User talk:Kurtis/Archive 8

Greetings from

The GG article isn't really the best place to talk about this. Please don't be surprised or offended if that section gets deleted or hatted. If you have specific content issues with the articles that you mentioned the talk pages for those respective articles are better places to go. If you're afraid of how editors will respond to your concerns, just keep

Worse - I was just accused of committing a serious BLP violation, and my post was removed in a manner that I find very, very insulting. My comment pertained more to the atmosphere of the article and the gender debate, which is so caustic as to drive several well-intentioned users away from participating in it. Kurtis ^(talk) 20:23, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your question more directly, I have no idea what the scope of this article is. Should we not cover Sarkeesian and Feminist Frequency in some level of depth? She is an extremely important figure in the GamerGate controversy. Kurtis ^(talk) 20:31, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Article is already too long dealing with just the Gamergate controversy and attempts are being made to trim it. More in-depth coverage of the involved parties is best left to their articles. —

Strongjam (talk) 20:44, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Well yes, but there should be some sort of summary about it on Gamergate. Feminist Frequency and Tropes vs. Women is an important element of the controversy and deserves a fair amount of coverage. The problem is that the editing environment is corrosive, which impacts our ability to collaborate effectively. Kurtis ^(talk) 20:49, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please read this notification carefully:
A

Gamergate controversy, which you have recently edited.
The details of these sanctions are described here

.

uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here

. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general 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. Everyone gets one, don't worry.

Strongjam (talk) 21:16, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

• Alright, thanks for the heads-up. I was already aware of the sanctions, but I guess it's all the better to make the notice official just for future reference. Kurtis ^(talk) 21:21, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration and have not been listed as a party. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/DangerousPanda. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/DangerousPanda/Evidence. Please add your evidence by 3 December 2014, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/DangerousPanda/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:36, 19 November 2014 (UTC). Message delivered by MediaWiki message delivery[reply]

Hi, Kurtis. I do thank you for being considerate enough to alert me on my talk page to your comments in reply to my evidence at the above, and for your kind words on my record. As might be reasonably expected, I'm not in agreement with your points, and have responded. But I'm glad we can do so respectfully and collegially. With sincere regards, Tenebrae (talk) 05:25, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem. I'm glad to see you're not offended by the points that I've raised there. Kurtis ^(talk) 05:29, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. Your polite collegiality is what made calm discussion possible, and shows that editors can disagree and still speak respectfully to each other. I admit I find it ironic, since you seem like someone who would never f-bomb a colleague or approve of an editor who did. So, thank you for caring enough to want to make the Wikipedia experience more palatable; I wish there were more like you, and I treasure my colleagues who exhibit this same high level of discourse. With regards and respect, Tenebrae (talk) 14:33, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your high praise. It's always great to hear that someone appreciates your efforts towards making the community a more welcoming environment. I'm glad I could make a difference for you in this particular case. Kurtis ^(talk) 20:38, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And I'd like to applaud you again for the comprehensive, evenhanded and fair-minded presentation of evidence just now at the DP Arb page. For what it's worth, this longtime editor admires what you bring to Wikipedia. I wish more editors were of your temperament and meticulous care. With regards and respect again, Tenebrae (talk) 04:45, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I try. ;) Thanks again, Tenebrae. :) Kurtis ^(talk) 05:30, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate/Evidence. Please add your evidence by December 11, 2014, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 22:28, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kurtis, thank you for presenting evidence for the DangerousPanda case. The Arbitration Committee has asked that evidence presentations be kept to around 500 words and 50 diffs. Your presentation is over 1000 words. Please edit your section to focus on the most relevant evidence. If you wish to submit over-length evidence, you must first obtain the agreement of the arbitrators by posting a request on the Evidence talk page. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:13, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I've requested an exemption on the evidence talk page. Here's hoping it's given serious consideration. Kurtis ^(talk) 07:05, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history Wikiproject has opened nominations for the Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year. Nominations will be accepted until 13 December at 23:59 GMT, with voting to begin at 0:00 GMT 14 December. The voting will conclude on 21 December. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:41, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This message was accidentally sent using an incorrect mailing list, therefore this message is being resent using the correct list. As a result, some users may get this message twice; if so please discard. We apologize for the inconvenience.

Nominations for the military historian of the year and military newcomer of the year have now closed, and voting for the candidates has officially opened. All project members are invited to cast there votes for the Military historian and Military newcomer of the year candidates before the elections close at 23:59 December 21st. For the coordinators, TomStar81

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:33, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You recently recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wifione. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wifione/Evidence. Please submit your evidence before 16 January 2014, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wifione/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.

Please read this notice before submitting any material (evidence or workshop proposals or comments) on the case or talk pages.

From the statements so far, this case is either about an administrator editing in defiance of the neutral point of view policy or a group of editors unjustly making accusations of such. The committee takes no view at present.

However, all participants are reminded that breaches of the

Conflict of interest guideline

.

No material that touches upon individual privacy may be posted publicly but must instead be sent using "Email user" to the Arbitration Committee. Such material will be accepted, or disregarded, at the committee's sole discretion.

Before communicating by email with the Committee, please read our "Communications and privacy" statement.

For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:03, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A few months ago during the eventually unsuccessful

For me, the big thing was obviously the

EEML ArbCom case. I remember when it first came to light, and although it was many years ago, it was still a very unethical way to get the upper hand in that topic area. That's actually the only real reason why I was opposed; I just didn't really get the impression that you've fully owned up to it. If I were convinced otherwise at your next RfA, then I'd probably be inclined to support you. Reviewing your editing history and experience would almost be pointless in this case, as there was never any doubt about the quality of your writing or your commitment to Wikipedia. Kurtis ^(talk) 14:14, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Thank you for getting back to me on that. Perhaps it's me not being a native English speaker, but I am not fully sure I understand the "fully owned up to it" expression. As far as I do understand it it means "to acknowledge", yes? If so, I thought I did so. I offered an apology to the community both during the case and afterward (forgive me if I don't have the diffs, but let me say so again: "I am sincerely sorry for violating the community policies and trust back in 2009"), and I similarly acknowledged I acted in an unethical way that I did and still do regret. In addition to uncontroversial content creation and various outreach since (which, if you wish, you can think of as a form of penance), I've also written a series of wiki-essays (such as this. If there's something else you think I should do to "own up", please let me know what am I missing. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:30, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose it has been a long time ago now, and I know you understand why the whole mailing list thing wasn't good. We'll see what happens next time around. Kurtis ^(talk) 15:27, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Next time around... do you mean during the next RfA? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 17:22, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Kurtis ^(talk) 23:20, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This message is being sent to you as a member of WikiProject Death

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Death for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (rap) @ 19:49, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, where should I post my answers? Kurtis ^(talk) 20:02, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You can edit the questions page and add them in there. Rcsprinter¹²³ (note) @ 22:06, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

...for your support over at my RfA. I shall do my best to be worthy of it. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 05:32, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We hope

With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways:

• Account coordinators: help distribute free research access
• Partner coordinators: seek new donations from partners
• Communications coordinators: share updates in blogs, social media, newsletters and notices
• Technical coordinators: advise on building tools to support the library's work
• Outreach coordinators: connect to university libraries, archives, and other GLAMs
• Research coordinators: run reference services

Send on behalf of The Wikipedia Library using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pavlov's RfA reward Thank for !voting at my recent RfA . You voted Oppose so you get only one cookie, but a nice one. (Better luck next time.) All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:00, 16 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Greetings Kurtis, after a long time of not logging in I saw the notification for your "The importance of questions and research at RfA" section on WT:RfA. I didn't intend to make it seem like I had found the link myself and I'm sorry it seemed that way. I think I may have typed it a bit quicker than I should have because I also said your edit instead of your edit reverting x user's edit. I assume most users skim the Q&A at least. Anyway, it's been quite a while since then, and maybe it's time to go for another RfA if you still feel like an admin is something you would like to be. You should probably place a talkback on my talk page if you want me to respond here anytime soon. —Mysterytrey 20:07, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, I was never under the impression that you had any intention of casting me in a negative light. My RfA was pretty much ill-fated from the start, particularly because my activity levels and overall experience in the areas specified were less than what the community expected. I also didn't understand Creative Commons licensing like I do now. With regards to adminship, I may take another shot at it somewhere down the line, but lately I haven't been as active as I used to be; I guess you could say I'm on a de facto WikiBreak. I do want to get back into editing here again, and I intend to do so once get my brand new computer up and running, which will happen when I stop putting it off get around to it. Kurtis ^(talk) 22:57, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings from

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) 05:05, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Kurtis: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:37, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message

Merry Christmas, Kurtis, and may your holidays be merry and bright . . . . Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:55, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

	The 78.26 RFA Appreciation award
	Thank you for the participation and support at my RFA. It is truly appreciated. I hope to be of further help around here, and if you see me doing something dumb, you know where to find me. Again, I thank you. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 01:57, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year!

Kurtis,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:53, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Prodego ^talk 00:16, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, don't worry! I'm not turning on him by any stretch of the imagination – I just don't think his recent posts were the best idea on his part. But if there's one thing to take away from all this, it's that he's clearly going through a hard time. Kurtis ^(talk) 01:19, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just messing with you for breaking my signature. Honestly I didn't even read your comment. :D Prodego ^talk 01:32, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

...Oh. I see.

Actually didn't even notice until you pointed that out. :/ But thanks for the self-deprecating lols, I actually needed them right now. ;) Kurtis ^(talk) 02:43, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

	Hawkeye7 RfA Appreciation award
	Thank you for participating in and supporting my RfA. It was very much appreciated. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:58, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Outlandos d'Amour page, your edit caused an archiveurl error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a

]

Thank you for supporting my RfA

	Brianhe RfA Appreciation award
	Thank you for participating at talk) 03:03, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply ]

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) 04:50, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please help

Hi Kurtis! Thank you for the opportunity that through the Teahouse I can write to you. I am new here and I am working on an article. This is a 6 years old article that was not properly sourced, however, I found more than 40 secondary sources that I have now built in. My problem is that almost no one controls what I am doing, and I should like kindly ask you, that if your time allows, just take a glance to the article and tell me your advices. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zolt%C3%A1n_Deme and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Zolt%C3%A1n_Deme My other problem is that this tag "Find sources: "Zoltán Deme" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images" proved to be useless for reaching the sources of the 1960-1980 decades, especially the sources of the past communist countries in East Europe where most of the libraries very poorly digitized. For example "Scholar" gives 1 citation, though just with 10 minutes research I got immediately 20 citations! [[1]] page 65 [[2]] p.2 [[3]] p.23 [[4]] p.1 [[5]] p.289 [[6]] p.5 [[7]] p.2 [[8]] p.353 [[9]] p.35 [[10]] p.1 [[11]] p.46 [[12]] p.75 [[13]] p.63 [[14]] p.84 [[15]] p.64 [[16]] p.1 [[17]] p.48 [[18]] p.317 [[19]] p.196 [[20]] p.101. (Plus I got many items, as "required reading" in the universities, like [[21]] p.1 [[22]] p.1 [[23]] p.48 [[24]] and so on). For other example, Books, Google Books gives 3 items, while this site (and others) show the pictures and data of more than 20 items! [[25]] [[26]] [[27]] This misleads almost everyone, presents the subject non-notable with only one citation and three books, thus, I had to go over this problem and collect printed material. Would you kindly investigate the improved article, is my work now sufficient? I saw your contributions, so any proposal or any suggestion would be highly appreciated! Thanks for reading this message, sincerely yours, Norbert. 89.133.187.29 (talk) 14:06, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Norbert, I appreciate that you took the time to write me and would be glad to help out. Unfortunately, many of the references you've provided (specifically at the AfD nomination page) aren't readily accessible to me, in large part due to the fact that I lack familiarity with the Hungarian language and Google's translator doesn't seem to work on the pdf files in the links. This means that I have no way of verifying their veracity as sources, so my input will be limited as to determining whether or not Deme is

overarching criteria. It doesn't appear that he has been nominated for any prestigious awards, and I don't really get the sense that he has had a substantial impact within the field of philosophy. If your references can prove otherwise, then it might stand a chance. As it is, the article is too ambiguous for me to throw my full weight behind its retention.

I hope this helps. Like I said, my input is limited in this case because I can't speak Hungarian and the translator doesn't appear to work for the pdf files. Hopefully things work out for the better, and even if they don't, just remember that virtually everyone has had their hard work deleted at some point or another; it's simply the nature of the beast. Best of luck to you. Kurtis ^(talk) 19:27, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi Kurtis! Thank you very much for your review, for the changes you made, and for your time! Just with three minor corrections you made more biographical the article, and you made light to me in the darkness of research that what to do : to give though a short but useful biographical profile to the readers. I plan to go ahead and to make few steps on this path.

I am thankful for everything what you did! And I would be happy, if I would have the opportunity to show you the renewed article that I am starting to improve. Have Kurtis nice days, nice weekend, and good health. Yours sincerely, Norbert. 89.133.187.29 (talk) 10:08, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, glad I could be of some assistance. I think there may be a good case for this person, but it's dependent on whether or not there are any reliable sources available. Hopefully the ones you've provided can be reviewed by someone with expertise in the area. Kurtis ^(talk) 03:32, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Re: this. No worries, hope it helped. I've done a handful of GA albums, and reviewed a few more. I think you're on the right track, but look at that article structure first of all (i.e. get the sections in the right order) and things will soon start dropping into place. Let me know if I can help any further! Cheers! :) — sparklism ^hey! 15:28, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea, now let's see how things work out. ;) Kurtis ^(talk) 17:48, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are an exemplary editor; remarkable in many ways. You would be a good administrator in my opinion, and you appear to be well qualified! You personify an Administrator without tools , and have gained my support; already!

In accord with my comment to you at wt:rfa; as the banner says, you have already earned my support.--

Thanks John for the vote of confidence - it means a lot to me. "Administrator without tools" is a mantle I've strived to fill from my earliest days on the project, in part because I don't think an editor needs the flag to be an asset. I've encountered many people who have never requested the added toolset, yet I still regard them as highly as any administrator. In theory, adminship should not confer some sort of special status on any one editor, and the fact that it has ever been a symbol of prestige is an unfortunate reflection on an application process that is far too rigid for its own good (significantly more so these days than when I first joined).

I suppose the question remains as to whether or not I want to become an administrator someday, and the best answer I can give is maybe. I would like to help out in a number of places where being an administrator would make a difference, yet my primary areas of interest are actually backroom discussions and article editing. I have never gone through the GA or FA processes, and have only two DYKs to my name. This might hurt my chances with a certain demographic, but in my defense, I can say with confidence that I have been in the "trenches" before. I've dealt with POV-pushing and I can empathize with those who've struggled to maintain high quality articles in the face of subtle bias being inserted into their work - it can feel like trying to pull a pickup truck over a steep hill using a rope tied to the front axle. I admire the tenacity of editors who build articles from the ground-up and toil away at them for weeks or even months on end, but I personally have never had that sort of laser-like focus. The biggest thing going against an RfA run in the near future is the fact that I've scaled back my activity over the past year or so, mainly due to issues that have come up in real life. Once I'm back to editing on a more regular basis, I'll give it some more thought. Kurtis ^(talk) 21:04, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man.

Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man/Evidence.

Please add your evidence by September 17, 2016, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.

For non-parties who wish to opt out of further notifications for this case please remove yourself from the list held here

For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:04, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

A proposed decision has been posted in the open The Rambling Man arbitration page. Please review this decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. If you are not a party, you may opt out of further notifications regarding this case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man/Mass Message List. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:36, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kurtis,

In order to better control the quality of new pages, keep out the spam, and welcome the genuine newbies, the current system we introduced in 2011 is being updated and improved. The documentation and tutorials have also been revised and given a facelift. Most importantly a new user group New Page Reviewer has been created.

Under the new rule, you may find that you are temporarily unable to mark new pages as reviewed. However, this is nothing to worry about - most current experienced patrollers are being accorded the the new right without the need to apply, and if you have significant previous experience of patrolling new pages, we strongly encourage you to apply for the new right as soon as possible - we need all the help we can get, and we are now providing a dynamic, supportive environment for your work.

Find out more about this exiting new user right now at New Page Reviewers and be sure to read the new tutorial before applying. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:28, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Kurtis. 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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

This message was sent as a courtesy reminder to all active members of the Military History WikiProject.