![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. 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 15 | ← | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | Archive 23 |
I've left some comments at the talk page of the article regarding the latest kerfuffle there. My feeling is that once the PP expires, the status quo in the article regarding the awards needs to be restored. Thoughts? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:11, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
I actually agree with you RE outing, however not all oversighters do, and the current wording in the outing policy can (imho not by anyone thinking rationally) support that interpretation. X is person X is outing. X is socialmediaprofile X is not always considered outing by the people who would oversight the material. Its currently under discussion on the outing talkpage since Jan but there are a number of issues. Bear in mind Kingsindian's ombudsman request that came back with the answer that the name of someone who has been a witness in court, given interviews to the press, and been named in books, is not public information as they may have been compelled to testify unwillingly. The entire outing and oversight area needs to be overhauled and actual impartial oversight of CU/OS needs to be implemented. There is little point getting into an argument with Hijari, as his opinion of the policy/practice is shared by at least some of the people who enforce it. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 16:07, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
I believe something derped on your reply there. TimothyJosephWood 14:11, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Dear DHeyward, there's a discussion going on at Talk:2016 Orlando nightclub shooting about whether it is appropriate to flat-out call the shooting "terrorism" rather than noting that it was widely denounced as terrorism. The concern is that the word "terrorist" is not NPOV. I imagine most of us would call it a terrorist attack in real life, but perhaps not in the encyclopedia. As I understand things, Wikipedia isn't supposed to enshrine any particular politics in the content of the articles---no matter how popular or right that politics is. (See WP:TERRORIST.) Might you be willing to take a gander at the discussion and reconsider your edit? Omphaloscope talk 18:24, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
![]() | |
"This is me." | |
---|---|
... you were recipient no. 1257 of Precious, a prize of QAI! |
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 07:17, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
![]() |
Thank you for taking charge against faulty reasoning! R00b07 ( talk) 07:29, 4 July 2016 (UTC) |
With all due, "you bleeding heart PC scum" is basically talk page vandalism, and misuse of the edit request system. I think it's perfectly appropriate to call it that. TimothyJosephWood 21:30, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "SIG MCX". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 3 August 2016.
Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by
MediationBot (
talk) on
behalf of the Mediation Committee.
22:48, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Please don't use bare URLs for citations. It could lead to link rot. Parsley Man ( talk) 19:45, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
![]() |
A small, perhaps silly, recognition for your rather insightful point about The Wachowski Brothers being a corporate name. You turned what was a rather political/pov discussion into something far more nuanced and, frankly, interesting. Even if I might prefer one outcome to the discussion based on my personal opinion and pov (recognition, even celebration, of trans folks' accomplishments by using their names and avoiding deadnaming), insight deserves recognition and you make a persuasive point. Things like this, even when there's disagreement, make Wikipedia a better place. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:51, 15 July 2016 (UTC) |
The request for formal mediation concerning SIG MCX, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.
For the Mediation Committee,
TransporterMan (
TALK)
16:58, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
(Delivered by
MediationBot,
on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)
This edit summary makes little sense. The sentence sets the context for the response. -- NeilN talk to me 04:51, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article WikiConference North America 2016 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WikiConference North America 2016 until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Keilana ( talk) 18:58, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
I guess it was inevitable - you're mentioned here, etc. To emphasize, this is nothing personal. I think we can probably collaborate well in the future once this minor speed bump is resolved. LavaBaron ( talk) 01:58, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
![]() |
It's a bit early for a beer. Just a little half and half for me, please. Drmies ( talk) 14:22, 25 August 2016 (UTC) |
Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Conspiracy theories of the United States presidential election, 2016. Thanks, EdJohnston ( talk) 01:37, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm not in the mood to get in an edit war with an admin in an area like American politics. But reverting to the last stable version is how
WP:BOLD works. And that's what I did. You should be the one getting consensus for your changes, not the other way around.
Hobit (
talk)
19:34, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is
Gaming the system?. Thank you.
Guy Macon (
talk)
04:46, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
Please look at talk section for the article. Your assistance is requested in formulating the wording for a proposed subsection of the article. 66.103.35.72 ( talk) 19:55, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
It appears you deleted a RfC opened by another editor, as well as comments by two editors [2] from the Talk page of Conspiracy theories of the United States presidential election, 2016. I have restored it/them. The page itself has been protected by Airplaneman due to edit warring, which happens; edit warring at a Talk page, though, is a pretty big deal. I can't imagine what you were thinking. BlueSalix ( talk) 04:22, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding governmental regulation of firearm ownership; the social, historical and political context of such regulation; and the people and organizations associated with these issues, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.Felsic2 ( talk) 17:10, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
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)
This comment, "...these agenda driven accounts seek only to demonize firearms with undue weight accounts of rare use in crime", is an inappropriate personal attack that fails to assume good faith. Please withdraw it and do not make another like it. Firearms articles, presumably including the project itself, are covered by ArbCom's discretionary sanctions that specifically prohibit behavior like this. Felsic2 ( talk) 17:01, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
User:DHeyward: I'll thank you kindly to immediately strike-out your personal attack against me on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shitposting [3]. -- 1Wiki8........................... ( talk) 06:40, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible
conflict of interest incident in which you may be involved. The thread is
The Geek Group. The discussion is about the topic
The Geek Group. Thank you. —
Zlassiter (
talk)
10:49, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
Hi. Please stop your continued bad faith assumptions, the most recent example of which is your parenthetical comment: "(coinciding with the creation of the article to disparage him)" [4]. Thanks. (You are of course free to delete this message, and/or to request I not post again on your talk page, except in required cases such as WP:ANI notices) -- 1Wiki8........................... ( talk) 09:35, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
I restored the material you deleted from Hillary Clinton email controversy, thus making your deletion controversial. You reverted me, thus making the same controversial edit a second time after it had been challenged. I know that you are familiar with the Discretionary Sanctions. This was a violation. I suggest you self-revert, restore the material, and get consensus on the talk page before doing it again. -- MelanieN ( talk) 16:17, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello, DHeyward. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
[5]. I hope you're doing well. Bishonen | talk 19:31, 27 November 2016 (UTC).
You are receiving this notification because you participated in a past RfC related to the use of extended confirmed protection levels. There is currently a discussion ongoing about two specific use cases of extended confirmed protection. You are invited to participate. ~ Rob13 Talk 15:58, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
![]() ![]() ![]() |
Time is running out to voting for the Military Historian and Newcomer of the year! If you have not yet cast a vote, please consider doing so soon. The voting will end on 31 December at 23:59 UTC, with the presentation of the awards to the winners and runners up to occur on 1 January 2017. For the Military history WikiProject Coordinators, MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 05:02, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
This message was sent as a courtesy reminder to all active members of the Military History WikiProject.
Please avoid edit warring, especially on high-visibility articles like 2017 Fort Lauderdale airport shooting. I'm not sure exactly how many reverts you've made, and I have no desire to block anyone, but I'd really like to avoid full-protecting an article about such a rapidly developing situation (as has been requested at WP:RFPP. Continue to use the talk page to work out an acceptable solution, and if there's any way I can help resolve this dispute (short of taking a "side"), just let me know. – Juliancolton | Talk 04:01, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello everyone, and sincere apologies if you're getting this message more than once. Just a heads-up that there is currently work on an extension in order to enable CSS styling in templates. Please check the document on mediawiki.org to discuss best storage methods and what we need to avoid with implementation. Thanks, m:User:Melamrawy (WMF), 09:11, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
G'day all, please be advised that throughout March 2017 the Military history Wikiproject is running its March Madness drive. This is a backlog drive that is focused on several key areas:
As with past Milhist drives, there are points awarded for working on articles in the targeted areas, with barnstars being awarded at the end for different levels of achievement.
The drive is open to all Wikipedians, not just members of the Military history project, although only work on articles that fall (broadly) within the military history scope will be considered eligible. More information can be found here for those that are interested, and members can sign up as participants at that page also.
The drive starts at 00:01 UTC on 1 March and runs until 23:59 UTC on 31 March 2017, so please sign up now.
For the Milhist co-ordinators. Regards, AustralianRupert ( talk) & MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 07:24, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. 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 15 | ← | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | Archive 23 |
I've left some comments at the talk page of the article regarding the latest kerfuffle there. My feeling is that once the PP expires, the status quo in the article regarding the awards needs to be restored. Thoughts? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:11, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
I actually agree with you RE outing, however not all oversighters do, and the current wording in the outing policy can (imho not by anyone thinking rationally) support that interpretation. X is person X is outing. X is socialmediaprofile X is not always considered outing by the people who would oversight the material. Its currently under discussion on the outing talkpage since Jan but there are a number of issues. Bear in mind Kingsindian's ombudsman request that came back with the answer that the name of someone who has been a witness in court, given interviews to the press, and been named in books, is not public information as they may have been compelled to testify unwillingly. The entire outing and oversight area needs to be overhauled and actual impartial oversight of CU/OS needs to be implemented. There is little point getting into an argument with Hijari, as his opinion of the policy/practice is shared by at least some of the people who enforce it. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 16:07, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
I believe something derped on your reply there. TimothyJosephWood 14:11, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Dear DHeyward, there's a discussion going on at Talk:2016 Orlando nightclub shooting about whether it is appropriate to flat-out call the shooting "terrorism" rather than noting that it was widely denounced as terrorism. The concern is that the word "terrorist" is not NPOV. I imagine most of us would call it a terrorist attack in real life, but perhaps not in the encyclopedia. As I understand things, Wikipedia isn't supposed to enshrine any particular politics in the content of the articles---no matter how popular or right that politics is. (See WP:TERRORIST.) Might you be willing to take a gander at the discussion and reconsider your edit? Omphaloscope talk 18:24, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
![]() | |
"This is me." | |
---|---|
... you were recipient no. 1257 of Precious, a prize of QAI! |
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 07:17, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
![]() |
Thank you for taking charge against faulty reasoning! R00b07 ( talk) 07:29, 4 July 2016 (UTC) |
With all due, "you bleeding heart PC scum" is basically talk page vandalism, and misuse of the edit request system. I think it's perfectly appropriate to call it that. TimothyJosephWood 21:30, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "SIG MCX". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 3 August 2016.
Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by
MediationBot (
talk) on
behalf of the Mediation Committee.
22:48, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Please don't use bare URLs for citations. It could lead to link rot. Parsley Man ( talk) 19:45, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
![]() |
A small, perhaps silly, recognition for your rather insightful point about The Wachowski Brothers being a corporate name. You turned what was a rather political/pov discussion into something far more nuanced and, frankly, interesting. Even if I might prefer one outcome to the discussion based on my personal opinion and pov (recognition, even celebration, of trans folks' accomplishments by using their names and avoiding deadnaming), insight deserves recognition and you make a persuasive point. Things like this, even when there's disagreement, make Wikipedia a better place. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:51, 15 July 2016 (UTC) |
The request for formal mediation concerning SIG MCX, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.
For the Mediation Committee,
TransporterMan (
TALK)
16:58, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
(Delivered by
MediationBot,
on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)
This edit summary makes little sense. The sentence sets the context for the response. -- NeilN talk to me 04:51, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article WikiConference North America 2016 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WikiConference North America 2016 until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Keilana ( talk) 18:58, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
I guess it was inevitable - you're mentioned here, etc. To emphasize, this is nothing personal. I think we can probably collaborate well in the future once this minor speed bump is resolved. LavaBaron ( talk) 01:58, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
![]() |
It's a bit early for a beer. Just a little half and half for me, please. Drmies ( talk) 14:22, 25 August 2016 (UTC) |
Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Conspiracy theories of the United States presidential election, 2016. Thanks, EdJohnston ( talk) 01:37, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm not in the mood to get in an edit war with an admin in an area like American politics. But reverting to the last stable version is how
WP:BOLD works. And that's what I did. You should be the one getting consensus for your changes, not the other way around.
Hobit (
talk)
19:34, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is
Gaming the system?. Thank you.
Guy Macon (
talk)
04:46, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
Please look at talk section for the article. Your assistance is requested in formulating the wording for a proposed subsection of the article. 66.103.35.72 ( talk) 19:55, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
It appears you deleted a RfC opened by another editor, as well as comments by two editors [2] from the Talk page of Conspiracy theories of the United States presidential election, 2016. I have restored it/them. The page itself has been protected by Airplaneman due to edit warring, which happens; edit warring at a Talk page, though, is a pretty big deal. I can't imagine what you were thinking. BlueSalix ( talk) 04:22, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding governmental regulation of firearm ownership; the social, historical and political context of such regulation; and the people and organizations associated with these issues, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.Felsic2 ( talk) 17:10, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
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)
This comment, "...these agenda driven accounts seek only to demonize firearms with undue weight accounts of rare use in crime", is an inappropriate personal attack that fails to assume good faith. Please withdraw it and do not make another like it. Firearms articles, presumably including the project itself, are covered by ArbCom's discretionary sanctions that specifically prohibit behavior like this. Felsic2 ( talk) 17:01, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
User:DHeyward: I'll thank you kindly to immediately strike-out your personal attack against me on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shitposting [3]. -- 1Wiki8........................... ( talk) 06:40, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible
conflict of interest incident in which you may be involved. The thread is
The Geek Group. The discussion is about the topic
The Geek Group. Thank you. —
Zlassiter (
talk)
10:49, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
Hi. Please stop your continued bad faith assumptions, the most recent example of which is your parenthetical comment: "(coinciding with the creation of the article to disparage him)" [4]. Thanks. (You are of course free to delete this message, and/or to request I not post again on your talk page, except in required cases such as WP:ANI notices) -- 1Wiki8........................... ( talk) 09:35, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
I restored the material you deleted from Hillary Clinton email controversy, thus making your deletion controversial. You reverted me, thus making the same controversial edit a second time after it had been challenged. I know that you are familiar with the Discretionary Sanctions. This was a violation. I suggest you self-revert, restore the material, and get consensus on the talk page before doing it again. -- MelanieN ( talk) 16:17, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello, DHeyward. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
[5]. I hope you're doing well. Bishonen | talk 19:31, 27 November 2016 (UTC).
You are receiving this notification because you participated in a past RfC related to the use of extended confirmed protection levels. There is currently a discussion ongoing about two specific use cases of extended confirmed protection. You are invited to participate. ~ Rob13 Talk 15:58, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
![]() ![]() ![]() |
Time is running out to voting for the Military Historian and Newcomer of the year! If you have not yet cast a vote, please consider doing so soon. The voting will end on 31 December at 23:59 UTC, with the presentation of the awards to the winners and runners up to occur on 1 January 2017. For the Military history WikiProject Coordinators, MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 05:02, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
This message was sent as a courtesy reminder to all active members of the Military History WikiProject.
Please avoid edit warring, especially on high-visibility articles like 2017 Fort Lauderdale airport shooting. I'm not sure exactly how many reverts you've made, and I have no desire to block anyone, but I'd really like to avoid full-protecting an article about such a rapidly developing situation (as has been requested at WP:RFPP. Continue to use the talk page to work out an acceptable solution, and if there's any way I can help resolve this dispute (short of taking a "side"), just let me know. – Juliancolton | Talk 04:01, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello everyone, and sincere apologies if you're getting this message more than once. Just a heads-up that there is currently work on an extension in order to enable CSS styling in templates. Please check the document on mediawiki.org to discuss best storage methods and what we need to avoid with implementation. Thanks, m:User:Melamrawy (WMF), 09:11, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
G'day all, please be advised that throughout March 2017 the Military history Wikiproject is running its March Madness drive. This is a backlog drive that is focused on several key areas:
As with past Milhist drives, there are points awarded for working on articles in the targeted areas, with barnstars being awarded at the end for different levels of achievement.
The drive is open to all Wikipedians, not just members of the Military history project, although only work on articles that fall (broadly) within the military history scope will be considered eligible. More information can be found here for those that are interested, and members can sign up as participants at that page also.
The drive starts at 00:01 UTC on 1 March and runs until 23:59 UTC on 31 March 2017, so please sign up now.
For the Milhist co-ordinators. Regards, AustralianRupert ( talk) & MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 07:24, 26 February 2017 (UTC)