Expatkiwi

ANI

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Toddst1 (talk) 21:33, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Notification of AN/I Report

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. It's under Repeated Personal Attacks. Also, please note that I didn't report you. I'm just notifying you because the user reporting you didn't. - Amaury (talk) 21:33, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

To be honest, I just no longer care. My efforts in Wikipedia have met with removal and rebuke. Hypocrisy and overzealousness rule here, I'm sad to say. Expatkiwi (talk) 21:36, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

• Lets not have a repeat. You cannot use the non-free files in a list. Werieth (talk) 17:55, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

RE: NFCC

Expatkiwi,

I'm KoshVorlon, I'm not an admin, a 'crat, a sysop, I'm just a user, just like you are. Very much like you, I also had a huge problem with NFCC, I also used IAR to ignore NFCC, because I thought it was non-sensical. My thought was, use the best picture for wiki, not some washed up, blurred out photo that happens to be free. I've been blocked for that. I've come to realize that the image rules aren't as byzantine as I first thought. Wikipedia wants to remain a free resource, in order for that to happen, they need to use free images whenever possible.

block lift request

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

Expatkiwi (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

understood that reason for block was prolific use of non-free images and re-loading of removed images. Will desist from doing so in futureDamon Seath (talk) 18:14, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=understood that reason for block was prolific use of non-free images and re-loading of removed images. Will desist from doing so in future[[User:Expatkiwi|Damon Seath]] ([[User talk:Expatkiwi#top|talk]]) 18:14, 13 December 2014 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=understood that reason for block was prolific use of non-free images and re-loading of removed images. Will desist from doing so in future[[User:Expatkiwi|Damon Seath]] ([[User talk:Expatkiwi#top|talk]]) 18:14, 13 December 2014 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=understood that reason for block was prolific use of non-free images and re-loading of removed images. Will desist from doing so in future[[User:Expatkiwi|Damon Seath]] ([[User talk:Expatkiwi#top|talk]]) 18:14, 13 December 2014 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

Yes, there will be times when it isn't possible for that to be done, so , as a concession of sort, Wikipedia has a list of 10 criterias, if the image meets all 10 of those criterias , then it can be used, even though it isn't free.

To be sure, it's stricter than U.S copyright law, but at the end of the day, it keeps Wikipedia from a.) being sued (which keeps Wikipedia from being shut down ) and b.) keeps Wikipedia free (information and all ! ).

I won't come back on your page unless you ask me to, but as one who's had - A LOT - of issues with this policy (I mean me ) I thought I'd send you a note to help you out, as it's a real bitch figuring out the NFCC policy alone!  :)  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ...  19:13, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

List of Australian Police flags

If you continue to ignore and violate WP:NFCC I will be forced to take this back to WP:ANI and either ask for a topic ban in regards to NFC or having you blocked. Werieth (talk) 20:21, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Expatkiwi, it's pretty clear that you are angry and frustrated, but trying to force your version by endless reverts is not going to get your version installed. There are a lot of rules here and no one expects you to know them all at once, however, if you are told that you are breaking one it is much more effective to stop what you are doing and ask for help, for example, at WT:CP. Generally people are willing to explain ins and outs, if asked politely. However, if your talk page posts are consistently angry, wiki is no different from real life; pretty soon you'll run out of people willing to be patient with you. Try taking a break, and a deep breath. Wiki will still be here tomorrow or next week. Best. JanetteDoe (talk) 22:07, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Werieth told me that the issue was having too many images on one page. So I obliged him and created a seperate page for the police flags of Australia. He still pulls 'em. I don't think I am going to believe another word he says again. Expatkiwi

Please re-read what I said, I stated that you cannot use non-free files on List of XXXX pages. If the individual group is notable enough you can use the file on the article about that entity. Werieth (talk) 00:55, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

June 2013

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for violating copyright policy by copying text or images into Wikipedia from another source without verifying permission. You have been previously warned that this is against policy, but have persisted.

Please take this opportunity to be sure you understand our copyright policy and our policies regarding how to use non-free content. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  Ironholds (talk) 01:14, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Zealous Beaurocrats: 1, Honest Contributors: 0 User:Expatkiwi

The word is "bureaucrat", but sure. Ironholds (talk) 14:34, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Issues you have been encountering

Hello. I was asked to look into this situation by two people concerned that you might not understand the issues. I'll see if I can make this clear.

Wikipedia is a core participant in and advocate for the Free culture movement. It is a strongly held principle that we should whenever possible use only free content here, as well as on other Wikimedia Foundation Projects. Free content is "free" as in speech - meaning that there are minimal legal restrictions on its use. This allows the educational resources we are creating to be used by as many people as possible, for as many reasons as possible, everywhere around the world.

Recognizing, however, that there may sometimes be need to use non-free materials in building a reference work, our Board of Trustees permits each project (except Commons) create an "exemption doctrine policy" (EDP). Our use of non-free materials must conform to this policy. If it does not, we can't use it. Wikipedia's exemption doctrine policy is, of course, WP:NFCC. It incorporates by reference the guideline WP:NFC.

Many years ago, the community decided to restrict using non-free images in list articles or tables in almost any case. This is written into WP:NFC at WP:NFLISTS and WP:NFTABLE. This is both to minimize risk (the more heavily we use any specific non-free content, the more we open ourselves up to legal claim of misuse) and to conform as closely as possible to the core value of free content. As long as this is the community's stance, such image use should be avoided. I believe you were first told this in 2005, [[1]]. That practice has if anything strengthened in the 7 years since. I also see that you asked about the practice at WP:NFCR here a few days before you created List of Australian Police flags and began including non-free flags. At that point, you were aware of the prohibition and had been pointed to NFC.

It's important when you know that an action is controversial and particularly when it may be a problem under the community's approach to copyrighted content to gain consensus before you take that action. Collaborating well with others is not bowing to zealous bureaucracy; it's respecting your colleagues, and it is the only thing that makes this open-source encyclopedia function.

I think if you want to continue contributing, the best way forward here may be taking a step back to look at those policies. Over the years, you have many times been cautioned that you are using non-free images in ways that policy and guideline do not permit. If you feel strongly that policy and guideline should permit images to be used in these ways, the thing to do is convince the community to your point of view. After you do that, you can use the images that way without issue. If the community will not agree with your point of view, then the non-free content just can't be used that way. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:35, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

• It's academic anyway. I am persona non-grata here in Wikipedia. In case you have not noticed, I have been given an indefinite suspension by the powers-that-be (other - less tactful - descriptions of them spring to mind, but I'll bite my tongue). The problem is that the image use procedure is too bureaucratic and I for one see that as a detriment to Wikipedia. --Expatkiwi ^(talk) 22:18, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

However indefinetly doesn't mean infinetly. It just means, for no specified period of time.

Like I said, I had the same problem you did with NFCC. I'm still not 100 clear, however I've been steering clear of adding any image I didn't make myself (there have been two exceptions when I took screenshots of wikipedia to demonstrate what I was seeing.

Read what I wrote above again, the explanation is a bit byzantine, but the concept is easier to comprehend. I can see you want to contribute, and that's great, there's just ways of doing things around wiki :)  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ...  21:27, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

It's just the thought of that smug @#$%*! Werewolf having a good laugh at the situation that turns my stomach.--Expatkiwi ^(talk) 22:23, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I was actually hoping to avoid having you blocked as that is a last resort. You are not willing to discuss, listen, or learn. You have also been extremely rude, making multiple personal attacks directed at myself from you. My hope with the threat of blocking you would have been to force you to take a step back, deep breath, and given me a chance to try to explain our complex non-free content policy to you. However due to the importance of that policy you cannot just ignore it. It ranks up there with WP:BLP. If you are willing to discuss, take my advice and adjust your behavior so that it is in compliance with wikipedia standards I am more than willing to appeal to the administrators and ask that your block be removed. However if you are not willing to work with me or someone else our hands will be tied. Werieth (talk) 22:53, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I seriously doubt he's having a laugh at you getting blocked. Frankly, if that kind of vindictiveness is something your mind immediately jumps to, you may have wider cultural difficulties here. Ironholds (talk) 22:05, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't need a psycho eval from you, Ironholds. --Expatkiwi ^(talk) 23:10, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Because they seem to be cluttering up the place, I've removed a bunch of bot notices about orphaned images. I spot-checked a few, and it seems that the issue may be that you uploaded them and tagged them, but never placed them in the articles you intended them for. For example, File:New Zealand Fire Service Flag.gif was tagged for New Zealand Fire Service, but has never been placed in that article ([2]). I checked primarily to make sure that somebody wasn't removing images that you had uploaded without good reason while you were blocked, and I'm happy to see that this isn't the case.

It does kind of highlight a problem, though. Non-free images need a valid fair use statement and must be used in the article in which you indicate they will be. I can't argue with you that the rules around the use of non-free images on Wikipedia can be confusing (to this day, I cannot explain why it's okay to have a non-free image of some perfectly ordinary looking man to tell us what soap opera character Shawn Butler looks like, when we can't have a non-free image of that same perfectly ordinary looking man to tell us what he looks like), but the non-free image rules are just one of the realities of participation here. If you want to upload and use non-free images, it's important to get a handle on what those rules are and follow them. There are some rules that can be ignored for the bettering of the encyclopedia, but only if the general editing population agrees that ignoring the rule betters the encyclopedia. Failure to follow non-free content policies really doesn't have that agreement. Our only option is to get the rules clarified or changed through community discussion. (I myself seldom mess with non-free images - only in regards to cover art, which is clearly permitted by policy and guideline.)

I think it's also important not to personalize disputes on Wikipedia. It can be very hard to avoid this, of course, when you and somebody else feel strongly about opposite ends of a debate, but I try to keep in mind that what it really means is that they care about Wikipedia as much as I do. We just feel differently about what's right for it. The real danger of disagreements becoming personal, of course, is that it becomes much harder to reach agreement and move forward. This is really the only way we make Wikipedia function - otherwise, factionalism would cripple it altogether. :) If it were easy to avoid this, we wouldn't have so many policies ("Wikipedia is not a battleground", "Civility", "No personal attacks"), guidelines ("Assume good faith", "Etiquette") and essays ("Wikipedia is not about winning", "Just drop it", "Staying cool when the editing gets hot" and uncounted others) about it. It's hard, so we're constantly writing reminders that it's required and advice for how to do it. Our goal here is to persuade others. We can't always do this, of course, but there are times we just have to drop the stick and back away slowly. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:33, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

So it all boils down to making sure that the T's are crossed and the I's dotted to Werewolf's and Ironbrain's satisfaction... --Expatkiwi ^(talk) 12:39, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

If that's the way you want to see it, yes. As well as the many other people who have left you notes over the years about our non-free content policies and how to comply with them. Calling people names, though, suggests that "working together" may not be high on your priority list. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:42, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I suggest that's not high on their list of priorities. From my perspective, they are demolishing work. Kind of seems like censorship... --Expatkiwi ^(talk) 12:48, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Censorship is defined as the removal of information based on the opinion that information espouses or supports. Please use the word accurately. The problem is that the 'work' we are 'demolishing' violates the law. If following the law is not something you care about, we have a problem here. Ironholds (talk) 12:57, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)It boils down the the fact that copyrighted material can only be used in very restrictive ways. I really dont care if you want to create pages like User:Multichill/Free uploads as long as they just contain free files. When you start violating others copyrights (which is what fair use is, just that its justified) Wikipedia's governing policies place an extremely large amount of restrictions on when, where, and why you can do that. If you would like help ensuring that you maintain compliance with those policies I am glad to lend a hand. Werieth (talk) 13:19, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not a saboteur. I'm putting up illustrations of flags, which represents the agencies involved. They are like signposts - designed to be seen and understood (and are you deleting illustrations of those?). It seems a common sense thing to do, but here, common sense is taking a back seat to semantics. That's what's coming across to me. All I'm trying to do is putting across the vexillological perspective in a non-biased way. --Expatkiwi ^(talk) 14:27, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I have never referred to you as a saboteur. Does common sense allow you to make 1000 copies of your favorite move and then hand them out/sell them to other people? Werieth (talk) 14:58, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Common Sense involves making the identity of flags known so that people will know what they are if they encounter them, kind of like a road map showing a depiction of road signs. --Expatkiwi ^(talk) 15:30, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Sure, but Common Sense (using your definition of the term) is also in conflict with the law. Not semantics, the law. If you want to take issue with that, go write to Congress; we do not make the law and cannot alter it to allow for what common sense suggests is obvious. Ironholds (talk) 21:39, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

You allow others to post non-free images, you harass me over mine, I try to find out why, and I'm in a semantics war with you and others. Bluntly speaking, you make me want to puke! --Expatkiwi ^(talk) 16:05, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

If others are posting them in compliance with policy I do leave them alone however when they violate policy like you they too get warnings [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9] Werieth (talk) 16:23, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

So tell me then: what precisely is the problem with my images and the rationales. You had offered to help earlier, so (and this really bites), I'm asking for it. --Expatkiwi ^(talk) 16:55, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

The main issue is you are using them in a List article, and using too many of them. Lets take a look at File:AustralianFederalPoliceFlag.png a flag for the organization Australian Federal Police.

1. It is miss-tagged as a logo, when in fact it is a non-free flag.

   Something relatively simple to correct

2. Because it is miss-tagged its rationale needs fixed.

   Again just requires adjusting its rationale accordingly

3. Its used on Australian Federal Police

   This is 100% within policy, just need to cleanup the associated paperwork to clearly establish this.

4. You wanted to use it on List of Australian Police flags

   There are several things wrong with this.

   This is a List of XXXX article, which means that non-free media is almost never acceptable usage here

   This fails WP:NFCC#1

   This fails WP:NFCC#3

   This fails WP:NFCC#8

   This fails WP:NFCC#10c, There isn't a separate rationale explaining why you need to use this file on that specific article.

   This fails WP:NFLIST

   This fails WP:NFTABLE

Werieth (talk) 18:05, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Since I am still persona non grata on Wikipedia (ie, blocked), is it possible that you can do a correction on one of the flag images so that I can clearly see it? --Expatkiwi ^(talk) 18:22, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Does this help? Werieth (talk) 18:42, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

If this makes the usage legal, then that is definitely fine. However, it's moot as I am currently a blocked contributor. --Expatkiwi ^(talk) 19:37, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Do you understand what I changed, why I changed them, and how WP:NFCC affects this? before I ask that you be unblocked I need to ensure that you understand why you where blocked and how this can be avoided in the future. Werieth (talk) 19:45, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

It's just that it seems a rather small change, given the amount of grief over it. Plus the other issue of the number of images per page that you raised as well. I'm concerned that even when I follow the pattern that you have established, images may still be removed.Expatkiwi ^(talk) 19:48, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Its not really "Number of files per page" but how the files where being used. Take a look at Elvis Presley for example. There are 10 non-free files being used there without issue. The main reasons the files where removed where because of WP:NFCC#1,3,8. Also when some removes files or text sourcing a well established policy (WP:BLP,WP:NFCC,WP:V, or WP:RS) the best thing for you to do is not revert, but talk with the person who made the edit and try and figure out why they made the edit. You may disagree with the edit, but edit warring to re-insert your preferred version is unacceptable, and a major part of the reason you where blocked. If you don't understand a policy ignoring it wont make it go away, instead you should seek out others who know the policy and see if they can help you understand it better. Doing it that way avoids the drama and grief that happened in this case. Werieth (talk) 20:12, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Okay, fine. If those are the rules of the game (and now that I have a clear template thanks to you), I will endeavor to comply. I therefore request that the block be lifted. Expatkiwi ^(talk) 20:15, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I have removed an improper unblock request made by a third party. Remember, in order to be acceptable, your unblock request must address the reasons for the block. I see two prime reasons: copyright violations, and personal attacks. If I indeed "see above", I see you referring to someone as "Ironbrain", which is inappropriate - indeed, when people try to HELP you and prevent you from being blocked, you should not attack them in any way, shape or manner. See WP:GAB and WP:AAB for more details on how to submit an unblock request of your own (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:37, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps it's for the best then that I have my account deactivated instead. It is obvious that there is no intention from anyone that I be unblocked. Expatkiwi ^(talk) 12:00, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I am going to do my best to get you unblocked, as I was the person who raised the issues in the first place. Hopefully we can resolve this issue and you can go back to constructively editing the wiki within policy. Werieth (talk) 12:57, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXVII, June 2013

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: Works on the RNZAF, World War I in the Baltic, and British battleship construction Op-ed: Anchors Aweigh for the Majestic Titans

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) 08:40, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXVIII, July 2013

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 Australia's frontier wars Interview: What Wikimedia chapters can offer military history editors

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 15:15, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXIX, August 2013

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 death of Osama bin Laden Op-ed: Sturmvogel_66 presents his secrets of prolific contribution

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) 23:51, 20 August 2013 (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, which will determine our coordinators for the next twelve months. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September! Kirill ^[talk] 16:24, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXXX, September 2013

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 American Civil War

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:33, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCI, October 2013

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 Austro-Hungarian battleships of World War I Op-ed: Advice on reviewing Featured and A-Class articles

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) 22:20, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCII, November 2013

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: Hawkeye7 looks at US industry in World War II Op-ed: AustralianRupert offers a soldier's perspective on editing Wikipedia

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 05:21, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCIII, December 2013

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: Carcharoth and Hawkeye7 look at World War I cemeteries and the British Army in World War II Interview: Less-represented areas of military history – part 2 Op-ed: TomStar81 and Nick-D look back on 2013 and ahead to 2014

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 00:01, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCIV, January 2014

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, Zawed and Hawkeye7 look at recent releases

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) 13:15, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCV, February 2014

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: Rabaul in World War II and Australia 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) 23:21, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCVI, March 2014

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: Hawkeye7 on military command and Nick-D on F-111s in combat

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) 11:56, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCVII, April 2014

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: Hawkeye7 looks at Britain's War Machine Interview: Article writers discuss German military history

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 14:21, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCVIII, May 2014

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 Lost Boys of Anzac Op-ed: Peacemaker67 on Featured Articles involving Yugoslavia in World War II

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) 22:11, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:DPRK Young Pioneers Flag.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:DPRK Young Pioneers Flag.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) 15:19, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCIX, June 2014

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 life aboard a US aircraft carrier and Hawkeye7 considers the role of food in World War II

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 15:02, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue C, July 2014

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: Jonas Vinther and Nick-D look at examples of electronic media Op-ed: TomStar81 on the shot heard around the world

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) 03:47, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CI, August 2014

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: Wrap-up of some recent external reviews Interview: World War I editors Op-ed: TomStar81 on the outbreak 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) 15:23, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CII, September 2014

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: Hawkeye7 looks at the military history of Austria-Hungary Timeleine: 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) 02:25, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CIII, October 2014

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 Britain in the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars 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) 14:32, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CIII, October 2014, Redux

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 Britain in the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars Timeline: This month in World War I

NOTE: This replaces the earlier October 2014 Bugle message, which had incorrect links -- please ignore/delete the previous message. Thank uou!

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) 01:52, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CIV, November 2014

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 Nazi Germany's Eastern Front allies Op-ed: TomStar81 on the origins and legacy of trench warfare 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) 12:27, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Nominations for the Military history Wikiproject's Historian and Newcomer of the Year Awards are now open!

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) 01:35, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

request lifting of block

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Expatkiwi (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

been 18 months since the block was imposed. I'd like to be able to contribute to Wikipedia once more

Decline reason:

Per Only's statement below. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:34, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

In order for that to be considered, you need to state your understanding of the reasons for your block, and how you will change your editing habits if you were to be unblocked. only (talk) 11:58, 7 December 2014 (UTC)