error on my part, undoubtedly). I could present a siteban for Jytdog, but I wouldn't be in support and it almost certainly wouldn't pass. Also, Guerillero had included Wuerzele in his rough draft at a PD. Going back through evidence I agreed with him that there was adequate evidence. I'd also note that I spent several hours earlier today going through literally all of the diffs presented against Kingofaces. I saw the concern, hence went back through to make sure I wasn't making a grave error. My conclusion was that there is very little good evidence against him, as I stated previously. Perhaps @Guerillero: has an opinion on this, but I do not believe he saw the evidence for a sanction against Kingsofaces either. Even at this late stage you're more than welcome to outline which specific evidence you find damning and why. NativeForeigner ^Talk 14:10, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm a bit concerned some of the things you said may have been taken out of context a little and spurred some canvassing by Jusdafax on their talk page with their "call to action" language.[5] If it were just Jusdafax individually, I wouldn't consider that canvassing obviously, but that language and this is more of a purposeful attempt to coordinate editors. If you or other arbs think this crosses the line into hounding territory by trying to single out an editor in this fashion and without further evidence of policy violations as you mentioned above, I am open to an interaction ban. I'm not going to push that at this time though per my email to ArbCom a few weeks ago on periphery editors.

That being said, thank you for your analysis so far. In evidence presented so far, at worst they should show I've tried to respond to edit warring by getting people to follow WP:BRD and come to the talk page in my edit summaries. There is no great way to respond to edit warring though when others trying to edit war content in rather than reach consensus (pretty much everything cited against me should be an example of this), so I'm hoping the 1RR restriction resolves anything that would even slightly be considered a problem on my part. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:47, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

• I vigorously reject Kingofaces charges of hounding, given the preceding statements. Nor is the charge of canvassing appropriate here. I have notified the case Parties concerned, and my actions are all aboveboard and legit, unlike the veiled threat in Kingofaces statement regarding "periphery editors." Chilling effect attempt, I'd call it. There was no need to say that other than to intimidate. Right there is a blockable offense. Jusdafax 15:58, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but trying to address the behavior issues I've outlined is not a chilling effect. The canvassing comment comes from trying to coordinate other editors against me (notifying all involved parties doesn't nullify that). I've said what I'm going to say on the matter though since I don't intend to spill over more of this onto NativeForeigner's page. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:13, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I repeat, you didn't have to mention emails. Your intention is clear. Right there. Jusdafax 16:18, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Clarification request

Re [6] -- could you clarify what " it's very unlikely that we'll see anything" means in that context? NE Ent 11:35, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

@NE Ent: Hopeully that makes more sense? Essentially if Djembayz goes before arbcom I'll recuse, but I don't think it's likely I'll be on arbcom if/when she goes before it. NativeForeigner ^Talk 11:51, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, makes total sense. NE Ent 12:00, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Kingofaces material

I have added material regarding Kingofaces in my section as requested. While we appear to disagree fundamentally on a number of points, I do thank you for the opportunity to respond, and for your calm demeanor.

I once again ask that Administrator JzG be added as a party to this case after his being given a warning and Interaction Ban with Party to the case SageRad. Jusdafax 18:13, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Just doing my best. @Jusdafax:. Going to discuss with a couple more experienced arbs re: JzG. As I explained earlier I thought he had been added as a party some time ago, but I was mistaken. I have exams and whatnot, I'll probably check wiki once tomorrow, but the next 24 hours will see markedly slow response times. NativeForeigner ^Talk 12:12, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Email

Hello, NativeForeigner. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Minor4th 21:07, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

And you, NF, have some explaining to do. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:11, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Typtofish, please just stop following me around and talking about me - especially since you have banned me from your talk page so I can't even address what eureka moment you think you've had. Honestly, I don't think the very short block you received was enough to make an impression on you. Minor4th 21:33, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I have both drafting Arbs' talk pages on my watchlist already. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:38, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I see that you have been online and editing. I request that you please look at the email I sent you, as it is something that needs attention right away. Thank you. Minor4th 00:20, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Please read your email (again)

Further to my earlier email. Please read. Minor4th 02:59, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Is there a reason...

...if what happened in your comment here is accurate, why this was not brought to the attention of either the community or the WMF? The community is pretty hardline on threats of violance from editors. Likewise the WMF recently has been taking a more pro-active stance towards banning people. Do you not want to cause a fuss? Is it fear of reprisal (possibly at future events)? The thought that nothing would be done? This sort of behaviour needs to have a zero-tolerance response, and the problem is without it being brought to light by the victim, nothing will be done. I am not above shameless guilt-tripping so think about what other potential victims of violent threats there may be who are too scared to say anything. If an Arb wont do anything about it, what example is that setting for the rest of the community? Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:32, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Because I didn't feel in danger as soon as the incident was over and didn't want to raise hell over it. I didn't view it as a true threat, although from a legal standpoint it could be considered one. I don't fear reprisal in any way. I knew something would be done, but feared it would be questioned and didn't want to have to argue about it. The narrative does seem pretty darn unlikely. I'm perfectly willing to forgive her for it, I think it was in the moment and not generally representative of her general conduct. That being said should I have raised it early? Probably. NativeForeigner ^Talk 11:42, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Well I asked Jayen to comment as you indicated elsewhere he was a witness to the exchange. The main problem I have is that as an Arb, like it or not you do have a duty that involves setting an example - both in your conduct and in your response to other's. I know thats not what you signed up for, but taking no action at all sends completely the wrong message, it validates the actions of the perpetrator (in their eyes) and lets them know they can use threats to get their way. It also disincourages other people who may have witnessed it from speaking up, especially if they have also been on the receiving end of such threats/abuse. At the very least this should have resulted in a ban from future events for at least 2-3 years. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:11, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

I will say that her conduct in no way changed my course of action, if that is your concern. I think that's all I have to say. I'm not a fan of being effectively told that I handled harassment too in stride. It took me a while to realize its true magnitude. It was my realization that this needs to be addressed openly that led me to present it. But I do find it somewhat offensive to be told that as an arb it's my duty to immediately notify the community of all harassment I've underwent. Although it's impossible to equate this incident with what GorillaWarfare experienced, I think she had similar frustrations regarding the intersection of harassment she underwent and her role as arbitrator. @GorillaWarfare: NativeForeigner ^Talk 12:20, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

You were effectively a publically elected official at an event with both your peers and which no doubt included people who elected you because they trusted your judgement to arbitrate cases brought before you. When you stay silent on such a serious issue, it not only hurts yourself, it hurts the trust they placed in you, as well as harms the confidence in Arbcom as a whole. And thats not including the obvious issues already stated above with regards to others who have received similar treatement. Cue Uncle Ben. You have been elected to greater power on Wikipedia, you have greater responsibility to be an example in serious issues like this. For clarity, I dont think you necessarily should have told the entire community at AN/ANI (although I dont think it would hurt given your positive reputation) you definately absolutely should have told the event organisers, had her removed from the event, and made the other attendees aware of exactly why that took place and similar behaviour would not be tolerated. -Ninja Edit- Keep in mind I dont actually expect any action or outcome to be forthcoming now, however given you have raised it on-wiki, I felt the need to make it known (on-wiki) exactly why your response in this situation was wrong, and counter-productive. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:36, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Point taken. NativeForeigner ^Talk 12:38, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

On the same subject

Why did you delete this, with the comment about 'drama'? It was a serious question. Was the Davies incident you referred to the Wikimania 2014 in London, or something else? It was a polite question, sincerely meant. Regards Peter Damian (talk) 18:33, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

I removed it because, given the wording, I was almost certain you knew the answer. It seems my assumption was correct. Yes. NativeForeigner ^Talk 20:18, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

I thought it was probably that, but puzzled because not many people knew of the Wikimania incident (it was briefly on Wikipediocracy but I think they canned the post). So I thought I would check with you. Remember I was one of those present at the 2014 incident, and I was asking out of interest. It seems a bit unfair to accuse me of bad faith in that way. But no harm done, I hope. Peter Damian (talk) 19:20, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

I was familiar that you were. No harm no foul, I'm not at my finest right now. Pretty stressed, and a bit snappy. NativeForeigner ^Talk 19:23, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Arbcom election

I won't be running this cycle. Perhaps next, I think I still have valuable input and perhaps then I will have time, but at present I have a lot to attend to in real life (tm), and for my own sanity I won't be running. I'll be writing a guide at User:NativeForeigner/ACE2015 Guide but its far from complete. NativeForeigner ^Talk 18:47, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXVI, November 2015

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 the Battle of the Bulge Op-ed: TomStar81 looks at the collapse of the Serbian Army in World War I Timeline: This month in 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) 03:25, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:46, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Yngvadottir's unblock

I'm not going to hammer at you, but your vote seems to indicate that an oppose is more in line, per Roger, DGG and Doug, simply as a statement that desysop was certainly an action worth considering, but doing it as if it were an emergency, even with the best of intentions, is using that power outside of the original intent. Using emergency powers when thoughtful discussion is the better choice sets a bad precedent, whether you are a government or a committee. I don't expect a reply, and won't labor it further, I just ask you reconsider the position of your vote. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:35, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you

Just wanted to say thanks for your efforts here, and that not everyone is in a rush to see a PD that you are unhappy with; we put weeks and months into presenting this case to the Arbs, so waiting a couple extra days for the PD is not a big deal. Normally we only hear from the disgruntled and most vocal (usually synonymous), so I wanted to present the other side. I'm also sorry to hear that there isn't more support for this work. It looks tedious, tiresome and quite thankless. It doesn't make sense that so much of the workload should fall on one or two people. Luckily, beer exists. petrarchan47คุก 19:19, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Ditto what Petra says. I know you and Guillerimo have been unusually busy, and the GMO articles have actually calmed down so much that they seem like "normal" articles now :D. I hope my occasional requests for updates have not been construed as pressure to rush a decision. And yeah, luckily beer (and whisky) exist. Take care. Minor4th 20:33, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

To be perfectly honest, i've waited over 3 years to bring much of this evidence to the Arbs. So, yeah: whiskey, beer, chocolate and other stuff. I'm full of patience ;) petrarchan47คุก 20:50, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, now, from me. I actually think that the PD is very well written and conceived, so you had nothing to worry about. And now, I wish you a restful night's sleep! --Tryptofish (talk) 01:18, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

One thing more, though. Looking at the PD, I wonder whether you might want to add something about Wuerzele. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:21, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

See [7] NativeForeigner ^Talk 01:22, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I saw it, and I do note that you may consider adding to it. I thought it better to say this here instead of at the PD talk page, in the interest of not inflaming things, but I might re-post there tomorrow if that would be better. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:25, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing as Tryptofish. The current PD covers the core issues/remedies quite well considering it's intended as minimum of what should happen, so thanks for the good work. I think mention of Wuerzele is the only major issue lacking from it in terms of dealing with persistent sniping of editors, but I'll comment on that at the PD talk page more formally this evening. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:01, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

It would be much appreciated if my questions and those of other editors were addressed on PD Talk. I tried pinging drafting Arbs but I'm wondering if the pings are working? Did you receive notice of my ping, NF? Atsme^📞📧 17:59, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes. I've been reading it. Only so many hours in a day and I've been otherwise occupied for the last 24ish hours. NativeForeigner ^Talk 06:03, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Rangecalc!

I've been told by NeilN that your tool Rangecalc! can be applied to check contributions from IPv6 ranges, but i can't figure out how. I want to check contibutions made from the range which 2A02:908:E620:A260:1CAC:6226:86AD:A824 belongs to. Krakkos (talk) 15:11, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

@Krakkos: I apologize - I misread your question. Turn on the "Allow /16, /24 and /27 – /32 CIDR ranges on Special:Contributions forms..." gadget in Preferences. Then you can do checks like this. --NeilN ^talk to me 15:16, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Yup. I'll probably implement that at some point but we're talking at least six months. NativeForeigner ^Talk 17:22, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

@NeilN: Thanks a lot. LTA user User:Tirgil34 has been using IPs from that range and an an active account on Wiktionary to harass me.[8][9][10][11] This will make it easier to keep track of his activities. Krakkos (talk) 18:13, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Er… que? I saw this question when I came here to ask how to use the output from your calculator. (I'm no computer nerd — the very notion would give my son a good laugh. Perhaps I shouldn't even be involving myself with ranges... sigh.) For instance, if I input 2607:fb90:4882:da86:0:23:c512:f901 and 2607:fb90:2272:1e63:0:2e:4968:7801, the output is 2607:fb90::/33. This form doesn't get any results if I put it for instance here, or at User contributions like NeilN said. (I did turn on the required prefs.) As for blocking the range in that form, I daren't even try. If the range given by the tool was in a form that X's tool, and Contributions, and the block tool could use straight off, it would be so helpful. Even better if the result also told me how many IPs the range represents. Failing that, could you (or Neil) perhaps explain how to handle the kind of result I get now? Thank you. Bishonen | talk 11:44, 6 December 2015 (UTC).

Bishonen, the contrib tool is case sensitive so something like this is needed. --NeilN ^talk to me 15:43, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

I see, just one of those little traps for the unwary. Thanks. Bishonen | talk 16:01, 6 December 2015 (UTC).

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

On behalf of the Military history WikiProject's Coordinators, we would like to extend an invitation to nominate deserving editors for the 2015 Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year awards. The nomination period will run from 7 December to 23:59 13 December, with the election phase running from 14 December to 23:59 21 December. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:06, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Typo in GMO PD

I saw your note on the GMO PD talk page, and I hope that you feel better soon. I pointed out a typo in my section of the talk a while back, and I suspect that it has just gotten lost in all the noise, so I'd like to remind you of it here.

In Proposed Principle 5, about "Casting aspersions": ""Editors are however remind → reminded". That really ought to get fixed before it gets finalized.

Thanks, --Tryptofish (talk) 19:59, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm feeling fine. Just in midst of interviewing for positions, taking exams, etc. Time is a premium. NativeForeigner ^Talk 22:01, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Then may you get a better job than serving on ArbCom. Good luck! --Tryptofish (talk) 22:36, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

IPv6 Rangeblock calculator

Your IPv6 calculator is returning a 502 bad gateway error. :( --Jezebel's Ponyo^bons mots 16:28, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Should have fixed itself at the end of the hour. Not sure if it's working or not but ping me if it isn't @Ponyo: NativeForeigner ^Talk 18:28, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

It's back. I had this song playing in my head all morning as I tried to calculate a range block on my own.--Jezebel's Ponyo^bons mots 18:37, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

You can also download a python script which will calculate them for you! It'll work even when the tool is offline. I'll probably move it to labs (or whatever it's called these days) in the next few months. NativeForeigner ^Talk 18:52, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

WikiCup 2016 is just around the corner...

Hello everyone, and we would like to wish you all a happy holiday season. As you will probably already know, the 2016 WikiCup begins in the new year; there is still time to sign up. There are some changes we'd like to announce before the competition begins.

After two years of serving as WikiCup judge, User:Miyagawa has stepped down as judge. He deserves great thanks and recognition for his dedication and hard work, and for providing necessary transition for a new group of judges in last year's Cup. Joining Christine (User:Figureskatingfan) and Jason (User:Sturmvogel 66) is Andrew (User:Godot13), a very successful WikiCup competitor and expert in Featured Pictures; he won the two previous competitions. This is a strong judging team, and we anticipate lots of enjoyment and good work coming from our 2016 competitors.

We would also like to announce one change in how this year's WikiCup will be run. In the spirit of sportsmanship, Godot13 and Cwmhiraeth have chosen to limit their participation. See here for the announcement and a complete explanation of why. They and the judges feel that it will make for a more exciting, enjoyable, and productive competition.

The discussions/polls concerning the next competition's rules will be closed soon, and rules changes will be made clear on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring and talk pages. The judges are committed to not repeating the confusion that occurred last year and to ensuring that the new rules are both fair and in the best interests of the competition, which is, first and foremost, about improving Wikipedia.

If you have any questions or concerns, the judges can be reached on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, on their talk pages, or by email. We hope you will all join us in trying to make the 2015 WikiCup the most productive and enjoyable yet. You are receiving this message because you are listed on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Figureskatingfan (talk), and Godot13 (talk).--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:46, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and happy new year

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Merry Christmas and happy new year. (:

--Pine^✉

The Bugle: Issue CXVII, December 2015

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 the German retreat from France in 1944 Op-ed: TomStar81 on empires of World War I Timeline: This month in 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) 05:06, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Signpost Arbitration interview request

Excuse me. I am lead writer for the Signpost's "Arbitration Report" and am wondering if you would be interested in answering some interviews questions as an outgoing Arbitrator. The questions will be asked through email, unless answering them here would be a more suitable choice. GamerPro64 18:58, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

@GamerPro64: Either email or here works for me. Don't expect a response until this coming Monday though. NativeForeigner ^Talk 07:39, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Questions

1. First off, thank you for your work as an Arbitrator. 2. What would you say was the biggest challenge while being an Arbitrator? 3. Has there been any cases or motions you thought could have been handled differently while on the Committee? 4. Do you feel that you did enough during your time on the panel? If not, what were you hoping to accomplish during your time? 5. What advice would you give to hopefuls who want to take part in the Committee? 6. Would you consider running for Arbitrator again? 7. Any additional comments?

WikiCup 2016: Game On!

We are about to enter the second week of the 2016 WikiCup. The most recent player to sign up brings the current total to 101 contestants. Signups close on 5 February. If you’re interested, you can join this year's WikiCup here.

We are aware that in some areas the scoring bot’s numbers are a little bit off (i.e., overly generous) and are working to have that corrected as soon as possible.--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:04, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

WikiCup 2016: Game On!

We are about to enter the second week of the 2016 WikiCup. The most recent player to sign up brings the current total to 101 contestants. Signups close on 5 February. If you’re interested, you can join this year's WikiCup here.

We are aware that in some areas the scoring bot’s numbers are a little bit off (i.e., overly generous) and are working to have that corrected as soon as possible.--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:08, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you

Hi NativeForeigner. I've been wanting to post some thank you notices to the outgoing Arbs, but circumstances have prevented me from doing so until now. Anyway, I thought I'd drop a quick note to say thank you for your hard work on the committee, it was a pleasure to work with you and you will be sorely missed. On the other hand, get back to enjoying being one of us plebs! Worm^TT(talk) 14:38, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXVIII, January 2016

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 Jefferson Davis; Hawkeye7 on Australia's war in Vietnam Op-ed: TomStar81 discusses British World War I conscription Timeline: This month in 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) 11:23, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your support

	Peacemaker67 RfA Appreciation award
	Thank you for participating and supporting at my RfA. It was very much appreciated, and I am humbled that the community saw fit to trust me with the tools. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:07, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Upcoming Wiki editathons in SD - Mission Valley

Hi there! Would love to have you guys join us for 1 or more of these upcoming edit-a-thons in San Diego!

As part of a 2016 project I'm doing for wikimedia, we've just scheduled 3 edit-a-thons we are inviting wikipedians, students and community members to come out for. Current location - we've got a room reserved at Mission Valley Library, next to the Fenton trolley stop. We are currently scheduled for 2/27 (10am-1pm), 3/19 (12-3pm) and 4/16 (10am-1pm). We intend to focus our energies on articles related to psychology, neuroscience, crisis preparedness and resiliency.

More details about our Wikimedia project proposal from last year at:

https://meta.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:PEG/User:DrMel/Wiki_Edit-a-thon_Work_Parties DrMel (talk) 23:12, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Massyparcer

Hi, you declined the checkuser request on this investigation. (to be honest, I'm not sure which situations deserve checkuser, so I assume that was the right thing to do)

What happens next? Will the accounts be checked by someone for behavior? Do I have to re-file the report? Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:14, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

@Spacecowboy420: Checkuser won't publicly connect an IP to a username, which is why your checkuser request was declined. However, your case will still be processed on a behavioral basis by a clerk or patrolling administrator; there is no need to refile. NativeForeigner ^Talk 06:48, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

thank you very much, that is everything that I needed to know. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:51, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Does it usually take this long for a SPI? Isn't it going to be considered stale by the time someone gets round to looking at it? Spacecowboy420 (talk) 10:44, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Things look pretty backlogged. The IP won't be blocked (that aspect is stale), but if the reviewing admin thinks it's been shown the user was socking on that IP, that aspect of things won't be considered stale. NativeForeigner ^Talk 21:10, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, I guess I should remember that everyone who has to deal with an SPI that I file, is as unpaid as all other wikipedians, just with more tasks to do than most. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:38, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXIX, February 2016

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 nuclear weapons in Britain and Nick-D on Australia's war in the Pacific Op-ed: TomStar81 looks at the Kamurun Campaign of 1914–16 Timeline: This month in 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) 14:14, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

WikiCup 2015 March newsletter

One of Adam Cuerden’s several quality restorations during round 1

That's it, the first round is done, sign-ups are closed and we're into round 2. Forty-seven competitors move into this round (a bit shy of the expected 64), and we are roughly broken into eight groups of six. The top two of each group will go through to round 3, and then the top scoring 16 "wildcards" across all groups.

Twenty-two Good Articles were submitted, including three by Cyclonebiskit (submissions), and two each by MPJ-DK (submissions), Hurricanehink (submissions), 12george1 (submissions), and Cas Liber (submissions). Twenty-one Featured Pictures were claimed, including 17 by Adam Cuerden (submissions) (the Round 1 high scorer). Thirty-one contestants saw their DYKs appear on the main page, with a commanding lead (28) by Cwmhiraeth (submissions). Twenty-nine participants conducted GA reviews with J Milburn (submissions) completing nine.

If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Thanks to everyone for participating, and good luck to those moving into round 2. Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email), Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs · email), and Godot13 (talk · contribs · email) --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:38, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

WikiCup 2016 March newsletter (update)

Along with getting the year wrong in the newsletter that went out earlier this week, we did not mention (as the bot did not report) that Cas Liber (submissions) claimed the first Featured Article Persoonia terminalis of the 2016 Wikicup. Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email), Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs · email), and Godot13 (talk · contribs · email).--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:05, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

United191

Hi. I noticed you blocked United191 for CU reasons but I didn't see any notice or discussion about the related SPI case. Shall I assume this was an oversight or deliberate per WP:DENY? I interacted with United191 before so I'm curious as to what happened. Chris Troutman (talk) 12:03, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

It was deliberate, but I was perhaps overly hasty. I'm investigating further, it looks like they simply got really really unlucky. They were on a range with numerous socks and were a technical match, but there really isn't any evidence behavior-wise, and I should have looked more in that direction before blocking. Not my finest moment, and I really hope this doesn't discourage them from future editing. I've unblocked and will leave them a note and thanks for the ping. Blargh. NativeForeigner ^Talk 18:30, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

To clarify, it was WP:DENY and somehow that account was on the same IP address and browser type as some really abusive accounts. Nothing to suggest malice though... NativeForeigner ^Talk 18:32, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm glad that was resolved. While I understand the logic behind DENY, this case shows that DENY creates not only a lack of transparency but also encourages the userbase to allow such. I have a lot of trust in our elected admins and ARBCOM members but everyone makes mistakes and perhaps DENY shouldn't be used in these cases. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:41, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I generally stay away from it for the above reasons. It seemed appropriate here, but clearly it wasn't the right thing to do here, lesson learned. NativeForeigner ^Talk 20:36, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXX, March 2016

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 discusses a Panzer general and a "mercenary mum" Op-ed: TomStar81 on the terrible battles of 1916 Timeline: This month in 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) 12:15, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXI, April 2016

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 Australian spies, Nick-D on the German Army Op-ed: TomStar81 on the 1916 Easter Rising Timeline: This month in 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) 01:38, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

WikiCup 2016 May newsletter

FP of Christ Church Cathedral, Falkland Islands by Godot13

Round 2 is over and 35 competitors have moved on to Round 3.

Round 2 saw three FAs (two by Cas Liber (submissions) and one by Montanabw (submissions)), four Featured Lists (with three by Calvin999 (submissions)), and 53 Good Articles (six by Worm That Turned (submissions) and five each by Hurricanehink (submissions), Cwmhiraeth (submissions), and MPJ-DK (submissions)). Eleven Featured Pictures were promoted (six by Adam Cuerden (submissions) and five by Godot13 (submissions)). One Featured Portal, Featured Topic and Good Topic were also promoted. The DYK base point total was 1,135. Cwmhiraeth (submissions) scored 265 base points, while The C of E (submissions) and MPJ-DK (submissions) each scored 150 base points. Eleven ITN were promoted and 131 Good Article Reviews were conducted with MPJ-DK (submissions) completing a staggering 61 reviews. Two contestants, Cwmhiraeth (submissions) and Cas Liber (submissions), broke the 700 point mark for Round 2.

If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Thanks to everyone for participating, and good luck to those moving into round 2. Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email), Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs · email), and Godot13 (talk · contribs · email) -- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:59, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXII, May–June 2016

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 Australian spies (part two) Op-ed: TomStar81 looks at the Battle of Jutland Timeline: Events of 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) 12:05, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXIII, July 2016

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 the Australian Imperial Force Op-ed: TomStar81 looks at the Battle of the Somme Timeline: This month in 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) 12:44, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello

Can you be kind enough to help me with a little something? How does one create/insert an "infobox" in an article. I am trying to add an infobox to the Huacachina article. I have read the documentation and help extensively but the "insert" dropdown menu on my editor console does not give the option of an infobox. I tried adding a template and searching for "infoboxgeo" but came up empty. TouristerMan (talk) 04:55, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

You'll need to use the wikitext editor, if I recall correctly. I haven't used the visual editor for quite some time, but {{Infobox settlement}} type templates are complicated enough they need to be done manually. Let me know if you need help. NativeForeigner ^Talk 04:57, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

How does one use the "wikitext" editor. I am assuming it is an editor which lets you edit the actual code/text of the articles. Is there a special permission required? I am quite new here so I do not have many of the permissions yet. TouristerMan (talk) 05:01, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

You don't need any special permissions, but you can edit source using the instructions found here: Help:VisualEditor/User_guide#Switching_between_the_visual_and_wikitext_editors. NativeForeigner ^Talk 05:03, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Ty vvm for the help. Hope u didn't mind the intrusion on ur talk page, kinda new here. TouristerMan (talk) 05:06, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

No problem, happy to help. NativeForeigner ^Talk 05:06, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXIV, August 2016

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 disease control and defence satellites Op-ed: TomStar81 on the rise of air power Timeline: This month in 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) 07:58, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Open Journal Systems

Could you tell me why pending changes were applied to that page? It doesn't appear to have anything remotely related to BLP. OhanaUnited^Talk page 05:01, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

On my phone, but if i recall correctly some pretty disparaging statements/links were inserted about John Willinsky which persisted for quite some time. I pendinged both pages. Feel free to remove the pending on OJS (I don't think any bad edits have happened recently) but do as you think is best. NativeForeigner ^Talk 21:42, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

I went into history and couldn't find anything mentioning John Willinsky on OJS page. I'll lift the pending changes from that page. OhanaUnited^Talk page 21:43, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Misread on my part then. Thanks for the catch. NativeForeigner ^Talk 06:05, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Rangecalc tool availability

Tool may be down in the next few days. I may have to transfer servers if I have to chargeback ChicagoVPS in their infinite scumminess. You can run it via python/command line via the github page but it'll take a while for me to configure and set up the django if that's the case. NativeForeigner ^Talk 02:01, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Can I get my old article history back?

Hello. It's been a long time since I was involved in a discussion with you about a page I had previously created. The page was Jerome Ersland (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jerome Ersland) and back in 2012 you were the lead administrator who had the page taken down - something I agree with by the way. It's been over 4 years and looking back on it now I feel the main reason for the deletion of the page was because it was poorly titled and referenced. I do however feel the page can be expanded on with a different title, such as: 2009 Oklahoma shooting or 2009 shooting of Antwun Parker etc. I would like to recreate this page with more news articles as references and give it another try. I feel the subject deserves a place on Wikipedia because it is a pretty well known tragedy and crime, but back in 2012 I was pretty new to creating Wikipedia pages so I referenced, worded and titled the article poorly.

What I am asking for basically is not for the page to be put back up again (restored), but rather allow me to view the last version of the Jerome Ersland page just before it was deleted so I can take what was already in the article and use that text in a new version of the article under a different title, with more references added along with better wording. I read up on Wikipedia:Viewing and restoring deleted pages and it informed me that this was the best way to go about it. It's been over 4 years and I feel I can do better this time round. Please give me a chance and if it's still not good enough then so be it I'll accept it for being deleted again. Also just so there's no confusion I have renamed this account but I was the original creator of the Jerome Ersland page, thanks. Inexpiable (talk) 16:33, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Userfied to User:Inexpiable/Jerome Ersland NativeForeigner ^Talk 18:00, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks I'll get started on recreating and rewording the article. Inexpiable (talk) 18:20, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXV, September 2016

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 Nazi terror and covert warfare Op-ed: Hawkeye7 looks at Australians on the Somme Timeline: This month in 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) 13:27, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

SPI script

I'm having the same problem. Usually, if I reload the page, it works. Once I had to reload multiple times before it would show up.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:51, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. It's showing up now but... if I had more time I'd look into it but I don't. NativeForeigner ^Talk 21:57, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

SPI script

I'm having the same problem. Usually, if I reload the page, it works. Once I had to reload multiple times before it would show up.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:51, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. It's showing up now but... if I had more time I'd look into it but I don't. NativeForeigner ^Talk 21:57, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Tryptofish & GMOs

A web search leads me to understand that Tryptofish, who just brought a time-consuming complaint against me which is grossly overstated, though I did make a mistake in renaming a ref-name to make a point. I've been working patiently on Jill Stein amidst what has seemed to be a remarkably uncooperative environment. I documented this all through August. It was only on August 20th that Tryptofish came to the page, after it had been visibly tendentious for a while but was beginning to cool into a more favorable consensus for constructive collaboration. Would you be willing to take a look at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#SashiRolls or confirm that he's been banned from Wikipedia before as suggested by a google search? I'm puzzled at to what is happening here... what this trypto fish's goals actually are, since he's having long discussions about COI on his talk page. SashiRolls (talk) 00:33, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

I was not notified, but I am watchlisting this discussion. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:56, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

I'll look over the weekend, but the suggestion he was previously banned seems at face value unlikely. NativeForeigner ^Talk 04:48, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, if I had been banned, nobody ever told me about it! But he was actually asking you about the time that you blocked me. Anyway, it seems to me that this is all moot (and certainly not worth digging up again!), because he has been topic-banned at AE. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:05, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Ah, ok. In that case it's even more anticlimactic. NativeForeigner ^Talk 04:15, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

No, it's not anticlimactic (and a simple google search for "tryptofish" is enough to find the article, though adding ArbCom ensures success. A brief look at the DS Enforcement Request should be enough to show that there is ample material showing that the page in question has been hacked. I have blown whistles at every possible level of Wikipedia, so when the press comes inquiring (which they will), the defense that "we never heard anything about it" is going to seem rather weak. SashiRolls (talk) 10:52, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

You monumentally seem to misunderstand what happened there. I blocked him for a singular action, (indefinitely, but not forever, you can see he was unblocked) I did not ban him. I'm looking at your contributions lately, and you might want to take some time to step back and think about what you're accomplishing. I think you'd be the one looking marvellously silly if the media came. NativeForeigner ^Talk 20:53, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

If you think so. The media will probably be focused on the (recent) redirections of Political positions of Ralph Nader, Political positions of Cynthia McKinney, & the AfD on Political positions of Jill Stein and not primarily at me, though I'll be happy to try to defend any of my actions. But then I also believe wiser Wikipedians will make matters better and the press will see how cool the place really is. SashiRolls (talk) 21:05, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Alright. I'm still not sure what you're accusing tryptofish of apart from being at one point blocked. As for the deletion of Green party candidate position pages, I can see the argument in both directions. Regardless I think this sort of debate is quite reasonable. The redirections form part of a BRD cycle, atlhough as a candidate that got .12% of the vote and is fairly unknown to the general population, having a split position page for McKinney seems somewhat dubious. But again, there is a reason I've generally avoided editing US politics pages. NativeForeigner ^Talk 01:41, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Not to worry. I'm not accusing Tryptofish of anything. I just asked you for information. With regard to the political pages, my only concern is the lack of debate (or even alert). Pages sitting idle for years that only disappear in the weeks before the election: it just doesn't look good or "neutral". But, don't worry. All will be well. I learned a lot from this episode (more WP: protocols than I knew existed, that's for sure). Thanks for taking the time to respond. SashiRolls (talk) 05:12, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, it can be confusing. Let me know if you have further questions and sorry for being snappy. Time on arbcom does that to you. NativeForeigner ^Talk 18:01, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I do have a further question, and I thank you for your patience in dealing with a political topic given that you've said you avoid these debates. I have formulated an appeal which I have kept off of Wikipedia. I would like to transmit this succinct appeal to a neutral member of ArbCom by email (rather than posting the link to my server here). I believe that the 6-month ban issued before I had time to formulate a defense was disproportionate and that any serious inquiry into the significant WP:Bludgeoning that has been taking place on the talk page for the article since July 2016 (long before I began work cleaning up the bias in the article) will show that numerous editors (about a dozen of them) have been shut out of the discussion. Is there a member of ArbCom who would be more willing to look into this than you may be, given that you don't like dealing with political pages? I would like to have my good name restored and would like serious consideration to be given to the fact that one editor has made over 30 reverts in the last two months on that page. I will send my appeal to the independent adminstrator or (preferably) bureaucrat and let the investigation take its course. p.s. I have had no response to my request for clarification from NuclearWarfare here. SashiRolls (talk) 02:19, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm a former arbcom member, I don't currently serve. If you have an appeal, send it to the mailing list. I no longer serve and frankly any advice I gave you wouldn't be very good. I believe you were topic banned under discretionary sanctions for GMOs, as linked on the page here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&oldid=737580446#SashiRolls NativeForeigner ^Talk 05:49, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

OK, thanks again for your advice. I have contacted ArbCom by email and initiated an appeal here. SashiRolls (talk) 04:02, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election

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

Extended confirmed protection

Hello, NativeForeigner. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.

Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.

In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:

• Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
• A bot will post a notification at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard.

Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:48, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXVI, October 2016

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 recent works Op-ed: TomStar81 on the evolution of the tank Timeline: This month in 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) 14:18, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

WikiCup 2016 November newsletter: Final results

The final round of the 2016 WikiCup is over. Congratulations to the 2016 WikiCup top three finalists:

• First Place - Cas Liber (submissions)
• Second Place - MPJ-DK (submissions)
• Third Place - Adam Cuerden (submissions)

In addition to recognizing the achievements of the top finishers and everyone who worked hard to make it to the final round, we also want to recognize those participants who were most productive in each of the WikiCup scoring categories:

• Featured Article – Cas Liber (actually a three-way tie with themselves for two FAs in each of R2, R3, and R5).
• Good Article – MPJ-DK had 14 GAs promoted in R3.
• Featured List – Calvin999 (submissions) produced 2 FLs in R2
• Featured Pictures – Adam Cuerden restored 18 images to FP status in R4.
• Featured Portal – SSTflyer (submissions) produced the only FPO of the Cup in R2.
• Featured Topic – Cyclonebiskit (submissions) and Calvin were each responsible for one FT in R3 and R2, respectively.
• Good Topic – MPJ-DK created a GT with 9 GAs in R5.
• Did You Know – MPJ-DK put 53 DYKs on the main page in R4.
• In The News – Dharmadhyaksha (submissions) and Muboshgu (submissions), each with 5 ITN, both in R4.
• Good Article Review – MPJ-DK completed 61 GARs in R2.

Over the course of the 2016 WikiCup the following content was added to Wikipedia (only reporting on fixed value categories): 17 Featured Articles, 183 Good Articles, 8 Featured Lists, 87 Featured Pictures, 40 In The News, and 321 Good Article Reviews. Thank you to all the competitors for your hard work and what you have done to improve Wikipedia.--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:52, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

We will open up a discussion for comments on process and scoring in a few days. The 2017 WikiCup is just around the corner! Many thanks from all the judges. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email), Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs · email), and Godot13 (talk · contribs · email)