This is an archive of past discussions about User:Roger Davies. 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.
Happy New Year
Ring out the old, and Ring in the new. Happy New Year! From FloNight
Thanks again Roger for all off your hard work with the officers. Here is some fuel from my tree to keep you firing in the new year! Happy retired from AC.... YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 03:59, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Mergers at AFD?
I have a question about your statement on the "Episode and Character 3" arbitration case:
Accept purely to explore mergers at AfD: which cannot be handled by motions.
What exactly do you think there is to explore regarding mergers at AFD? They've been common practice for a long time now. Are you claiming that somehow AFD cannot reach a merge consensus? Also, with the Arbitration Committee being an arbitration rather than legislative body, what exactly do you expect to be able to do about mergers at AFD, which is a policy matter? --Cyde Weys22:53, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your message. I'm more familiar with AfD than you imagine and am certainly not "claiming" any of the rather strange things you are assuming. Otherwise, you're going to have to wait and see how this pans out, I'm afraid, as I'm not yet sure where my eventual thoughts lie. That said, it's clearly not in the best interests of the encyclopedia for deletionists and inclusionists to beat the living daylights out of each other every ten minutes when they could be meeting somewhere midway. --ROGER DAVIEStalk05:43, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
If you think I'm ready for it, sure. I've been doing last-minute catchup on admin-policies (i swear i've got about 14 different tabs open right now;). Cam(Chat)06:46, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Alright. I'm traveling home tomorrow, so I won't be online a lot (except morning & evening, afternoon will be spent in a van:), so take your time if you need to. Cam(Chat)07:50, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Hello Roger; I was wondering if you would consider untranscluding this RfA until the candidate had answered the initial three questions? It doesn't give the lazy early voter (of which there many) much to go on at present. Skomorokh18:12, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
No worries; it's just that the candidate indicated they might not be around today in the above section here and we wouldn't want any "didn't bother to answer questions" opposes stacking up. Mahalo, Skomorokh18:32, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Although there is hardly any activety at the board at the moment, I would propose to you that the special projects department adopt as priority any article within our scope that has a bounty on it. If we can meet the demands of the person who placed the bounty than wikipedia stands to pocket change from the effort. That would make us look good, and may inspire the other projects to adopt a similar aproach. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:42, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Just noticed ur name on the arbcom list.... congrats on that. It really makes me proud that one of MILHISTs most active coords now has a more important responsibility, a position that deserved someone with your talent, drive and ethics.... good luck and fair winds to you for the next 3 years of arbcom work. Don't let the fights get into ur head. Sniperz11@CS09:39, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Oi, Sniperz, are you suggesting that we don't make him do enough work at MilHist? We can change that if you like lol. Cam(Chat)00:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Oui Monsieur Cam.... he does ze work, but he has not seen the kind of fighting that he will now be seeing in Arbcom.... I'm sure his "military training" will stand him in good stead and will earn him many "Gallantry awards" in the Battle of Arbcom. :-). Sniperz11@CS10:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Have you read Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell? If not, you must right now. It is one of my favorite recently-published books. It's very literary. :) Anyway, I reread it during the break and decided to work on the Wikipedia article. Interested in working on it together? I could definitely use someone to help me summarize the plot of this 800-page novel! Awadewit (talk) 14:16, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
It's arrived. Before I start reading it, what do you want me to do? Just the plot? If so, I can notes as I go. Advise, please. --ROGER DAVIEStalk12:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Ah! I'm bad at struggling through something. My eyes glaze over, which impairs reading. I'll wait for Awadewit's input though. --ROGER DAVIEStalk12:48, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
I read the book in two days both times I read it. I couldn't put it down! Perhaps that is my affinity for the time period and its style of writing, though. Roger, I need the most help with the plot. I'm really struggling to summarize, as you can see on the article. Of course, I could always use help the rest of the article, but that is the current predicament. Awadewit (talk) 18:01, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
That is the only book I can recall ever quitting unfinished. The style was often charming but sometimes made for *really* laborious reading; I put it down when the plot got so slow that it wasn't rewarding 'work' anymore. (There ensued a mini identity crisis as I had never admitted defeat or even disinterest in a book before. How humbling!) It's been a while, though, so perhaps I should give it another try. Good luck, Roger! Maralia (talk) 19:22, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Really? That's too bad. I would only want you to work on it if you enjoyed the book. Hopefully I'll find something else we can work on a bit together in the future. :) Awadewit (talk) 00:17, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
my email
Thanks for your reply but i must correct you: "a separate article dealing with the order of battle" does not exist! I for my part, who have created both the Italian Army article and the List of active units of the Italian Army do not know of any article describing the Italian Army's OrBat. The Italian Army article lists the OrBat:
i.e:
COMFOTER (Army HQ = Army Level)
COMALP (Alpine Forces = Corps Level)
Julia Brigade (Brigade Level)
5° Alpini Regiment (Maneuver element level)
whereas List of active units of the Italian Army lists the the units according to their Corps and allegiances - the reason is that the Italian Army has a second administrative chain of command - not unlike the British Army where i.e. the Scottish Division is tasked with the defense of Scotland but commands only the Royal Regiment of Scotland, which is tasked with the recruitment and training of the soldiers destined for the Regiments seven battalions, none of which is actually subordinate to the Regiment. All battalions are subordinate to various Brigades of the British Field Army or the Regional Forces only in name they are battalions of the Royal Regiment of Scotland. (the British Army has ten divisions: 2 active, 3 regional forces and 5 administrative - see Infantry of the British Army and Structure of the British Army for much more info on the topic) to come back to the List of active units of the Italian Army - it lists the Italian Armies units first by corps (Infantry, Artillery, and so) then by the specialty and then it gives the units names - this listing shows various things that are totally unrelated to the OrBat of the Army - i.e. it gives the order of precedence of the units in parades, by this listing the Italian Army defines to which basic training unit and later to which specialization school a recruit is sent, it also defines for which units a Corps is responsible for training, development, research and armament; furthermore the listing also defines a units collar patch colors, the type of flag it carries, the march step it uses, the marches and music they will use for ceremonies, even the headgear will change according to that list - so it is impossible to summarize the one article - because it is two totally different things! I can not summarize the history of (lets say) Ford for an article about General Motors; it is just not possible! and this case is the same! if you look at the Italian and German (my mother tongues) articles of both List of active units of the Italian Army and Italian Army you will see, that the OrBat is included in both articles about the Army and the lists are both also there - even much more detailed than in the English version. And it must be like this! because they are 2 different things. --noclador (talk) 16:58, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
I saw a huge orbat somewhere yesterday (1986?), other than in the Italian Army article, and assumed (wrongly, it seems) that you'd broken it out to a third article. I don't think generally that orbats sit well in narrative articles (be they about formations or battles) as lists interrupt the flow too much. --ROGER DAVIEStalk12:55, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Cam's RFA
Thanks for the message Roger. I've never really got involved in RFAs before other than voting, but that vote just got to me. It's a vote that is the opposite of AGF, and doubly so for a Coordinator with his record against another Coordinator. Skinny87 (talk) 15:28, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
The fact that they're both coordinators shouldn't make a difference here (the !voting is based on experience/perceptions not allegiances) though I can understand why it rankled. --ROGER DAVIEStalk16:51, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Albertini in Italian
I wonder if you can help me. In the past you wrote something that touched on translation issues on Albertini ("Origins of the War..."). If you have access to Albertini in Italian can you check if there is a translation error regarding the March 1914 meeting between Danilo Ilic and Mehmedbasic? The english version says that Ilic summoned Mehmedbasic "to" Mostar, but I suspect that Ilic summoned Mehmedbasic "from" Mostar. I seem to be having trouble getting hold of an Italian copy.Werchovsky (talk) 17:46, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't I'm afraid. You could try contacting the publishers: they'll have a conduit to the Italian publishers (for royalty payments etc) and are often quite helpful. Best of luck, --ROGER DAVIEStalk19:03, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply and advice. I am trying interlibrary loan first. I was very disappointed in the new edition of Albertini...rather than making improvements and correcting errors, it left all the old errors and made new ones, much as someone making bad photo-copies from a flawed original (the new edition still shows Mehmedbasic as being told to come to Sarajevo on "July" 25 to kill Franz-Ferdinand on June 28. They definitely did not retranslate. So I think talking to the publisher is a last resort.Werchovsky (talk) 19:26, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
The date error is in the original Italian. So is the "a Mostar", which leave the contradiction between Albertini saying that the Ilic-Mehmedbasic meeting was held in Mostar and Dedijer saying it was in Sarajevo. Since Albertini got his information directly from Mehmedbasic and since in respects to the Ilic-Sarac meeting Dedijer contradicts himself as to location and since Dedijer read Albertini but makes no comment regarding the contradiction, I guess I have to assume Albertini is correct and the meeting took place at Mostar.Werchovsky (talk) 20:29, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
WP:Bite and User:Magus732
Hi Roger, wanted to run something by you. I'm aware of WP:BITE but so far User:Magus732 has been doing nothing much more than create one-sentence stubs on a whole bunch of RAF squadrons (http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Special:Contributions/Magus732). I've asked him at his talk page to write a little more and to source what he says with no response. I'm wondering about block-AfDing them, but I would like to try a couple more alternatives first. Do you have any suggestions? Buckshot06(prof) 17:50, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Try being more persistent with the messages? In the medium term, easiest might be to find someone (at Aviation? or Milhist/Aviation?) to source and expand them. An aviation wikignome with the rights books could do that in no time. Squadrons are probably notable and I'm not convinced they'll get deleted at AfD. No simple solution, I'm afraid. Oh, and Happy New Year :) --ROGER DAVIEStalk19:14, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Oh sure they're notable. But at two short sentances with no cites, I'm not sure that anyone would be convinced. I'll go the wikignome route for a start.Buckshot06(prof) 21:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Re: The Black Book
I made the footnotes, so I felt I could get rid of the notice at the top that warned about there being no footnotes. OK? Openskye (talk) 01:15, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the message. I'm sorry it's taken a while to reply. I've changed Ibid to Schellenberg throughout (we don't use Ibid in case other references are later and it becomes ambiguous which source is being referred to) but you've done a very good job referencing the article! And, yes, you were right to remove the tag. Thanks! --ROGER DAVIEStalk02:55, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXIV (December 2008)
The December 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 04:39, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
As an aside, what is the suffrage for this vote: members of Milhist, all registered editors, all editors? I only ask because an IP as well as editor who is not a member have just voted. Regards, Woody (talk) 21:29, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks very much Roger :-) To receive the WikiChevrons made me very happy and receiving them from you the Lead Coordinator - well, it makes me feel my work is really appreciated. I will return now to create even more graphics :-) thanks again, --noclador (talk) 22:01, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Battle of Marion
I've just finished a long and thorough copyedit of the article (which is a good thing, considering it was put up for GAN several days before I finished). that said, would you be able to do a quick checkover of the article to ensure there isn't anything glaring that I missed? I know for a fact that the aftermath section could still use some work, though I'm slightly unsure of how to get it to the stage it needs to be at. Cam(Chat)23:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
I've done a few minor tweaks. This should now be A-class. Perhaps the thing to do is to ask in the ACW TF for any further input: I'll do this shortly. --ROGER DAVIEStalk07:18, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Thank You!
Roger, thank you for agreeing to co-nominate me (along with Kirill) for adminship. I am pleased to report that the request passed at 106/7/2. Oddly enough, your co-nomination actually changed an oppose to a neutral (go figure). I will, however, warn you in advance that I am likely to inevitably end up plaguing your talk page with requests for advice/assistance in admin-related matters (in addition to the usual coordinator stuff;). Thank you for your support. Best regards, Cam(Chat)00:03, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, the 100 part really surprised me. Like, two days in, I figured this'd go fairly well, but not THAT well. Cam(Chat)05:00, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Award
Thank you Roger, and to all those who voted (for everybody and anybody; the knowledge that there are people who support your work, no matter if you won an ward or not, is the most important aspect of motivation). I still think, though, that you deserve the award more than me. :p The "work" I do pales in comparison to the responsibilities that you have coped with as lead coordinator of the project. There wouldn't be as many featured articles if the project you help maintain was there to support the main contributors. JonCatalán(Talk)05:22, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
For all the hard work you've put into WP:MILHIST and for being nominated as a candidate to "Military historian of the year". At this point, you are absolutely essential to the WikiProject and I believe that there are few members (save for Kirill, of course) which could plausibly replace you. JonCatalán(Talk)05:39, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Re: Barnstar
Thanks a lot :) I had no idea about the "Military Historian of the Year", and am really flattered that someone thought of me. Came in last though :( too bad. Didn't really do much compared to some of the other nominees though. Thanks for the barnstar, and I hope to continue working on Israeli military history articles! Cheers, Ynhockey(Talk)09:10, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
"The Bugle" logo??
I have the will and skill to make a logo for you and I intend to do so by the end of this week. But I need a few answers to my questions.
1. What size in pixels should the logo be? (or an approximation)
About 600 (w) x 200 (d).
2. Are there any specific colours you want included?
Not really, though we tend to use Gainboro (#DCDCDC), lightsteelblue (#B0C4DE), silver (#C0C0C0) and whitesmoke (#F5F5F5) as house colours. RGB percentages are here and 'here.
3. What image format (.jpg, .bmp etc) do you want it to be?
Thank you for that! It is a very interesting idea but it doesn't look very much like a magazine/newsletter banner, which is the look we were hoping to achieve. Ideally the type should be as prominent as the device. There is also an old-fashioned style graphic bugle image:Bugle 1.png, which needs colourising but otherwise might work well. --ROGER DAVIEStalk13:49, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
The vandalism had stopped by the time I got to this and we don't normally block punitively. Should it happen again, the best place to report ongoing vandalism is here as that will give the fastest response. Sorry for the belated reply. How's college work going? Well, I hope :) --ROGER DAVIEStalk06:19, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
I hadn't noticed that. I've adjusted Skinny's points upwards by one and awarded him a bronze wiki (joint third). We should clarify this for next year :) Thanks, --ROGER DAVIEStalk06:14, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Wow. You're not kidding; he does seem the perfect man for the job. I guess the only thing left now is to decide when one gets upgraded to the oak leaves, then swords, etc. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 04:24, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
I've finished the graphics, but commons has problems and it wont display recently uploaded images. I hope the people at commons fix that quickly. --noclador (talk) 20:37, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
I changed the graphic now. As for the Gold Medal - if we make the swords bigger again we must either increase the size of the image or accept that the proportions of the swords between hilt and shaft will by pretty distorted. As for the Bronze Medal... trying to replace the green colors in the wreath didn't go as well as I hoped for; therefore I created a on-thy-fly version with a stylized wreath (see gallery above). If there is anything else to do - just let me know :-) --noclador (talk) 15:03, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Rename the files and delete the 2 draft ones - just let me know it, so I can put them afterwards in my gallery of the graphics I created. and thank you! doing the graphics was a joyous time for me; anytime you need other graphics- let me know, if I have the time I will do the work in a breeze :-) --noclador (talk) 15:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
I saw that someone wanted more than three A-Class medals; as to make one with diamonds is difficult (where place them, so that they are recognizable...) and as Golden Oakleaves is a simple color replacement procedure - therefore:
Roger, I was recently thinking about the awards the project has awarded and noticed that the Handbook was missing the Content Review Medal (we awarded it for a time but it has fell into disuse). I believe that it should be part of our arsenal as coordinators to award but not needing the approval process like the A-Class Medal. I took the liberty of adding it, but could you write up something for it in the documentation? Also, I was thinking it was about time to nom Abraham, B.S. for the Chevrons with Oak Leaves in recognition of his articles on Australian Victoria Cross receipients, but to my dismay he hasn't even received the standard Chevrons! -MBK00410:45, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
I wasn't a coordinator back then. My gnoming skills are better suited to this type of work you describe than article writing, although I'm good doing that as well. I could take over doing the associated work with that award as long as the coordinators could form up a concrete standard for who (how many review of what quality) and when the CRM is awarded. -MBK00419:30, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
That'd be great, if you could. The spreadsheet got a bit unwieldy so I just posted the tallies periodically and asked what everyone thought. Doing it monthly is probably a bit much but quarterly worked fine. I'd personally like an onwiki solution to this, so everyone can add to it. There was talk about hanging it off the /review page. --ROGER DAVIEStalk13:18, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
You're correct, I did forget about it. I'll get to work on this during this week in-time for newsletter next week. -MBK00422:29, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Easiest to show the tallies monthly. I used to base it on PR and ACR; FAc was too complicated. Medal awards would probably be best quarterly and as it's some time since we did this, up to end-December would be great for the first update. Thanks for taking this on :) --ROGER DAVIEStalk22:34, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
←I have gone through the A-Class archives for the fourth quarter of 2008. Since it took so long, I haven't touched (nor do I intend to) the Peer Review archives. The results are listed here: User:MBK004/Sandbox/MILHIST. Also, since I've been keeping up with the ACM noms, I've transferred the crude listing of eligible editors and articles from JonCatalan's Sandbox to that one as well. Ideas on the cutoff number for who gets the CRM? -MBK00406:33, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Actually it can be done very easily because I went into the PR archive, and every PR commenter gets their own section and all you have to do is to cut and paste the TOC including the entries in the last three months and paste it into excel, which gives...
1.1 Abraham, B.S.
1.2 Nudve
1.3 Ian Rose
10.1 Jim Sweeney
11.1 the_ed17
11.2 Saberwyn
11.3 Ryan4314
12.1 YellowMonkey
13.1 Nudve
13.2 Nigel Ish
14.1 Skinny87
15.1 Abraham, B.S.
15.2 Cam
16.1 Cam
17.1 JonCatalán
17.2 Benea
17.3 David Fuchs
18.1 YellowMonkey
19.1 Dhatfield
19.2 JonCatalán
19.3 Maralia
2.1 Hawkeye7
2.2 YellowMonkey
2.3 Nick-D
20.1 Nick Dowling
20.2 Dziban303
21.1 Woody
22.1 Kirill Lokshin
22.2 Jim Sweeney
23.1 Bedford
23.2 TomStar81
23.3 Roger Davies (1)
23.4 jackyd101
23.5 Roger Davies (2)
23.6 YellowMonkey
25.1 JonCatalán
26.1 Dhatfield
26.2 Jim Sweeney
27.1 Cam
27.2 Roger Davies
28.1 Kresock
28.2 Guyinblack25
28.3 David Fuchs
29.1 JonCatalán
29.2 Hawkeye7
3.1 Narson
3.2 Skinny87
3.3 Hawkeye7
3.4 PalestineRemembered
31.1 Woody
32.1 Nick Dowling
32.2 Borg_Sphere
33.1 Woody
34.1 Shimgray
35.1 Cam
35.2 Nick Dowling
35.3 Hawkeye7
35.4 Roger Davies
36.1 Woody
37.1 Roger Davies
37.2 Pohick2
4.1 Skinny87
5.1 Skinny87
5.2 Redmarkviolinist
5.3 Abraham, B.S.
5.4 Nick-D
6.1 LordAmeth
6.2 Cla68
6.3 djwilms
7.1 Kirill Lokshin
7.2 YellowMonkey
7.3 jackyd101
8.1 Parsecboy
8.2 YellowMonkey
9.1 the_ed17
Left the raw numbers in there for convenience YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 07:48, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for doing that YM, I guess I chose to do the more-tedious thing first. I'll get the data incorporated into my sandbox shortly. -MBK00407:59, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for that guys. I've just looked at the updated figures. Nominate the top ten, which includes 3 x joint-10th? If so, could MBK propose at MHCOORD? (ie does anyone object, instead of asking for a vote) We should do this swiftly to get the result into this month's Bugle. --ROGER DAVIEStalk08:36, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Yep, a 3-way tie with 8 reviews and a 2 way tie with 11 reviews. Roger, could you propose it. I'm going to bed since it is 02:40 am local where I am. -MBK00408:40, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi Roger. I was wondering if you would be able to recommend a good copy-editor? I have just finished working on Tom Derrick (with some really valuable input from Nick-D), and have nominated it for both GAN and ACR. I have ambitions to take it to FAC at the end of this month or early next month, and would like a good copy-editor to go through and iron out any prose or MoS problems. I would usually go to EyeSerene, but he is quite banked up at the moment and I thought that, considering your knowledge, you might be able to recommend another good copy-editor? If you don't know of anyone that's okay; I'll just wait until EyeSerene is less busy and ask him. :) Thanks/cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 10:28, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Thank you so much! I was secretly hoping you would say that; I've seen, and trust, your skills as a copy-editor. ;-) Well, that lifts my spirits up a bit. Thanks, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 13:04, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the Chevrons! And the nom for the Chevrons with Oak Leaves! This day started out as a downer, but now it is looking very up. =) Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 13:15, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi Roger. I just thought I would let you know that Tom Derrick has now passed both its GAN and ACR, and is ready to be copy-edited whenever you're ready to do so. ;-) Thanks mate, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 22:48, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
It appears you've already done what I was asking, and I missed it somehow. Probably something involving my cache. My bad. But yes, noting the deadline would probably be a good idea.--Tznkai (talk) 17:20, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Wow - look at your talk page
You are so busy and important now. :) No time for the little people. Or perhaps that should be "we few, we happy few, we band of article writers". Hope all is going well. Awadewit (talk) 19:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Hey, Roger, just a quick bit of good news with regards to the WWI article. I'm in the middle of a 2-week exam break (Oh how I love the high-school timetable!), and am in the process of drawing up the resources necessary to begin a rewrite of World War I with the final intention of meeting its placed bounty (courtesy of you). Hope your new year's been off to an excellent start. Cam(Chat)22:42, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
As an aside, I can see why you're probably needing an arbcom break. I checked out the current requests: Yikes. I suffered TLDR syndrome in about 1.5 minutes. how do you wade through half of that stuff? Cam(Chat)23:03, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I know. The upside is that he doesn't actually seem to display his awards anywhere, so it's a bit academic :) Anyhow, see this for some background. I've had the templates done ready to drop the images into for a couple of days now I think I'm going to ask noclador to re-upload them to the right locations and sort out deleting the old ones. --ROGER DAVIEStalk20:20, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
:::::In work now. -MBK004 22:43, 22 January 2009 (UTC) Scratch that, I've got to go to class and I'd think the Lead Coordinator should award the first of a new award. -MBK00422:46, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Thank you very much Roger for the Graphic Designer's Barnstar :-) It was a pleasure to create the Barnstars; and thanks for entrusting me with the work! Anytime you need my services, just leave me a note and I will see what I can do. Thanks again for rewarding my work :-) --noclador (talk) 23:28, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Hello,
I've completed the proofreading and revision of the article above, for which you made a contribution. Should you remain interested in the content of the article, please check it out and tell me on its talk page. Thanks, and regards. --Campelli (talk) 06:14, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
I've added notices concerning the new ACM structure and the workshop to the January newsletter. On another note, I'm going to be away from my computer on the 30/31/1 weekend. Cam(Chat)06:06, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't know. The last I heard Maralia had her hands full with family illnesses. You might do worse than asking her if she's planning to go ahead in the near future. --ROGER DAVIEStalk14:33, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Assassination of Franz-Ferdinand dates
There is a fellow who twice now has deleted the links for some of the dates in the article by reversion crfeating a mixture of linked and unlinked dates. As I recall, you had insisted the dates be linked. I have been reverting the changes not just because of the link deletion (personally I don't care for linked dates) but also because his reversion is resulting in a duplication of some material (he is just carelessly reverting without checking what he is doing). If Wikipedia policy has changed away from linking dates, please let me know. If not, if linking dates is still appropriate, please weigh in.Werchovsky (talk) 16:23, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
The relevant guideline did change but remains controversial. There is though an injunction of delinking dates, which as an arbitrator, I cannot enforce myself. I'll mention it to arbitration clerks. --ROGER DAVIEStalk17:05, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
In March. The nominations take place during the first two weeks, with the elections themselves occupying the last two. There'll be a preliminary announcement, I expect, in the next Newsletter. --ROGER DAVIEStalk22:57, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
When the coordinator elections take place this coming March I'd like to propose that we formally hold an approval vote asking the community to granting the standing milhist coordinators executive powers to co-opt other members for the role of coordinator when the need to do so arises. I'm asking for a community vote on this due in large part to the fact that while we reserve the right to do so we have never cleared this with the community, and although the members of the project have never voiced complaints I recall the warning essay at Esperanza that requires all projects to be open to transparent for all members. If we wish to continue the practice I think it would be a good idea to formalize it so we can add co option to the coordinator responsibilities we have. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:20, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
I think we can shoe-horn the contest into the newsletter this month. There seems to be some extra space in another section that would be used if we put it in. -MBK00419:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
I have added it in now, could you hand out the barnstars, I have done it the last couple of times and I think we should go for some semblance of variety. I have used a slighter CON blurb by simply numbering the editors who took part rather than everyone individually, to try and conserve space.
Hi, Roger. Thanks for your work thus far on the above; you're doing a great job. Now, into a few points: in regards to your query about the Royal Adelaide Show, I actually have no idea what month it was in; only one source briefly mentions this incident. Also, I think the part about Beryl being Derrick's "one true love" should be a sentence on its own, as it just seems a little hasty and abrupt as is. And finally, I used the "in conjunction" in the lead in an attempt to remove the repetition of "and", as it just doesn't sound the best to me; your call though. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 08:45, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
My brutal writing background will always use one short word instead of three, I'm afraid :) Best I finish it all today then look at it again tomorrow for tweaks. --ROGER DAVIEStalk08:53, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Before doing anything with this idea I wanted to bounce it off you first: I was thinking about seeing if we could get someone to take the File:US-O12 insignia.svg and replace the silver stars with gold stars while retaining the basic design, then use this exclusively for those who attain the position of Emeritus within the coordinator community. At the moment, that number is limited to just one (Kirill), but I'm looking down the line at what may come, and IMO it would be a good idea to at least consider this now rather than later. Thoughts? TomStar81 (Talk) 08:55, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Is there any chance you could convert this file File:US-O12 insignia.svg to gold stars please with a transparent background? If you are unable to do svgs, a png would be fine. The best final filename would be File:Milhist coordinator emeritus.png or .svg. If this is a problem, please let me know, I'll entirely understand. :)) --ROGER DAVIEStalk12:50, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Would it be ok like this??? (svg color changes are a work of minutes; so feel free to give me your opinions about darker/lighter/goldier/yellowier and so on :-); --noclador (talk) 13:54, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
I've tried playing around with it; it's not difficult to align across the entire top, but it seems a bit too cramped—the tab effect doesn't really work with a big colored block just above them—and leaves a lot of empty space. A somewhat better layout, in my opinion, is to place the bar below the tabs, so that it's enclosed within the main page block; this reduces the extra space on the right, and avoids interfering with the tabs themselves. Thoughts? Kirill[pf]23:38, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
The dots on the is in "Military" seem to be missing, incidentally; do you know if this is intentional or an oversight? Kirill[pf]23:46, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough. I don't think there's any good way to eliminate the column shift entirely; the navbox is too narrow to match a column of real text. I've tried to come up with a way to have the text in the "Structure" section wrap under it, but it doesn't seem to work properly with the section header bars. Variant #2 seems to be the best we can do without losing either the navbox or the columns.
As far as using the new logo in the navbox: yes, that's a good idea, and we can probably make it a clickable imagemap. Would we continue using the full-color map there, or switch to the gold-tone one? Kirill[pf]04:02, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
I've tested it out, and, yes, it's fairly easy to place an imagemap at the top of the navbox. Unfortunately, it looks like there's no easy way to have two imagemaps side-by-side, so the easiest thing to do would probably be to combine the stylized map and the text logo into a single image once they're finalized. This will also let us not worry about the different relative scaling of the two. Kirill[pf]04:08, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Is there any benefit to moving the shortcuts into the banner block, incidentally, or does that make it too cluttered? Kirill[pf]04:09, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
I've tried out Belhalla's new images. The all-caps looks good, but the more yellow gold-tone seems too bright for the background color we have. I think the bronze (or perhaps a significantly darker gold) will be far more readable. Kirill[pf]01:01, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
I've also taken a look at giving FPs more prominent placement in the showcase proper, rather than pushing them off onto a separate page (per Durova's comments); see Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Showcase#Featured pictures. Is this workable with only links, or would it be better to use a gallery layout (which I'm concerned might make page loading times unacceptably long as the number of pictures increases) instead? Kirill[pf]03:41, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
I've done some crude tests, and I can't really see a difference between the raw gallery markup and the gallery template in terms of loading times. I suspect the template is marginally less efficient on the server side, though, and is only capable of handling 30 images.
In any case, please take a look at the showcase page now; is having the gallery as it's currently placed reasonable, or is it too much? Kirill[pf]02:00, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Been Gone
Sorry, I have been rather inactive lately. I've been dealing with family issues, and haven't been getting the greatest grades in school. I should be active however starting today. ṜedMarkViolinistDrop me a line16:30, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
I have a question. Banime is temporarily blocked. He is an editor with whom I have had several good collaborations with in the past and know of nothing he has ever done improperly. I just want to make sure he is not in trouble for something, otherwise I would check into it and try to speak on his behalf if prudent. Charles Edward (Talk) 21:18, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi Roger, how are you mate? I was just wondering, are you finished with the copy-edit of Tom Derrick? It's just that I recall you saying something about going through and making tweaks to your major copy-edit, and I was unsure if you had done so yet or not. If not, don't rush yourself and do it asap; I'm in no hurry, this is just so I know where the article is at. I'm not going to put Derrick up for FAC until my current nomination there (John Whittle) has finished, which might take some time yet as Whittle is going extremely slow with next to no comments after twelve days. Thanks mate, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 02:16, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Best is if I give it a final pass just before you nominate it, to clean up/sort out any drive-by tweaks that happen between now and then. Let me know near the time. --ROGER DAVIEStalk13:18, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
P.S. If you have contributed to two or more FAs, GAs and DYKs, we can get you an upgrade to your triple crown, and again for five of each (they don't just have to be Milhist either). ;-) Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 02:21, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi Roger. Following a plea on the main Milhist talk page, Whittle garnered enough support and has just been placed in the promoted log. As such, I am ready to take Derrick to FAC as soon as you are able to give the article a final pass, if you are still willing/able that is. Thanks for all of your help on this. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 04:55, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Gawd. I must've forgotten to save. I went walkabout immediately afterwards seeing if another username was available for you. I basically said three things. (i) Sorry about the slow reply; I've had a horribly busy week with an urgent RL job. (ii) I'll do Tom within the next 24 hours. (iii) Have you thought about changing your username to User:Bryce Abraham, which is free and easier to remember than User:Abraham, B.S.? All the best, --ROGER DAVIEStalk08:17, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Lol, don't worry about it. Okay, so (i) I figured some such issue would have been afoot; hope all went well! (ii) Thank you very much. (iii) I have actually thought about this, but was unsure of what it exactly entailed. What would such a move involve/would all of my edits and contributions be under my new name? Thanks/cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 09:02, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
(i) It did, thanks, and a nice little earner, too :) (ii) Pleasure. (iii) Yes. The account basically gets moved, lock, stock and barrel. You ask a 'crat to do it, here. Incidentally, you might think about enabling email at the same time: it's very handy if you forget the password. Many people set up a separate email account for wiki stuff; ie bryce.abraham.wiki at gmail.com or whatever. Gmail is popular, because it has a nice interface and almost no spam. --ROGER DAVIEStalk09:10, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Lol, that's good. I'm a little split on the renaming issue, though, as—although my actual name would be easier to remember and I'm more impartial to it—I am already established under Abraham, B.S., and there is the issue of my signatures on talk pages as well as FA acreditations (yes, I realise that the latter concern is vain ;-)). Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 09:39, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Everything looks great, so I have just gone and opened the nomination. I really appreciate everything you have done, and am so very grateful for all of your guidance, assistance and exceptional copy-editing skills. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 02:50, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Notability of Knight's Cross recipients
Hi,
I am seeking your advise on the issue is the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross as the highest award of military valor of the Third Reich sufficient to establish notability of its recipient? As you can see here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karl Brommann this is being questioned on the ground that the award was a "candy award". Since most of my contribution here on Wiki is centered on the recipients of KC, this becomes a fundamental question to me. Is there a way to settle this question? Maybe a survey or an open discussion by the community would be helpful. Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:04, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
As the User who created the article in question and also many more on KC recipients, I would also like the question of notability answered. The User who put it forward for AFD is User:passportguy who I do not believe is a member of MILHIST and may not be aware of what we presume is the notability of KC ,VC , MOH etc; recipients Jim Sweeney (talk) 12:54, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
There's no magic bullet on this I'm afraid as the subjects of each article have to be individually notable. Notability is usually defined as non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable sources. We could produce Milhist notability guidelines, but they would only be guidelines and thus trumped by WP:Notability, which is policy. So this wouldn't protect any articles that were taken to AfD.
Perhaps the best way forward is to ignore whether others think something was a candy award or not and instead concentrate on sources. There are bound to be books, in English and/or German, which contain core information. These can be used to source a list, then the lists can be broken out to individual articles as sufficient other material becomes available.
I was thinking more in terms of overwhelming sources and the Knight's Cross list only has three. It's very difficult for asomeone to argue that content is not notable when an article is copiously cited to numerous sources. One source - which could appear in every article, for example - could include a statement from an impeccable source asserting the award's notability. Would creating a central list of Knight's Cross sources help? For example, our Victoria Cross articles rely heavily on the London Gazette: perhaps there's a German equivalent?
I believe that will be the Ordensgemeinschaft der Ritterkreuzträger des Eisernen Kreuzes e.V. (OdR)) prehaps MisterBee1966 would have more info --Jim Sweeney (talk) 13:54, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm not quit sure what we are looking for. To my knowledge, two sources clearly distinguish themselves when it comes to the complete list of Knight's Cross recipients. These are
Fellgiebel, Walther-Peer (2000). Die Träger des Ritterkreuzes des Eisernen Kreuzes 1939-1945. Wölfersheim-Berstadt, Germany: Podzun-Pallas. ISBN3-7909-0284-5(in German)
Scherzer, Veit (2007). Ritterkreuzträger 1939 - 1945 Die Inhaber des Ritterkreuzes des Eisernen Kreuzes 1939 von Heer, Luftwaffe, Kriegsmarine, Waffen-SS, Volkssturm sowie mit Deutschland verbündeter Streitkräfte nach den Unterlagen des Bundesarchives. Jena, Germany: Scherzers Miltaer-Verlag. ISBN978-3-938845-17-2. (in German)
The later being more scientific, at least that is what Scherzer claims and I would concur that his data is more reliable since he claims that it is based on his research of the German National Archives. Fellgiebel, himself a recipient of the Knight's Cross, was a former president of the Ordensgemeinschaft der Ritterkreuzträger des Eisernen Kreuzes e.V. (OdR) or Association of Knight's Cross Recipients (AKCR). The problem as I see it is that the German state today has no interest in this award or who received it. Therefore the AKCR seems to have defined the rules for who was a recipient and who wasn't. Scherzer criticizes that the AKCR out of self interest or because of close personal relationships accepted people as recipients even though legally the claim is unsustainable. A number of so called oaths were taken as proof for the award. It should also be noted that the Germans destroyed a number of records that could prove who was and who wasn't a recipient. This is especially true for the Luftwaffe. All told, he who is listed in Scherzer's book is probably a legitimate recipient (at least based on true data). MisterBee1966 (talk) 22:05, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
and the ball is rolling!
after several weeks of polishing, tweaking and general fixes, World War I finally has a new lead. the process of rewriting the article is likely to pick up speed now that the first bit is done. I'll keep you posted on updates. Cam(Chat)04:54, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Well done, dude! The big difficulty I think will be getting agreement on what needs cutting out. The article is currently about twice the maximum length for FAC. --ROGER DAVIEStalk01:56, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
I think I can easily (ie without opposition) cut the four sections on the US entering the war, cut the "background" section to about 1/10th its current size, cut the "July Crisis" section to a single paragraph, and trim the "aftermath" section down. Cam(Chat)06:56, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
I had a look at the welcome note, and some things have definitely changed. I like the stress hotline, very cool. I will endeavor to edit according to the rules, tell me if i'm screwing anything up, thanks mate. Tristan benedict (talk) 13:30, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Hey Roger; I've been in the process of reviewing the ACR for Battle of Vimy Ridge, and we've run into a slight roadblock. The article's primary contributor knows of a few books that would contain info on German participation during the battle, but doesn't have access to them. Given that you have a large collection of WWI books (and you have the Imperial War Museum within driving distance...I envy you;), I'm wondering if you possess either of these two books:
Jack Sheldon's The German Army on Vimy Ridge 1914 - 1917
Jack Sheldon and Nigel Cave Battle of Vimy Ridge 1917
If not, would you happen to know of any other contributors here who would?
I've also got Wynne's "If Germany Attacks" (1978 reprint, with ISBN) as well as Ludendorff's "My War Memories" (both vols, 2005 reprint). The Times of London reported events with translations from German newspapers, which may be helpful. --ROGER DAVIEStalk08:22, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
I can't believe you have both books! BOTH! Thank you for dropping in some citations. The lack of information in the article about the German side has been frustrating me for a while. How is Sheldon's German Army book? It's been on my buy list for a while. Labattblueboy (talk) 21:40, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
(od) Easiest is if LBBB gives me a list of what he's looking for and I try to supply it. Sorry if this is chucking it back but I've got so much on that it's the only way I think I'll get it done in a reasonable timescale. --ROGER DAVIEStalk12:56, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
I have nothing on German artillery. Not number of guns, strategy or more importantly an explanation for the lackluster counter-artillery operation.
Double check German strength figures. Currently cited is approximately 150 men per infantry company instead of full strength 260.
German counterattacks to Canadian Offensive. I have noted one but I am sure there is more to note.
German tunneling. I know the Germans had largely given up the effort but I don't have cited on the German tunneling pioneers. I could use my copy of Beneath Flanders Fields by Barton, Doyle and Vandewalle to extrapolate something useful but it would be more helpful if I had something that related to the Vimy area.
A citation on German trench raiding, if there is anything. I currently have nothing.
Is there a particular reason that you voted to accept the "secret pages" RFAR less than 20 minutes after it was filed, before there were any comments other than the filing statement, while the date-delinking case, about a dispute that has been a serious problem for months, has been open for 43 days and is still without any noticeable arb response but an injunction and some blocks for the incivility in the case itself? This really looks like a case of ArbCom having its priorities seriously misaligned. Mr.Z-man23:00, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm not quite sure what point you're making here, other than a general one about sense of urgency. I can't speak formally for the committee but in general getting consensus on tangled issues from sixteen independently-minded arbitrators, living in numerous time zones, with a mixture of views from hardline to tolerant, is exceedingly difficult and incredibly time-consuming. This is further complicated by an ambitious reform agenda, masses of urgent behind-the-scenes firefighting, and a heavy caseload. On top of that, we are all volunteers, without any formal training and no adminstrative backup. Yep, it's not perfect but we're doing our best and it could be a whole load worse :) --ROGER DAVIEStalk13:24, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Eh, I didn't think the point was too obfuscated here. Voting to accept a case (where there are only two parties and the case was only filed minutes ago) when one of the parties hasn't yet written a statement is premature and gives the impression of pre-drawn conclusions. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:51, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Good point, though it rather assumes that I based my decision entirely on the RfAr and had not already been closely following the WP:AN and other threads. My take is the community expects someone under admonishment to avoid controversy instead of courting it and your pivotal role in several recent dramas suggests that you may not have got the message. As for pre-drawn conclusions, unlike others, I have not yet concluded that desysopping is inevitable. What happens next, as far as I'm concerned, depends largely on you. --ROGER DAVIEStalk10:48, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Well, there's that, and the more general point about priorities. On one hand we have a dispute that's been slowly discussed on AN for a day or 2 (had it even been that long?), and on the other we have a dispute that's been edit warred on for months and months over various guideline pages and hundreds, if not thousands, of articles. Yet all the visible work is being done on the (comparatively) minor one. As far as anyone who doesn't have access to the arb wiki or ML can tell, there's basically been no progress on the date delinking case since the initial injunction while "secret pages" seems to be priority one and gets about as fast a response as one can get out of ArbCom. Mr.Z-man21:55, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Given the inherently longwinded arbitration process, the date delinking case was bound to take time to sort out. In fairness, too, a great deal of the community discussion was about the content aspects, which are not ArbCom's bailiwick. Broadly though, it is probably better for ArbCom to nip problems in the bud and avoid the inevitable disruption/polarisation that arises from countless heated discussions in many forums over many months. Had this approach been adopted with date delinking not only would much drama have been avoided but it would also be easier to resolve. Incidentally, the date delinking injunction resulted from a motion I proposed ...
Characterising RfAr/MZMcBride as being about secret pages is not helpful as it ignores/trivialises the wider serious concerns. And, yes, swift resolution is infinitely better than protracted debate, endless process and a lengthy arbitration. --ROGER DAVIEStalk10:48, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Excuse me for writing on this page, but given the succinct formate at RfA (Samaria/Judea), and the fact that your inquiry about 'which editors' was addressed, I presume, to fellow arbitrators, I thought a note here more appropriate.
My feeling, and I hope others share this, is that, if we can have closer administrative review of the issue, that the past behaviours of all be ignored. It would be unfortunate if, in obtaining a stronger administrative guidance over this difficult area, we had to be dragged into the old conflict pattern. Those of us who wish oversight do so in the hope that we can work with more serenity, bury the past, and just stick strictly to the evidence. We want efficiency in analysis, rather that a resurrection of the old suspicions, and possible enmities. So I hope no names are named. It would not be conducive to the breath of fresh air required to iron these cruces out. Regards Nishidani (talk) 18:50, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
I learned last year to always look over the page when I thought I'd finished voting, to make sure I hadn't missed any items. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:36, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Your signature
I just noticed your signature code and as I don't know how well you know HTML and CSS, I wanted to point out that you can have the effect on the letters with less confusing HTML, if you used
The length is pretty much the same, but I thought you might find the output nicer if it's relying less on <small> and <font>. It's easier to edit at least. If you already knew that, just ignore this message. I just thought it might be helpful. Regards SoWhy00:09, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Hello Roger: I'm not a registered user in English Wikipedia, but I am a contributor in some articles wich subject sometimes provoques many discussions. However, I try always made good contributions. Now, I'm asking your help because User talk:History2007. He is destroying all of my contributions, he just accept their information and not information added by other users and he delete important images or, sometimes, include images where they are not related, etc. How can I still contributing if he is always destroying my work, specially in Marian apparition, Visions of Jesus and Mary, or related articles? 84.90.92.195 (talk) 22:06, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
There has recently been some conjecture as to how to describe the victory by the German forces. Can you or other members of the project group please assist in the discussion on the talk page. I intend to call for a consensus decision in order to establish the infobox statement regarding the outcome of the battle. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:53, 2 March 2009 (UTC).
Protecting against Vandalism
Howdy,
I am thinking about becoming an admin and would like to begin reverting vandalisms. You are an administrator and I was wondering if you could lead me to something that could start me to reverting vandalisms. Thanks and Have a Great Day! Lord R. Oliver IHis Lordship's Court00:34, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't do a great deal myself but it just involves undoing the vandal's changes. It's explained here in more detail. There are some javascript add-ons, see WP:TWINKLE, that make life easier by adding templates and so forth from a menu on your desktop. WP:ROLLBACK is handy too. – Roger Daviestalk05:31, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Well, I guess I spoke too soon. A few days after I said I was back, I got mono :P. Gotta love it. So, now I have a huge amount of schoolwork to make up, so I guess I'll have to turn in for a full-fledged Wikibreak. Thought I'd let you know. Once I get back, I'll see if I can finally finish that A-class review that was closed. Cheers, ṜedMarkViolinistDrop me a line19:14, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Wow, thanks Roger. That means a lot to me. Can you point me to a page that outlines the tasks that a Coordinator undertakes? I know mosy of it is opening/closing reviews and that sort of thing, but I'd like to refresh my memory! Skinny87 (talk) 19:45, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Well, between you and the missus, I've been persuaded. I'll put myself up as soon as the page is created, and then let the community decide. Do we get a secret decoder ring and flashy cape, or is that only Arbitrators? Skinny87 (talk) 20:00, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
There was a suggestion a year or so back that coords start wearing their Y-fronts over their trousers and a tablecloth safety-pinned to their shoulders, but it didn't catch on. – Roger Daviestalk20:05, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the offer - I've just started a new job and my time is severely limited so I'm veering towards a no this time (although I'll think quite hard about it, I'd like to take up a more active role in the project).--Jackyd101 (talk) 19:59, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, Roger! But the same goes for you as I said to Nick; you were instrumental in the article's promotion to FA, and I thank you sincerly for all of the time, effort and skill you put into the article, along with taking all of the nagging by me. ;-) Now, you better add Tom Derrick to your list of FAC copy-edits or there will be trouble. :))
I'm a little split on standing for a position as coordinator. I would like too, but I have school factors to consider, and whether or not I would be an asset as a coord. Thanks for the nudge, I'll give it some though. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 20:48, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Lol, good. I'm aiming to take Joseph Maxwell through FAC next (which EyeSerene graciously accepted to copy-edit some time ago), but it still needs a bit of work first. Alternatively, I could look through my list of completed Aussie VC articles, but whether any of them are up to scratch I don't know. Although I suspect Edgar Towner and James Newland are the closest of these. I do have a few other plans running though... ;-) Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 06:55, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Following quite a bit of umming and arring, I have decided I will stand for election. Whether I am wanted and suited for the position I guess we'll just have to wait and see. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 07:33, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
coordinator elections.
I am honoured that you think I would be an asset, however I don't think I have the temperament having a short fuse at times --Jim Sweeney (talk) 20:54, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Given the amount of traffic we are getting here I created a new section on the coordinator academy page dispelling some common myths. Its written by "the coordinators" as a whole, so we should all feel free to edit it accordingly. My hope is that this helps answer some common questions that seem to reappear with every election. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:19, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Roger, I created two addition pages sections; one concerning the election process and one discussing co-option. Both are at the academy, and with luck will help us help the community better understand coordinatorship and some of its finer points. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:28, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
I would like to make sure (even though I'm sure you are) that you are running for the position of Lead Coordinator of the Military History WikiProject and if you are not I would strongly like to influence you towards running. You have done such a great job and have kept the WikiProject if not the greatest one of the greatest WikiProjects in the whole of Wikipedia! Lord R. T. OliverThe Olive Branch22:40, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Block
I was very annoyed that you blocked me, and extended the block too. I was never given any warning. You just did it. Please do not block me again for harassment. Thank you. Wallie (talk) 13:24, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
(i) I didn't extend the block: it was always forty-eight hours. (ii) You had already been warned by EyeSerene and you have been around long enough to know the ropes. (iii) The block was reviewed by two admins who saw no reason to disturb it. (iv) I didn't block you for harassment: I blocked you for incivility, personal attacks and failing to assume good faith. — Roger Daviestalk13:38, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
I did not know who EyeSerene was. I'll be frank. He came across as being very rude, flamed the situation, and made me very annoyed. He never said he was warning me as an administrator. I think it is most unfair. As for being reviewed by two admins, I did find out that once a person is blocked, it is hardly ever overturned. Wallie (talk) 14:45, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi Roger, the edit war over this article has broken out again. I've got now idea what's going on in the article - could you give it a look? Nick-D (talk) 01:59, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
I've got a nagging suspicion about one of the IPs. Does checkuser have the ability to trace the national location of the IP? Cam(Chat)02:03, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
S/he is apparently editing from California (Google "whois" and then enter the IP address) though it may be a proxy. I think it's the same person I blocked on this article a few times last year. — Roger Daviestalk06:57, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. That was another of the great many things about Wikipedia I'd never noticed before. I sometimes think I sleepwalk through most of my time here :) — Roger Daviestalk13:01, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi. Can you take a look at this guy's edits to variuos subcontinental war articles. I don't rate him as anything more than a vandal with the sources he is using, and in any case, he is reverting against a consensus, in my opinion, eg see Khemkaran, and the ridiculous "source" that he is using. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 03:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
And back to his usual tricks. I'll leave him a message and if he doesn't heed it he may well find himself adopting a lower profile again. — Roger Daviestalk07:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't think brand recognition will get me very far :) In fact, I've already started off-wiki and was going to sort it either this evening or tomorrow. — Roger Daviestalk16:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
A quick interjection: My decision not to list a support for you or other candidates in the current elections shouldn't be construed as to demonstrate any failure on my part to support you or other coords in your actions. In coord elections this year, I supported youth and high activity, as opposed to experience. I still love ya'. BusterD (talk) 13:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi! I've had a look at this and think it's a great improvement! If you could use collaborators to take it to the next step, you might want to consider joining one of the our task forces. Several may be of interest:
Hello Roger, I am in a bind. I suspect a user and a number of anonymous ip addresses are acting as sockpuppets for User:Rockyobody. I request you checkuser on User:Rockyobody and User:Eaglesfan619. Rockyobody has was accused by another user of using several anonymous ip addresses as sock puppets.[7] The other ip addresses have made similar edits as Rockyobody and appear to be from the same or similar locations. Eaglesfan619 was made days before Rockyobody temporarily retired from wikipedia. He has since come out of retirement to fight the sock puppet investigtion. Rockyobody and I were engaged in an edit war regarding the article Larry Elder which was never fully resolved. After the admin edit protected the page, the day the protection expired, Eaglesfan619 edited it and apparently is acting in a way opposite to his previous position to either make my position look bad or just to cause controversy. Eaglesfan619 and Rockyobody have both made edits to Larry Elder, Michael S. Steel, Steve Laffey and various United States elections for 2010. On top of that, Rockyobody has previously mentioned he is an Eagles fan.[8] Eaglesfan619 has claimed innocence, yet is already very knowledgeable of wikipedia policy such as edit summaries and commenting on talk pages. His longwinded style writing on my talk page is very similar to that of Rockyobody. I don't know what else to do but ask for the help of someone who can checkuser him. Thorburn (talk) 20:57, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi Thorburn! Although I have checkuser permissions, I hardly ever use the tool and I am a novice at investigations. Your best bet is to report your concerns at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations, which you do by completing an online form. They've geared up for this with specialist admins who do the work and handle any necessary follow up. It takes a while but they're very thorough and much better at the interpretation than I am. Thanks for the message and all the best, — Roger Daviestalk23:06, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Thank you Roger. I appreciate the help. I'll just let the sock puppet investigation take its course then. Thanks again! Thorburn (talk) 08:33, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
It's an exceptionally handsome article, of which you should be inordinately proud. I know very little about the current GA requirements, I'm afraid, or how they're interpreted, but nothing strikes me as being flawed about it.
Ok, but the majority for adopting the guideline is quite clear (option 2+3). Nevermind, let's wait another 36 hours to be sure. --Eurocopter (talk) 15:31, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Well, in my opinion we should consider Option 2 & 3 together when we establish consensus to adopt the guideline, and only afterwards confront them to see which version should be adopted. Cheers, --Eurocopter (talk) 16:25, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Deleting user talk on request
This should not be done. Many editors contributed to that page. Also in the case of disruptive editors the user talk serves as a useful record of past events. Friday(talk)19:23, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Oh, sorry, nevermind- looks like it was only deleting select edits. As long as there's a legit privacy reason for it, no problem with that at all. Friday(talk)19:27, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Hey, Roger, could you take a look here to ensure that my redrafting of "background" hasn't missed any huge details. It cuts the "causes of the war" section to about 30% of its current size, and I just want to be sure that I haven't missed anything really important in it. Thanks, Cam(Chat)18:49, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
It looks good and reads well. You might want to tidy it up when it's all finished for consistency of variant spelling: mobilise v. mobilize for instance but that's trivial. Really excellent work so far, Cam. — Roger Daviestalk19:49, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Good day Mr. Davies! Have a request that I need an admin for I think. I have just finished this general's page and making the redirects to it, and one of them (Alfred J. Vaughan, Jr.) came up as deleted on 27 May 2007 by User:Irishguy. Because he has since retired, I was hoping you could either compare it to the current article or un-delete it and I'll take a look to see if anything's of value. Here's the edit history for the deleted page:
21:03, 27 May 2007 Irishguy (talk | contribs) deleted "Alfred J. Vaughan, Jr." (CSD A7(Bio): Biographical article that does not assert significance)
20:57, 27 May 2007 Irishguy (talk | contribs) deleted "Alfred J. Vaughan, Jr." (blanked by author)
Thanks for the look. There are little bits in it that I'd like to include, but as you say the lack of citing is a problem. I'll toss the text into one of my sandboxes for now. Again apprectiate you supplying it to me. Good day! Kresock (talk) 15:10, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Hey, Roger, remember me? How are you and all things military? I've been busy with life and school and work and home improvement; for a while I even ran out of back burners for Wikipedia. :) Anyway, I've noticed lately that the natives are getting restless over at Arthur Rimbaud, so I was considering restarting the project. I'm currently collaborating on Oliver Wendell Holmes (a doctor poet!) with Midnightdreary, but when time permits I aim to gather up my Rimbaud library again. Perhaps in the next couple months I'll be able to dedicate myself to all things sullen, French and poetic. Just letting you know, in case you wanted/were able to jump in! Take care, María(habla conmigo) 12:23, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Funnily enough I was thinking about this a couple of weeks back. I've recently acquired a biography of Rimbaud and separately his collected correspondence by Jean-Jacques Lefrère, a French academic and Rimbau-phile. This coincided with getting a new biography of Rimbaud by Edmund White. I've read both biogs but am very short of time just at the moment. Do get the White book: it's very insightful and our sense of humour :) I hope I will be able to jump in when things quieten ... — Roger Daviestalk16:35, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Will do! A couple years ago, White wrote a great novel (Hotel de Dream) about Stephen Crane, his brothel-running ladylove, Cora, and a rumored/lost Crane story dealing with male prostitution. I read it over Thanksgiving break, soon after bringing Crane's article through FAC. Great fun. :) María(habla conmigo) 17:58, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
PS: You must read "The Alienist" by Caleb Carr. I read it a few years back but a friend visiting in January read it while she was here and left it out. Which prompted me to re-read it. Outstanding stuff. There's also a sequel; which is less good. (I'm trying to get L'Awadewit to read it too; to drag her kicking and screaming into the early twentieth century :)
These seem focused on the South Vietnamese Coup article. As you know, front page articles always attract a load of drive-by vandalism. Let's see if these are disposible accounts for the day or whether more return tomorrow with the same editing pattern. Thank you for the very good thought and the swift blocks. — Roger Daviestalk16:49, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
They're using dial up, so they're probably throw away vandals. And it looks like you've got the ones we can be reasonably sure of. — Roger Daviestalk17:08, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Just for information, some related problems were reported overnight and have now been dealt with by my colleagues. So, a clean sweep :) — Roger Daviestalk07:30, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Re: Call for evidence
With regards to your 'call for evidence' on the Scientology case, I have something which I feel is cruicial to the case. It has to do specifically with the behaviour of one editor in particular. I have not gotten involved with the case as part of the conditions of my unblock are that I try to stay out of matters concerning Scientology articles (I am a member of 'Anonymous ). The admin who unblocked me said he would look at what I have and see if it was suitable to post, but since you specifically requested any evidence, I thought you may also like to take a look.The Legendary Shadow! (talk) 23:30, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
-Roger, just a quick note to say you can email me at girasol.ring AT gmail.com (should have given you that before!), I would have emailed you except the required link does not seem to be at the side of the page. I would really like this evidence to be aired before decisions are made as it is quite important, and potentially damning to the individual in question.The Legendary Shadow! (talk) 18:57, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
I've broken up your email address to prevent spam, but I think Roger will be able to figure it out if he feels he should email you. His email address is on WP:ARB, or you can email the Arbitration Committee's list, which is also available on that page. Risker (talk) 19:18, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Also related to this case, the notifications are done. I hope the text of the notes was what you were looking for. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 08:31, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
This is a return to the same type of problem Jehochman protested against so strongly during the early workshop phase:
Roger, your reasoning here appears to be that when a critical mass of mud gets thrown, a remedy must follow. That would be a very damaging route for ArbCom and its chilling effect would extend past this case.
Cirt is the highest featured content contributor on Scientology-related topics. Policy already states when administrators must remain uninvolved, and Cirt has followed that policy. He has even gone beyond it with a voluntary pledge to avoid use of the administrator tools on this topic. If ArbCom sanctions him regardless, it would become ammunition for disruptive SPAs to use against him later on, and productive Wikipedians would have yet another reason to stay away from controversial areas altogether.
If - in addition to relentless attacks by POV-pushing SPAs, frivolous administrator noticeboard threads getting raised against oneself, and drawn-out Arbitration cases - ArbCom ultimately validates the mudslinging, then no sensible editor would even bother trying to improve controversial articles. ←Spidern→17:35, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Having had a look at this guideline, it appears to say that editors should not continue to edit in support of something already decided against. It seems to me, that if it is thought necessary to have a vote on an issue, then obviously the issue has not been decided nor even a consensus formed, else there would be no need for the vote. In this particular case, there may be a consensus amongst mil hist coordinators against the use of C-class. However, obviously even these people do not consider the issue settled, else once again there would be no need for a vote. The vote is presumably intended to draw in new contributors, since the existing ones were unable to settle the matter. wikipedia in general frowns upon votes to settle issues, preferring debate. yet in this case a vote has been initiated divorced from the debate which lies behind it. You and I and others who have regularly contributed to this discussion presumably understand the issues involved or have at least formed their opinions. However, the simple fact of presenting this to a wider audience makes it clear that others who have previously not been involved are being asked to comment, and this is being done deliberately without presenting the arguments involved, nor even pointing out where they might be found. Can you honestly say that is an impartial way to conduct a vote on an issue where the main parties hold themselves unable to make the decision? Sandpiper (talk) 09:42, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
That's very noble of you! I apologize for the pause in my editing of the article (been concentrating on Gaza-related articles right now and my RFA of course), but I intend to work more on it very soon. Hopefully, we and others could work together to get it to FA status. Cheers friend! --Al Ameer son (talk) 02:12, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Reply to Warning....
Hi, I saw your warning on my page....I am writing this just to explain the reason for my edits....May be you can advise me on the matter....Now the two articles you have mentioned, describe a false myth of Ghori's death by a blind Archer...It is stated there, WITHOUT any reference that Ghori lost to Chauhan SEVENTEEN times and each time he begged for mercy and strangely was RELEASED EVERYTIME...and finally was killed by chauhan in his own courtyard by an arrow which chauhan shot eventhough he was BLIND... Its quite clear that these are all myths more or less like robin hood stories, This is an encylopedia for heaven's sake... What would you say if someone stated that before losing the world war 2, Hitler deafeated the Allies 17 times in previous wars...??? Will you start a disscussion or undo his edit...???
It is a well known fact that "Muhammad Ghori" was the one who conquered India and ended the Hindu rule..... He is highly revered in Pakistan and you can very well understand his status just by the fact that Pakistan's Nuclear Missile is named after him...I have explained this just so you can understand his importance in our national history... Yet I have been as tolerant and neutral as possible... But being tolerant does not mean that you can let someone describe a myth as though it is a fact....
Now I present my case...You can very well see that I have not removed any sourced material. I have also provided a reference from Encarta stating that he was killed when returning from Punjab, not after the battle of Tarain in an archery contest....I have also started a disscussion on the "Prithviraj Chauhan" page... Plus I disagree with your comment that if more people are against me then I should stop editing, I think that we should maintain a correct and sourced version of ther article rather then the version that has more supporters.....Adil your (talk) 19:11, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
I noticed that you seem to be quite an expert on Saladin. Before a major revision to the page in mid March I was working on an article for Saladin in Egypt. I completed it and then realized that the initial place I was going to connect the page to the main article has been reformatted. This is my first article and have never dealt with this situation before. If you could look at the "Saladin in Egypt" article next time you are working Saladin I would greatly appreciate your advice. Hope to hear from you soon 98.203.234.235 (talk) 06:49, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Lead Coordinator of the Military history Project March 2009 — October 2009
Congrats on your re-election as Lead Coordinator of the Military history Project! In honor of your achievement, I present you with these stars. I wish you and your staff luck in the coming term. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:46, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
If I recall correctly, didn't there used to be a page that showed which Task Forces that each coordinator worked with? I think it would help for the members of the project to know which coordinator worked with which Task Force (maybe a page still exists and I just overlooked it). Can I have your opinion on this? Thanks And Have A Great Day! ~ Lord OliverThe Olive Branch02:05, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
I felt like apologizing for adding a comment to another editors' notes despite your request but it seemed like an inherently important explanation.
Warm regards, JaakobouChalk Talk15:04, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
p.p.s. as a "conversation" of sorts has started there, I would not object of having it removed and placing evidence in my evidence section instead. JaakobouChalk Talk18:08, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Hey, Roger, as the LC of Tranche VII, would you be willing to write an introductory blurb for the March Newsletter in the "from the coordinators" section? Cam(Chat)15:42, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Yup, and I've already started working on it :) 00:44, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
If I every need to Do something for you or if we are doing something as Coordinators could you alert me (since I am new I am still learning the ropes :) ) Thanks and Have A Great Day! Lord OliverThe Olive Branch21:31, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
To date, I have yet read any article that Date Masamune of the Sengoku period having any of the above relatives. Hence, I'm honestly lost on this piece of information.
Would you or your team have any idea or able to provide more information about it?
R, A new editor, see: this is living up to his name and has already clashed with a large number of editors in the aviation group. I have put "friendly" suggestions on his talk page but if he persists in his pattern of drastic changes without consensus and without use of any authoritative, verifiable information in replacement, his work will continue to be contentious. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:26, 5 April 2009 (UTC).
Thanks Bz. I looked at this the other day and again earlier this morning. It looks as if their attention may be turning alsewhere. You did the right thing and, if there is more editing which seems tendentious, perhaps you could ask at the Milhist talk page for an uninvolved admin to look at it. Roger Daviestalk07:11, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi Roger, and congrats on your re-election. Look forward to six more great months for MILHIST.
I just wanted a bit of help with Indian MRCA competition... could you do an unofficial sort of review of the page, and where it needs to be improved - it has remained a bit stagnant for the past month or so, and I want to get it up to GA level if possible.
I'd love it to but it might be a week or so before I get to it. How are you, by the way? On top of college stuff? I haven't heard from you in ages .... Roger Daviestalk07:13, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
ShivNarayan
Thanks for handling this matter, although I'm not sure how another CheckUser would have resolved a possible/likely conclusion rather than a likely/confirmed conclusion. There were various overlaps on the articles edited (all articles were also related to one another), timing of contributions, user agents, and not to mention, the IPs. Anyway, glad this was resolved quickly and judiciously. Nishkid64(Make articles, not wikidrama)16:35, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
I was csee where you're coming from but I didn't go into it in that degree of detail (and don't intend to). Funnily enough, I expect people to interpret things differently sometimes (especially if they're being asked to second guess something critically) but perhaps that's just me :) Roger Daviestalk07:17, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Just an FYI, the following was posted on my talk page in regard to the above:
Thanks for the heads up. I made some comments to the case some months ago and am quite surprised it is still ongoing. I really have nothing more to say unless someone accuses me of some egregious policy violation. --Fahrenheit451 (talk) 01:52, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Now I have some questions: I was involved in a reversion controversy in August 2007 on the David Miscavige article. That controversy has long been resolved. Please provide me with the justification to add me as a party to the scientology articles Arbitration. --Fahrenheit451 (talk) 02:19, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
I can not speak for Roger as I am just a clerk, but as the notification I left on your talk page said, you were added "either because you have been mentioned in the /Evidence, the /Workshop or their talk pages, or because you are closely connected with it." Just from a quick look I see your name numerous times on the Workshop page and the Evidence page. I hope this helps clarify. KnightLago (talk) 02:36, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
I have decided to refuse the offered contract of adding my username as a party to the scientology Arbitration. I refuse all hidden contracts or contracts of adhesion under State of Florida Law. I reserve all my rights under the Uniform Commercial Code.--Fahrenheit451 (talk) 03:20, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your notes. You've been added to the case because your name keeps appearing in the histories of battlefield articles within the Scientology topic. These include (first number is ranking in your top edited articles, the second the actual number of edits):
Archiving out-of-date A-Class, FAC or RfA announcements
Roger, there are many such out-of-date announcements on both the main project talk page and on task force pages, which I'm about to start removing. However when I double-checked the Coordinator task page, it declared we should "Manually archive any out-of-date A-Class, FAC or RfA announcements". Obviously discussion threads need to be archived but have you found there's great benefit in archiving simple announcements of reviews being opened, rather than simply removing them? Just want to get clarification before I start anything - and if announcements can simply be removed rather than archived we should change the wording on the Coordinator page (unless I've completely misinterpreted). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:47, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Traditionally, we've archived them along with real talk but I agree it's a pointless exercise and would be happy if they were just deleted after a month or so. Roger Daviestalk13:10, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Crisis
An unexpected development on Wikipedia that concerns us has been brought to our attention by Moonriddengirl. Please follow this link for more information. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:30, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Refused to cooperate?
Hi Roger, curious about this edit. Looking through the user's edits I agree the portion that pertains to Scientology is cause for concern. That said, it is unprecedented (to the best of my knowledge) to indefinitely block someone preemptively in that manner, without arbitration vote at the proposed decision, without an outing or legal threat or other user action that would compel immediate response. He does edit productively to other areas (most recently the copyfraud article, etc.), and he has indeed participated to this case, although before he was named as a party. From this vantage it could very well appear that he foresaw no further need to post, or (at worst) anticipated a topic ban proposal. Could you explain, please? DurovaCharge!04:53, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Consequently, could you make mention of the awards on the newsletter? You are probably the person who understands the logic of the award scheme the most. -MBK00419:34, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the award, but due to illness my edits in this field were very few. I really don't deserve it. Please award it to a more deserving person. AshLin (talk) 14:42, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks very much from me too, although like AshLin, I don't feel I've deserved it - work commitments have prevented me doing as much reviewing as I'd like.--Jackyd101 (talk) 18:55, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the barnstar. It's my first. I was hoping to get to to 10K edits before anybody noticed I was around, but when a coord starts multiposting a new section entitled "Crisis", everybody needs jump. BusterD (talk) 12:37, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Heh, don't worry, I got to 8K edits before anyone noticed I was around in similar manner - funnily enough, it was Roger's predecessor, Kirill - and now it looks like people can't not notice me... I'm sure it won't be another 8-10K edits before you get noticed again...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't know how many editors are involved in this (always different IP addresses) but these clowns like changing the last Wehrmachtbericht reference date to 8th November 1944. The correct date is the 9th November 1944, which I have referenced. I tried taking this issue up on the talk page but the clowns so far have not tried to discuss the matter openly. I was wondering what I, we can do to prevent this "vandalism". Thanks for your support. MisterBee1966 (talk) 05:48, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't know whether it's necessarily vandalism (though that seems likeliest) or simply misunderstanding that the report was filed after his death. It's not really at a high enough level to do anything about just yet, I'm afraid but I will keep an eye on it for the next few days. Roger Daviestalk06:07, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Hello Mr Smith. I have been receiving letters from a Mr Glubbdrubb on the article on the 1st Air Cdo Grp saying it needs references. I'm rather mystified as I have quite a few with the article. Could you assist please? Thank youFoofbun (talk) 23:38, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Wow!! I just logged in after about a week, and was pleasantly surprised to see the award... thanks a ton. I hope I can continue to live upto your expectations. I will indeed cherish this one!
Hi, my name is Malin and I am a major contributor to the Scandinavian military history articles. I am facing a major issue where I am hindered from publishing official information about the Swedish Armed Forces personnel. It gets deleted repeadedly and worse also the references are deleted. No one has found any errors in the information, it is simply being deleted. The distribution of military personnel reveals a very high officer/soldier ratio: 18,676 officers versus 770 soldiers. This has upsets User:Hans Engstrom who is a Swedish officer and he is repeadedly deleting the report and references to annual reports of the Swedish Armed Forces where those numbers are reported. The article is: Military ranks of the Swedish armed forces. Please help.
--Malin Lindquist (talk) 17:55, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Your question to me
There clearly was no legal threat. I merely refused a contract. I am not and was not a party to the scientology article arbitration. I have no thing more to say about that. The block is, to say the least, bizarre.--Fahrenheit451 (talk) 01:04, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi, as one of the editors active in the military history project, I've noticed that Template:English sources has been proposed for deletion - I am active in this discussion. Since the project often deals with non english sources I wanted to talk to you about this.
I'm not entirely sure if bringing the issue to the wider attention of other editors for the project is acceptable, as I'm not sure if this is considered canvassing - which I get the impression is against wikipedia guidelines? Any thoughts? Hohum (talk) 02:59, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
That sounds good. What I wanted to avoid was (a) nothing happening because we'd all forgotten about it, and/or (b) the newsletter editor (ie mainly you) feeling you were being imposed upon to take on an additional burden when you've already got your fingers in quite a few wikipies ;) If you've got something in mind though, that's great; to share the load I'll undertake to do the next one. EyeSerenetalk11:46, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Roger, I've responded to your findings of fact here. You've made a number of basic factual errors which I'd appreciate it if you could address. -- ChrisO (talk) 11:08, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
None of your proposed remedies have been workshopped either. Could you please move them across? -- ChrisO (talk) 15:55, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
I hope this isn't inappropriate. I fear some of the evidence may have gone ignored by those who have already voted, so I urge you to read the evidence discussion page and perhaps also a couple of the talk pages from the relevant period before you vote. Apologies if you have done so already. MeteorMaker (talk) 22:54, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Archiving help needed
Hi Roger:
I need help archiving a peer review. The article in question is Battle of Hampton Roads, which has been quiet for some time now. My problem is that I can't figure out how to archive just this section, without moving the entire page. (Feel free to offload this request to anyone else who can answer.) PKKloeppel (talk) 16:02, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
All done. The knack is just to cut and paste this bit {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Battle of Hampton Roads}}, which you get at by clicking on the edit button next to the Peer Review main section header (Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Review#Peer review) where you'll see a list of similarly transcluded articles. Roger Daviestalk16:26, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your support
Roger Davies, Gaia Octavia Agrippa has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing! Gaia Octavia AgrippaTalk | Sign20:25, 8 May 2009 (UTC) Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Blanket topic ban
Roger, could we get a blanket topic ban of all editors who've been involved in off-wiki Scientology disputes? A big part of the problem is editors importing their wars. We want none if it. Its all a massive conflict of interest. I think an editor needs to have the good sense not to edit in such situations. A sanction which compells somebody to do that which they should already not be doing is not burdensome. You need to revise the logic behind some of your proposals, I think, to get more support. JehochmanTalk09:31, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi! Recently, we just opened up a work force responsible for taking care of anything concerning the Pakistani military and it's history in general (Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Pakistan military history unit). The problem is, we need a coordinator or two. Since you appear to be a lead coordinator of the whole Military history WikiProject on Wikipedia, would it be fine with you if I list you as one of the coordinators?
If you object to do so, please give a short response. Thanks......Teckgeek (talk) 10:42, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Also, I would like to nominate for deletion the other 4 projects this person created, since he was the creator and only member. I suppose that there is no problem with deleting them:
The current thinking is to keep the Pakistani task force and make it viable. This is an important topic area and there have been several calls for it in the past. We only need six editors to do this and we can probably achieve that quite quickly. I have no opinion on what happens to the others. Roger Daviestalk16:09, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi Roger, would you mind popping the FoF and remedy relating to me on the Workshop page as well? While the idea of a one-month holiday from this topic area is not without its attractions :), there are a couple of details that I might want to address. Or we can do it here if you prefer. Cheers, Jayen46600:18, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Roger, Please would you revert edits to Syed Ahmed's biography by User:WebHamster and prevent him from editing again. He has just reverted to text which had been removed under a concensus of editors and which clearly violates Wiki policies. This has been debated and agreed over a period of months. He has no right to revert this without concesus - which he does not have. Please assist? Thanks Amicaveritas (talk) 09:03, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Also on my talk page
Is there any reason related to the arbitration you went after me? Banning me from a topic I have edited no more than twice and not edited for more than a year is very strange. Have I offended you in some way I am not aware? Keith Henson (talk) 16:49, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Sorry
Sorry to say that it is not possible for me to edit and contribute in a big way to those articles. Those articles will revert to some illogical versions as usual. So I don't think it will be a wise decision to contribute to those articles wasting my time. If you want help with some other countries I can help, if not immediately. Thanking you.
Chanakyathegreat (talk) 10:17, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Regarding tool usage
You said "For a cursory glance at the logs, this editor AMIB does not appear to use the tools much. What does he need them for?"
Well, there are various metrics to measure admin tools usage.
One is to look at the lowest date of the last 50 actions in Special:Log. Using that metric, you come out to February 22, while AMIB comes out to March 8.
A second method is looking at total number of actions. If we consult WP:LOGACTIONS, we can see that you have approximately 500 actions while AMIB has roughly 3,500.
There are other ways to measure admin tool usage, but I imagine they'll all tell me the same thing. So perhaps your question isn't the best?
[Chuckle]. There are indeed loads of ways to cut it. For instance, mine don't include the 300 or so Checkuser/Oversight actions since December or the hundreds of revisitings of deleted pages. I'm still interested in seeing what he mostly uses the tools for though. Roger Daviestalk18:42, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
The OTRS system is looking for trusted volunteers to help staff our Spanish info and permissions queues. I would like to invite you to look over what OTRS involves and consider signing up at the volunteering page. Thank you. MBisanztalk14:40, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Your recent proposal
I don't why this made you propose this, but I don't think it is justifiable for such a remedy. Could you please explain why you're adding an additional term to the mentorship remedy? Thanks. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 22:20, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
In the "Tang Dynasty" ArbCom case, the "locus of dispute" factfinding should be rejected as written.
A new, better locus of dispute should be adduced.
I write to encourage you to re-visit this because the first and last sentences are fundamentally flawed.
NO to 1st sentence. The case originated when Teeninvestor rejected any and all inquiry relating to WP:V, WP:Burden and WP:RSUE, alleging vandalism and disruptive editing instead. This persistent confrontational strategy is endorsed and encouraged by those voting in support Newyorkbrad's locus of dispute. These votes effectively disregard Tenmei's locus, Teeninvestor's locus and, most importantly, Teeninvestor's restatment at Summarizing "more or less the entire dispute". This obfuscation marginalizes even the attempt to pursue a strategy of collaborative editing; and for this very practical reason, I could not disagree more with this sentence
NO to 3rd sentence. In the specific context of this case, it is procedurally unsound to adopt the expanded scope proposed by Teeninvestor and Caspian blue. One of the few areas of agreement acknowledged the initially limited focus of our case when it was opened. I could not disagree more with this sentence.
In support, I highlight a crucial fulcrum or pivot between "A" and "B" below:
"We appear to confront a small scale replica of what has occurred in other, wider disputes ... informed by a four-prong examination at each and every point of this escalating drama:
1. "What is the quality of the sources used by both sides in the dispute?
2. "What is the consensus of scholars in the field; and does the source reflect that consensus?
3. "Are the sources actually supporting the assertions for which they are cited?
4. "Are unsourced assertions being used?
"As others will know better than me, these four points are, unsurprisingly, at the center of most protracted disputes and are all violations of our core content policies, e.g., verifiability, no original research and neutrality."
"This guy is out of control, man." [emphasis added]
In this instance, Tenmei's paraphrase of Coren's moderating analysis was posted on the talk pages of all arguably interested participants at Talk:Inner Asia during the Tang Dynasty. The "out of control" accusatory phrasing was repeated in diffs on the talk pages of PericlesofAthens and Arilang1234. This suggests a deliberate strategy rather than a merely transient outburst.
In these pivotal diffs, Teeninvestor cannot feign to have misunderstood my writing. These are plainly Coren's paraphrased words; and yet, this modest effort to frame collaborative editing issues was immediately converted into a contrived hostile encounter. This destructive pattern is reflected ad nauseam on the evidence and workshop pages. Despite the cumulative attacks, the edit history confirms my participation focused on issues, but this outcome tells me clearly that I was wrong to take the high road.
In voting to support this awkward "spin", ArbCom's counter-intuitive judgment effectively affirms that the contributions of Teeninvestor and Caspian blue were above reproach and I was not.
ArbCom is concerned with conduct issues and dispute resolution. We have traditionally broadened the scope of a case, when necessary, to tackle the root causes of a troublesome situation. This is what happened in the Tang Dynasty case. While it might not reflect your perceptions of the situation, it certainly reflects the way independent outsiders (the arbitrators) see it.
Incidentally, it would probably save you considerable time and effort if you stopped linking commonplace words. I know perfectly well what spin and counter-intuitive mean, and the links you provide merely distract from the points you are making. Similarly, your focus should probably be on brevity and clarity as many participants in this case have expressed frustration at the apparently abstract manner in which you present your arguments.
I'd like to submit this problem to arbcom. How do I go about that? I'm asking you because reviewing your contributions, I feel we share many ideals: We love Abe. Not only can you feel free to email me privately, but I can provide you my phone number if you'd like. IMHO This is heavy, and totally connected to the American Civil Rights Movement. jared d. s.mith 03:48, 6 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unfrayed (talk • contribs)
For appearing in the New York Times - no small feat in and of itself - as part of Arbcom. "Epic" is the only word capable of describing that. Congratulations! Cam(Chat)15:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
For being quoted in the New York Times I hereby award you The Press Barnstar. At the moment you are one of less than ten Wikipedians who have received this prestigious barnstar. I do hope you find a good place for it on your page, as most people quoted in the New York Times definitely deserve this honor. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:16, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
I didn't know that! I heard in on the BBC World Service about midnight (I think) Eastern Standard Time ( about 5 hours behind England time!). The interviewer should have done a BIT more research (listen to his closing remarks and you'll see what I mean! )
Regarding my application to take part in the J&S guidelines discussion per this decision, it appears that the deadline has passed. According to FloNight, discussion of the application has taken place but the outcome was not disclosed [10], apparently through clerical error. Could you look into this? The most recent official status request is here. MeteorMaker (talk) 12:51, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
I didn't participate in the arbitrator debate on this but there was almost unanimous opposition to your proposal. Consensus is that allowing topic-banned editors to contribute to the guidelines discussion will only make it more difficult for them to disengage. Roger Daviestalk14:34, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Am I to assume that the ArbCom didn't actually intend anybody to apply for a permission to participate in the guidelines discussion when it announced that editors may apply for such a permission? That doesn't strike me as entirely logical, but I guess I shouldn't be surprised after the decision to ban five editors who have incorruptibly stood up for WP's stated principles and applied them impeccably, save for letting themselves be dragged into an edit war with nationalist editors that kept removing eminently well-sourced content for ideological reasons. MeteorMaker (talk) 20:02, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
No, not quite. I guess that arbitrators simply had second thoughts during the discussion, which came several weeks after the arbitration case closed, probably affected by the realisation that editors in other very similar cases (date delinking, Macedonia, and Scientology) might expect the same relaxation. Roger Daviestalk21:55, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Three questions:
Was there a similar "relaxation" offer in those cases? I quote:
"Editors restricted from participating in certain discussions as a result of this case may apply to have those restrictions temporarily suspended for the exclusive purpose of participating in the discussion of draft guidelines for this area."[11]
If the offer has been de facto retracted (due to, as you speculate, second thoughts), why is it still there?
On what formal grounds was my application rejected?
As I wasn't involved in the discussion, you're cross-examining the wrong guy. However, for what it's worth, my view on topic bans generally is that editors are topic banned with good reason, and that people who are part of the problem are rarely part of the solution. Roger Daviestalk08:56, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm naturally curious about the logic behind making an offer in one decision and blanket declining all applications, current and future, in the next. Frankly, I can't make much sense of it, to me it appears just like a Dilbert-style random act of management, designed only to frustrate. MeteorMaker (talk) 09:18, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Before talking about Dilbert, consider the human dynamics :) We've been extremely busy over the last couple of months with a large number of very complicated cases and all sorts of unexpected background problems. Simply put, what might have seemed attractive at one point probably become significantly less so when push came to shove with the passage of time. Roger Daviestalk10:11, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Then, if the offer has been retracted, why is it still open? And, Roger, before anybody puts in the Herculean effort needed to satisfy this offer that you voted for including, don't you agree it would be helpful with a bit of clarification if that offer still stands or if it has now also been quietly de facto retracted? I'd hate to come back six months from now with ten painstakingly written FA's under my belt only to be met with what amounts to "oh, we changed our minds again. Sorry." MeteorMaker (talk) 10:50, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
I realise you were using imagery but it is slightly depressing to learn that that people are so invested in a subject that they'd prepare "ten painstakingly written FA's" in order to get back to the heart of it. Roger Daviestalk12:09, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Am I correct in reading that as an oblique acknowledgment that the ArbCom never intended these two remedies [12][13] to be taken seriously? If so, that's rather appalling. Since you voted for both, what was your personal vision of what those remedies would accomplish? MeteorMaker (talk) 12:18, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
There's no reason to suppose it won't. Lifting of individual sanctions is not automatic though and will be determined on a case by case, based on an editor's conduct and contributions. Roger Daviestalk09:53, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
OK. Mr Davies, can you guarantee that the "lifting of sanctions" decision will not be post-facto amended in any way that might render sincere attempts to fulfill it futile?
I have one further question (also posed to FloNight below in slightly different form): Has any new information on my conduct and contributions (or whatever decided the outcome of the suspension-of-restrictions application evaluation process) come to light since the original decision was announced, or are you working on the same information that was available to you at that time? The needle apparently swung from "eligible" to "not eligible" in one month, even though the same set of input parameters was used. Or was the intention all along to decline the application in this particular case if and when it was filed? MeteorMaker (talk) 14:55, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
MeteorMaker, my read of the situation is that the Arbitration Committee decided to leave the door open for people to apply to have the topic ban waived to allow an user to participate in discussions about the guideline. When the time came to consider your particular application, the Committee as a whole (at least those commenting) came to the decision that it was best to not waive the topic bans. There was no promise that a topic ban would be automaticlly waived upon application. I apologize for the misunderstanding that happened when the information was not promptly relayed to you. At this time the Committee's strongly thinks that the topic ban is best left in place fully for now. FloNight♥♥♥14:05, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply. Just so I get this straight: Your understanding of the situation is that the original decision has been retracted and nobody can apply any more? If so, to your knowledge, are there other decisions in the J&S case that the ArbCom has retracted or amended, and will the remaining final decisions remain final? I ask because fulfilling the conditions in one of them entails contributing hundreds of work hours and I need a bullet-proof guarantee that it will not be in vain.
Thanks Roger for the warm welcome. I am touched. I will definitely do my bit to bring more accuracy in my edits and improve articles on wikipedia. Nefirious (talk)
A new Task Force on the Military History WikiProject
I looked over the task forces for the Military History WikiProject.The periods and conflicts had important eras including the Napoleonic Wars, World War I and World War II. The Cold War was very important to the world from 1948-1991, so I feel that a task force should be made to improve articles about the Cold War. -JayLeno175 (talk) 22:00, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
I agree that we are lacking in this area, but I vaguely remember us discussing this previously, but I cannot remember if it was on the main project talk page or just with the coordinators. We must have had a good reason for not establishing a TF at that time... -MBK00422:26, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi Roger. Yep, should be able to go through and tally the reviews in time. It's for the April–June period, isn't it? Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:21, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Well, I have just completed going through the archives and tallying up the reviews, recording the results in MBK's userspace as we have done previously here. I will revisit the applicable pages in a few days time to note the reviews from any new closures. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 04:16, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi Roger. I have just gone back and revisited the review pages, noting the latest few tallies of review closures. The final tallies are now available for your perusal. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 05:06, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Review 'Medieval Wars
Sir, I just wanted to know from you if the article 'Medieval Wars' that i've been editing for past several days qualifies for reviewing since I have placed the 'Under Construction' tag. The article has been rated as a 'Start' article by a user User:Canglesea. Please let me know sir. Nefirious (talk) 04:10, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Yeh, and neither has the reviewer mentioned in the discussion section what needs to be done in order to improve the quality of the article. A reviewer in my opinion needs to point out the lacuna in the article and then give the appropriate ratings. Nefirious (talk) 04:16, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Here are links to the A-class and B-class critera, which also each have their own FAQs:
Sir, I would like to differ. According to Congesea, the referencing and citation criterion were not met. I would like you to visit the page I created. I have very meticulously and diligently quoted the sources with appropriate citations. I referred plenty of books and worked real hard only to disseminate knowledge amongst people all over the world and what I got was a 'start' rating. I would advise that the members who are responsible for assesing should also inform me and let me know why the article was given a start rating and what needs to be done in order to improve it. The user who assesed the article did not even feel the urge to respond to my queries. Well, and yes the article is expanding, and its just been a week since I started editing it. If you or anyone else is assessing the article kindly tell me to be courteous and respond to my queries, i'll be really grateful. Thanks for responding I really appreciate that. Nefirious (talk) 16:02, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
I assessed the article as "start" because the B5 criteria is not met. Although the quality and number of references is excellent for an article at this stage, the B1 criteria for citations also is not met; the Visigoths and Ostrogoths sections lack citations. In general, each section needs at least one citation. I am certain you will address these as the article progresses to B-Class. More rigorous review and feedback will be offered in peer review, A-class review, and FA-class review, which I hope you will pursue. - Canglesea (talk) 02:21, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Exactly, and this is what I wanted to know as to which section in the article needs citation. Now that you have informed me i'll do the needful. Nefirious (talk) 05:54, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Email
Per the suggestion of Newyorkbard, I have emailed the other members of my Arbcom of my plan. Since you do not have email enabled, perhaps another member will share my plan with you. It is also linked to the Workshop page of the arbitration.
Hello. To begin, every member of WikiProject Novels will be getting this message (the joy of macros) so if you wish to get in touch with me, please post a message on my talk page. I would encourage anyone who so wishes, to stand in the Coordinator Elections. If you wish to stand, please do so by 23:59pm, June 27. Voting will the continue to 23:59pm, July 21. Can everyone please check-out the Coordinator Elections page. Also, the collaboration of the month is The Tin Drum, so if you have any spare time, please check it out. And I apologise to the seven of you for whom this will be a repeat message. Regards, Alan16 (talk).
Mrg and Digwuren
Thanks for the note about the Digwuren restriction. I was typing a first and last warning at the time you posted it: [14]. Is there a mechanism to track changes of account for editors subject to this restriction? Nick-D (talk) 09:58, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Hey, I was wondering if you could help me with something. There seems to be a sock puppet on the Istanbul article and I was hoping that since you have the check user ability you could look into it for me? I previously asked User:Future Perfect at Sunrise, however he was unable to help me. Basically, I was wondering if you could check into this user's IP address (User:Jarvis76) and see if he/she is another sock of User:Pristinick and User:Tevfik Fikret? El Greco(talk)23:29, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Hello roger,
If you could please delete my page and page history, I'd be much obliged.
I requested speedy deletion on 1Apr for reason 1.6. jayron deleted it, then acted as if s/he did me a favour. I feel jayron shouldnt have been the one to delete it initially as s/he and I have negatively interacted in the past. Followups from jayron included an unneccesary block; followed by telling me to get a yahoo email so that I may contact wiki admins!
Wiki is all about anon editing : as such I didnt and wont get an email account in order to communicate as it is not required.
Since then jayron,redpen, mufka have been repeatedly editing my page. I blank my page they restore it. This has been happening since April, so for 3months now. I bet if I changed their pages they'd posting threats of "i'll report you" and/or "you will be banned". It is quite easy for me to get a new ip address but I dont think Ive done anything wrong, so I wont change my ip address.
If my pages needed to be restored /reverted, I definitely think those three arent the ones who should do it as they/I have a convoluted history.
If you could please delete my page and page history, I'd be much obliged.
If you could contact jayron, redpen, & mufka & ask that any problems they have they let an admin or arbitrator know, instread of making changes or posting to me.
I'd like to edit wiki in peace Thanks. 173.79.58.33 (talk) 18:06, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Acedemy content drive?
I'd like to propose to you that we start a drive within the project to expand our academy so that we can add a link to the academy in the project's welcome template. My proposal is to create a writing contest which will run from now until the next coordinator election, during which anyone who writes an article for the academy receives a barnstar (I think the guidance barstar would be most appropriate under the circumstances), with a bronze, silver, and gold wiki going to the three editors who add the greatest number of useful articles to the academy in the time period. With a little luck, by new years, we can have a full functional online academy for the n00bs and that should help free up some time for us coordinators and the veteran users by allowing us to link to the relevant material rather than have to explain from scratch the answer and why the answer is answered thus. What do you think? TomStar81 (Talk) 04:38, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
I think it's a very good idea; we need to get behind the academy and with the holidays upcoming people will have more time available to help do so. Do you want to run this past the others? And perhaps get something in place for the next edition of the Bugle? Roger Daviestalk15:28, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Glad you think so too. I would like to run this past the others because we will need coordinator oversight to make sure whats going is is both accurate and relevant to the project. As to a bugle mention, I am afraid I can not spare the time before the run; this is the last week of Summer I and with my final on Thursday I'm going to overdosing on Spanish for the rest of the week; I may not be back on Wikipedia until Thursday afternoon. Truth be told I really should not be on wikipedia now either, its too much of a distraction from my school work, but I wanted to check my messages before this thunderstorm hits the house. If you guys want to add a bugle mention though go ahead, the more members we can reach the better. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:44, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
I shouldn't have done this, but I am subtracting test time to suggest the contest on the coordinator page, and I have written a bugle spot for the contest as well. Any input would be appreciated. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:58, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
User: Wikipéire
Hi, can I just confirm that you received my email? It is entitled RE: [arbcom-l] I've just been banned for consistent socking - request second chance to be reinstated into the commnity. Please consider my case. Thanks.194.125.21.48 (talk) 16:18, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi, it is I again. Sent you and the arbcom mailing list an email on Wednesday about me agreeing to your conditions that I do contribute my ideas to WP:IECOLL and that I serve a topic ban on Ireland topics. However again, no response was made. If you decide that you don't want to unblock me that's fine, but please just let me know either way. I am ready to cooperate and waiting for your response so I can get back to editing.(Wikipéire)78.16.150.247 (talk) 23:17, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Roger, I'm going to level with you. In the aftermath of the Scientology case am quite skeptical of your claims to support open feedback. The Committee had a procedure for adding names to existing cases via open proposal and discussion at the workshop. You bypassed that with an invitation for offsite submissions. Offsite evidence followed, and as a result several severe sanctions have followed regarding parties on both sides of the dispute without visibly sufficient (or in extreme instances without visibly any) substantial cause within the onsite pages themselves. Your decision to circumvent open process in adding parties to that case was--to my knowledge--unprecedented. Nor do its results seem well advised. When I called for stronger action at the initial stages of the case I never imagined that such actions would follow.
Various plans for ban review reform preceded your election to the Committee by several months. This is not a new issue, nor has it gone anywhere in about a year. The Committee has erred grievously on both extremes (Bus stop as a meritorious appeal overlooked, Poetlister as a frivolous one approved). I really think that devolving as much of the responsibility as feasible back to the community where community bans originate is the best way to achieve good results while lightening the arbitrators' heavy load. DurovaCharge!00:18, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
That's an interesting bunch of assumptions, based on inaccuracies.
Scientology
I'm not aware of any formal process for adding parties.
I'm not aware that I made any invitation for offsite submissions. The only call for evidence I recollect was this one. Can you help me with a diff?
There was only one submission of private evidence; it was not relevant, did not stand scrutiny, and was disregarded.
Accordingly, secret evidence played no part in the case.
The sanctions reflected the fact that this was the fourth arbitration case in as many years; that the entire topic was already under restrictions; and that various Wikipedia processes were deadlocked. Widescale disengagement was the only practical solution. Your mileage may (and probably does) vary.
The normal method for adding new parties is via motion on the case workshop page. For example, this instance, and this case. In the Scientology arbitration it would have been entered here, but wasn't. That method allows for open discussion about the merit of the proposal, and has been useful at distinguishing meritorious from non-meritorious requests.
Regarding your action, please review Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Scientology/Proposed_decision#Call_for_evidence. Particularly your specific words (in a request for more evidence): "The evidence does not need to be limited to editors already mentioned in this case." A large number of names were added to the case afterward, with no open discussion. In many instances substantial sanctions resulted, despite little or no evidence posted onsite at the evidence page.
This was, in my opinion, a serious departure from existing practice that yielded substantial negative results. Examples exist on both sides of the underlying issue. Allow me to summarize the most grievous of them:
An editor who hadn't edited the subject since 2007 was added as a named party. He had never been blocked, had never been warned, and had never even received a prior caution. No explanation was supplied for why he was added, nor was any visible evidence posted. A proposed finding of fact went up which appeared to fault him for two edits--although in fact those two diffs were compliant with policy at the time when he made them. The Committee banned him from both the topic and its talk pages. The case decision posted his full name, and international news resulted from the case.
Shortly after case closure he appealed his sanction politely. He even offered to undergo mentorship if there had been something objectionable about his previous participation that he had not understood. Shortly afterward he followed up with greater urgency, asking the Committee for advice and assistance. "Then the story hit Slashdot. Now I have people emailing me saying "I see you got banned from Wikipedia." Today I received my first journalist inquiry about the ArbCom decision. What am I to tell this person?"[15] Days afterward I was worried about the little attention the Committee was giving this matter, so contacted him for the first time via e-mail to provide him with contact information for ComCom and the WMF volunteer coordinator. It was fortunate I did so: no one else had attempted to.
The appeal itself was archived after two weeks with only two non-recused arbitrators commenting; it was never brought to vote.
In principle that course of events would be equally problematic no matter who it happened to. In this instance the editor happens to be a research professor at a leading university. His colleagues have been asking questions; it's a substantial professional embarrassment. And to emphasize: the decision you cowrote identified this man by his full name. You were also one of the two arbitrators who commented at his appeal, yet you ignored his request for advice about how to respond to the media attention that resulted. No matter how well merited his ban might have been, those two lapses are deeply problematic. Moreover, the ban itself appears to be completely lacking in evidentiary basis.
I can be quite reasonable about agree to disagree territory. Yet unless there's a great iceberg beneath the waterline (and his total edit history is fewer than 100 edits so that's unlikely), this example is substantially worse than last year's Orangemarlin decision. The only missing ingredient is drama; I have been seeking to resolve this type of very serious problem without that. DurovaCharge!23:35, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
First, there's no consensus for using one method of adding parties over another.
Second, there's nothing secret or mysterious about the Touretzky finding. The Scientology case was about two warring factions, with conflicts of interest, pushing differing points of view. Our approach was to make the feuding parties disengage by liberal use of topic-bans. In order to protect the encyclopedia from further disruption in the void created by topic-bans, the net, as Cool Hand Luke has said elsewhere, was cast wide.
Prof. Touretzky's BLP and websites make no attempt to conceal his point of view on Scientology. Although he has made relatively few edits on Wikipedia, they are much focused on Scientology and apparently support the point of view he advocates in real life.
It is no secret that Touretzky is David S. Touretzky. Touretzky self-identifies on his user page as David S. Touretzky and has done since May 2005. Many of the comments on his talk page are about his BLP article, which has in turn identified the user account since November 2006. Cirt added David S Touretzky as a "critic of Scientology" to the {{Scientology and the Internet}} template in October 2007.
Prof. Touretzky's university web page has a prominent heading, "The Church of Scientology's Wacky Secrets", and contains links to television broadcasts he has made about Scientology and to articles he has written. It is difficult to imagine that his colleagues are unaware of this interest.
ArbCom is not in a position to offer anyone advice about how to handle the media. Wikipedia's standard advice is to edit anonymously if there is any possibility of real life fall out.
In re the Touretzky request, all I can say is thank you Durova for noticing that we hadn't been as informative as we could have been, and for jumping in and helping with that.
Comparisons to the Orangemarlin decision are way off base. The committee voted on this decision right out there in the open, where everyone can see. John Vandenberg(chat)01:39, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Orangemarlin was at least pseudononymous, and the result of a faulty decision did not follow him into his professional and public life. This case caused real world damage. The proposed decision page is arguably a BLP violation, this has been the highest profile arbitration decision in site history, and the Committee neglected him when the press called. Durova273 featured contributions05:00, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
No, it's not a BLP violation. What's more, the logical conclusion of what you are saying is, I suppose, that where there is the slightest possibility of real life fallout, either no proceeding should be brought at all or the case should be heard in private and the findings kept secret. Still theorising, these in turn could easily lead to editors outing themselves to avoid the consequences of egregious behaviour. I wouldn't support either route and very much doubt whether my colleagues and the community would do so. Roger Daviestalk07:27, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Straw man argumentation should be beneath you, Roger. There was no necessity to identify this man by his entire name on the decision, nor is there any indication that his behavior was egregious. In the improbable scenario that his behavior included the type of dimension for which evidence could not have been onsite, I will gladly post a full and public apology for this criticism at the venue of your choosing. Durova273 featured contributions13:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
For the avoidance of any doubt, I did not say that Prof Touretzky's conduct was egregious and I would be very grateful if you did not try to put words into my mouth. Roger Daviestalk15:38, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps Durova, like myself, was simply remembering times gone by when it was a given that ArbCom powers would not be used to punish and stigmatize editors who were not engaged in egregious misbehavior. -- Antaeus Feldspar (talk) 01:49, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
ArbCom has always reserved the right to use robust measure to deal with longterm problems. Here's a principle from a 2006 case: "In cases where all reasonable attempts to control the spread of disruption arising from long-term disputes have failed, the Committee may be forced to adopt seemingly Draconian measures as a last resort for preventing further damage to the encyclopedia." Roger Daviestalk13:51, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Quite so. Yet with a little more than that. ArbCom took the unusual step of citing two diffs from 2007 in its finding of fact for a sanction applied in May 2009. The sanction is a very strict one: total topic ban, including restriction from talk pages. Since the editor has fewer than 100 total site edits and made no substantial edits to the topic after 2007, it stands to reason that only egregious behavior (Roger's word, not mine) would justify this unusual deviation from normal practice. Yet the diffs cited in the decision are actually diffs of this editor complying with policy. And no onsite evidence has been submitted against him. So allow me to ask this point blank: has there been any extraordinary factor outside his edit history that influenced this decision? It is well enough known that he conducts off-wiki criticism. Yet per the Attack sites case and the Jim62Sch case, mere involvement in offsite criticism is not grounds for sanction although extraordinary offsite activity may be discussed in general terms in decisions. I have offered Roger a full public apology at the venue of his choosing if substantive grounds exist for this sanction which are not visible in the sparse onsite edit history. Rather than quibble over the use of the word egregious, if I am mistaken Roger has no restraint from demonstrating that I have made a serious error. He need not disclose significant material worthy of topic banning that has been presented to him in confidence--it would be enough to propose a clarification that such material exists, which if true his colleagues will endorse. Subsequently I will strikethrough all my protests on this issue and publish a full apology wherever Roger pleases. What could be more satisfactory? If this is an issue that can be put to rest in this straightforward way, please initiate the steps to settle it. Durova27322:03, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
No one disputes that ArbCom is entitled to use strong measures, and indeed should use strong measures, when those measures are necessary to curb an ongoing problem. With regards to those editors who had not edited the topic in over a year prior to the initiation of the case, how was the stigmatizing topic ban placed upon them necessary? You have already said that you do not wish your remarks to be interpreted as claiming that Professor Touretzky was engaged in egregious behavior. If he was not then what sort of behavior could he have been involved in relevant to Wikipedia which would involve not one single edit from 28 September 2008 to 29 May 2009 but nevertheless justify such a drastic remedy to curtail it? If we accept for the sake of argument that somehow Professor Touretzky was engaging in behavior that constituted an ongoing problem for Wikipedia despite not involving any edits to Wikipedia -- where would we find any indicators of reasonable attempts to solve the problem being attempted, and failing? Or is it your contention that "no reasonable attempts have been made" satisfies the condition "all reasonable attempts ... have failed"? -- Antaeus Feldspar (talk) 14:44, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Thank you both for your additional comments though, with respect, they mostly reiterate earlier ones. I suppose the key point about this unusual case is that people brought their longstanding battles from off-wiki onto the encyclopedia. Otherwise:
There was no secret evidence.
Sanctions were applied even-handedly to people advancing their own agendas on both sides.
This was a messy dispute that had dragged on for four years. Resolving it required wiping the slate clean with robust measures that were unlikely to please everyone.
The entire topic was already on article probation.
While you may personally disagree with it, this decision was not mine alone; a supermajority of arbitrators voted to sanction this editor.
"There was no secret evidence." So you say. Yet it's become increasingly clear that the ArbCom did not disclose how heavily they were depending on evidence of the alleged off-wiki activities of editors -- perhaps they did not disclose this because the point might then justly have been raised just how far it is the business of the Wikipedia ArbCom to judge editors' non-Wikipedia pursuits -- and that lack of disclosure denied the editors so affected any meaningful opportunity to respond to the evidence being used to justify sanctions against them.
"Sanctions were applied even-handedly to people advancing their own agendas on both sides." Provably false. The sanctions were applied to multiple editors who could not have been advancing any agenda on Wikipedia because they weren't doing anything on Wikipedia.
"This was a messy dispute that had dragged on for four years. Resolving it required wiping the slate clean with robust measures that were unlikely to please everyone." Robust measures certainly were needed, but topic-banning an editor who has already been gone for over a year is not a "robust measure". Nobody making a reasonable evaluation would consider such a move even helpful, let alone "required".
"The entire topic was already on article probation." And this means it's suddenly necessary to topic-ban editors who are not violating that article probation because they are not editing articles ... why?
"While you may personally disagree with it, this decision was not mine alone; a supermajority of arbitrators voted to sanction this editor." Yes, and as I understand it, a supermajority of JFK's cabinet supported the Bay of Pigs Invasion; history shows how that worked out. A supermajority of the ArbCom could stand at the shore of the ocean and thrust out a scepter to command the tide to stop coming in but they're due for wet toes. A supermajority of the ArbCom can declare that "it was necessary to destroy it in order to save it" or "the very fact that no sabotage has taken place to date is a disturbing and confirming indication that such action will be taken" or "editors who have left Wikipedia years ago must suddenly be now slapped with humiliating and stigmatizing punishments as a 'preventative' and 'rehabilitative' measure" but all that demonstrates is that a supermajority of the ArbCom can't recognize when they're in over their collective head and flailing. -- Antaeus Feldspar (talk) 15:11, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
RE: my bit
I'm thinking of doing something with relation to reviewing styles. I'll write it tomorrow probably. Cam(Chat)05:30, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Hello. The Coordiantor Election has begun. All members are encouraged to vote by the deadline, July 28. To vote simply add support to the comments and questions for.. section of the member of your choice.
This is completely unprecedented, but thank you for uploading the picture you see at the right. I used to live around this area years ago, and I haven't seen many pictures of the areas since I was a young child. It was nice to see Etna not look so angry and erupt-y for once. Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ)08:58, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Thank you very much. I took it last January (I adore Sicily and have been often). I've got some more I took on a wonderful cross country drive from Taormina to Capo Orlando (via Randazzo), with the Etna national park on your left for about half the way. Really wild unspoiled countryside with raptors circling overhead. Very beautiful indeed. Roger Daviestalk13:47, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks, but (this is a little embarrassing) what did I do to get the "Military history WikiProject Reviewers' award"? Which article earned ne this???? --RedtigerxyzTalk13:31, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
… but according to my contributions from April to June I've technically weighed in on three peer reviews and not one, as I'm credited (things like this make me check what I've actually done!). Could you update the list on the Coordinators' talk page, and then I'll be happy! Cheers, --Simon Harley (talk | library | book reviews) 17:08, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Thank you very much for the award. It was most unexpected and is always nice receiving one.
Quick question- I've almost finished a draft of Computer Bismarck offline. It would expand the article five times and make a good DYK? candidate. I just wanted to know if the MH project had any plans to get the Last battle of the battleship Bismarck article or any of the related ones on the main page. If so, I could hold off updating the article so it could appear in the DYK? section on the same day. (Guyinblack25talk14:57, 6 July 2009 (UTC))
I had commenting at FA in mind but it's only a suggestion and inspecting FAR articles would also make an excellent piece. Are you volunteering? Roger Daviestalk16:37, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
As I said on Casliber's talk page, I think most of the council members are ready and willing to get to work, especially now that Jimbo has endorsed the council. If the ArbCom is still willing to support this council, I think it can proceed as chartered. Cla68 (talk) 06:27, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
"I've posted some possible agenda items" - In your capacity as 'editor' - I'm confused, is that page now free to be edited by all and will we be getting any kind of formal brief from Arbcom? "That rather depends on how everything plays out" makes me rather uneasy - I assume that as we were invited we still have Arbcom's support, particularly as when I voiced my concerns about community input and elections, the view was you wanted a council with a good cross section rather than 'wikipolitical'. Now the community apparently hates the idea, if you're thinking about pulling the plug I'd rather know now rather than waste my time. --Joopercoopers (talk) 13:54, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Joopercoopers, my view of the situation is that the Arbitration Committee does have the ability to start a think tank to discuss Community issues and consider the information coming from the discussions. But because ArbCom supports the Wikipedia model which is based on Community consensus, the Committee will not do something if the Community provides a strong reason that the process is flawed or ill conceived. I think many of the issues currently raised about the ACPD can be addressed, I think that the think tank should go ahead and start. Once the group starts addressing items, and the Community sees that way it works, then I think that it will not be as controversial. My two cents. FloNight♥♥♥14:59, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Ok Flo, time will tell..... @Roger. Posting to the project page as a private editor and signing is going to fracture discussion like hell. I've removed the signatures and let your post stand for now but have posted the resulting discussions on the talk page. And politely ask that commentators use the appropriate sections described here. Cas, as our Arb representative on the council, is free to add what she likes, so I suggest members of Arbcom channel through her if necessary. --Joopercoopers (talk) 15:47, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Lifting of community ban on Betacommand
You might be thinking "Oh great, someone complaining about him editing again!" :) No, not doing that.
I just want to raise a red flag on one of the conditions of his editing. In particular, the throttle of 4 edits every ten minutes. This is bound to cause drama. In fact, I'll guarantee it.
Betacommand isn't a bot. He's a human. He's not a machine that can infallibly keep track of how many edits he's performed. There's a very high chance he's going to make a mistake, or even several. The lynch mobs that want his head on a platter will be watching him like a hawk, and it's going to start all over again. The moment that he makes 5 edits in 10 minutes, the screaming will commence. Count on it. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:32, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
In fact, it was either Betacommand or one of his mentors (I forget whom exactly) who proposed this restriction but thanks very much for the thought. Forwarned is forearmed :) Roger Daviestalk14:14, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
I have no issues with the throttle, but I would like some leniency when I accidentally go over. last night I accidentally had 5 (check my deleted edits) it was within my userspace as I restored both my userpage, talkpage and tagged 3 sub pages for deletion. hopefully this will not blow up into a big deal, but its the type of situation that Hammersoft is talking about. βcommand14:22, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
The onus is on you to avoid accidents. Incidentally, I remind you that you are prohibited from using Twinkle, which you may now wish to deconfigure. Roger Daviestalk07:26, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, it wasn't on the 4 edits per ten minutes bit, but it's hardly surprising. One edit, and FOOM the world goes up in flames over Betacommand and all sorts of people are spilling out of the woodwork calling for his banishment. Honestly, I think ArbCom needs to take a stance in this overall issue to blunt the witch hunters here. It took only two days, and already serious drama has erupted. I don't think ArbCom can wave a stick at anyone that might think to disagree with Betacommand being unblocked, but a general warning could be given along the lines of "The Arbitration Committee has made a decision with regards to Betacommand's editing here. It is understood by the committee that Betacommand is human with the same proclivity for error as any other human. Minor violations of the terms of the suspension of community ban will not be considered valid grounds for blocking by independent administrators. Such violations may be brought to the attention of the Arbitration Committee." Or something. The drama will continue without ArbCom intervening, and eventually there will be so much that a permanent ban will be reimposed because it's just not worth having all the drama around. Except, the source of it will have almost entirely been people other than Betacommand. This is most unfair to him. Me personally, if I were under such scrutiny and the center of so much restriction and drama, I'd leave the project permanently. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:09, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
First, it's fair to point out that Betacommand approached ArbCom about a suspension of his ban; we did not seek him out to invite him back. He has had many chances in the past and unfortunately has reacted by pushing the envelope. The terms therefore have an element of zero tolerance to them. The objective, of course, with prolonged restrictions is to help people break the habits that got them into trouble in the first place. I won't personally tolerate any goading or baiting but I expect that these issues will blow over if Betacommand keeps his head down for a while. Thanks for the comments. Roger Daviestalk16:32, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
The problem here is the manner in which these terms are crafted. It's virtually guaranteed to create drama, and already has. It will continue to do so. For example, there's a number of highly subjective clauses to these terms. "excludes reversion of blatant vandalism" is subjective. There's been many fights before over what is considered to be blatant vandalism. If I were forced to operate under this term, I just wouldn't touch vandalism because of the possibility of misinterpretation. "to not engage in any form of wikilawyering, broadly interpreted" is also subjective. If Betacommand makes an edit citing a policy, it could be construed as wikilawyering, broadly interpreted. It goes on. In my opinion, Betacommand has been set up for failure. I'm quite confident that before the end of this year, he'll be permanently banned from the project with a "See, we tried to allow him back, but gosh golly gee, it just didn't work out. So sad." The onus is on ArbCom to create a situation that is in the best interests of the project where Betacommand can come back. That isn't the case here. Drama has already erupted and will continue to do so. The disrupting factor here isn't Betacommand, but ArbCom for creating such an absurd situation. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:56, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
To be honest, I don't think I'd have any problems sticking to them, nor would hundreds of other editors I know. The essence is low-key, non-controversial, editing until he earns some trust back. He hasn't been set up for failure, as you put it, and many people would find that suggestion offensive. Roger Daviestalk19:13, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Then find it offensive. I'm not interested, frankly. The terms have serious problems and there will be continued drama. We've already seen one outcropping of it within 48 hours of his ban being lifted. I understand you find yourself unmotivated to do anything about it. Fair enough. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:37, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
The next time there is a ban appeal discussion, you can offer suggested wording if you didn't this time. New ideas are always welcome.
I know this is none of my business but I agree with Hammersoft on some of his or her points and I would probably not edit anymore (perhaps learnign Chinese or something) but thats me, although I really don't know the situation or Betacommand I would like to suggest that userpage edits at least not count towards the 4 edits in ten minute count. --Kumioko (talk) 01:48, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
To Hammersoft and Kumioko
Here's the background to this:
Betacommand's previous appeal in April 2009 was resoundingly rejected by the community.
In late June, he approached ArbCom with a more stringent package of restrictions, including the edit throttle (almost exactly as is) and the provision about "blatant vandalism", in an effort to overcome the resistance to unbanning him.
By agreement of Betacommand, Arbcom initiated a week-long discussion at WT:AC/N#Ban appeal: Betacommand to get community feedback. This included a draft of the restrictions. The consensus was in support of the draft.
Mindful of the discussion, ArbCom by motion suspended the ban subject to the restrictions.
As this is a committee, not individual, decision, I cannot waive or modify the terms.
I am not authorised to post warnings on behalf of the committee without the consent of the committee.
This is pretty much a done deal but, as FloNight says, you are very welcome to participate in the discussins of future ban appeals at WT:AC/N or indeed to raise your present concerns there.
I may be misreading the situation but, because of Betacommand's history of wikilawyering, I don't believe there will be consensus either in the community or on the committee for much relaxation/modification.
A prior appeal being rejected might have bearing on whether to grant this appeal, but now that the appeal has been granted it is a non sequitur.
I don't disagree with the edit throttle. The problem is how ArbCom should be handling the situation vis-a-vis the rest of the community when Betacommand, being human, accidentally goes over. Since ArbCom hasn't taken a stance on this, it's setting Betacommand up for failure by way of the community being given carte blanche to go after him with pitchforks and tar.
Though consensus was achieved on the draft, it does not make it perfect. It can and should be improved.
I'm not asking you to waive or modify the terms. Since you were the one informing Betacommand of the result of the ban appeal, I thought it appropriate to ask you to communicate back to the committee. *I* certainly don't have access to the mailing list.
You're not authorized to post warnings, but you can consult with the committee and generate an additional response to the ban being waived.
That something is a done deal does not mean it can not be improved. Don't let bureaucracy stand in the way of improving things. It isn't written in stone anywhere, anymore than Betacommand's ban was written in stone. It can and should be modified in the best interests of the project.
I'm not looking for relaxation. Actually, I'm looking for more objective (and thus more strict) measures, while equally asking that the community at large be told that minor infractions are not a reason to block Betacommand, and such infractions should be reported to the ArbCom. As is, Beta was blocked for a SINGLE edit, and a huge amount of drama was created because the ArbCom has so far failed in this area.
ArbCom has done a wonderful job in recognizing the serious detriment to the project that Betacommand has been at times. ArbCom has utterly failed to understand the community's role in making the situation with regards to him far worse than it ever had to be, and has failed to recognize the ongoing nature of the hatred that exists for him. You grant the waiver of the ban, but then fail to address the latter, very serious issue. How do you manage the community response to the ban being waived? I'm willing to bet that question wasn't even asked. This solution to waiving the ban is half baked, at best. WHEN the drama erupts, ArbCom will be directly to blame for much of it. You can and should do better. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:22, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
There are checks and balances on blocks at WP:ANI and WP:AE; Betacommand has two admin mentors who can unblock as they see fit or raise any matter anywhere on Betacommand's behalf; ArbCom has a watching brief. I do understand the distaste that some editors have for him and if they step out of line, they can be dealt with through the normal channels. The situation is much less fraught than you portray it. Roger Daviestalk08:33, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi Roger, I was wondering if you could offer more details on the RfC talk page about how this Council came to be formed, why these particular people were invited, and by whom. You said when you stood for election that you would, "use [your] position on the Arbitration Committee to work for greater transparency [and] a minimum of secrecy ..." I also remember you leaving me a very nice note assuring me of your integrity, and it was particularly appreciated because at that point my vote was not going to make any difference, yet still you went to the trouble. This situation has caused considerable concern. It is damaging the ArbCom and people's trust in it, which is particularly unfair to the members who didn't want the Council. Transparency would go a long way to healing the situation. SlimVirgintalk|contribs04:30, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi SlimVirgin: I remember our discussions well and am still as wedded to greater transparency as I was then so I don't think I've let anyone down on that front :) However, I wasn't particularly involved in the setting up of this initiative so I'm not really the best person to provide a blow by blow account, especially in accurately summarising fragmented discussions that took places over weeks in two venues. Otherwise, in response to various requests, I have however just added a few agenda items to the WP:ACPD page so appropriate discussion can continue there. The consensus at the RfC is clearly in favour of some kind of body qand my view is that the WP:ACPD discussion continues without much (or any) ArbCom steering. I'm not personally in favour of abandoning the idea stillborn as the amount of recent focus has been very helpful and it would be best if this could be channeled into improvement of the thinktank, taking major criticisms into account, rather than starting afresh, with all the comcommitant delays and loss of impetus which that would entail. Roger Daviestalk13:44, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
The consensus at the RfC is firmly against this body, Roger: the particular membership, the way they were chosen, the involvement of the ArbCom, the fact that two ArbCom members wanted to sit on it, its remit, and the way it was foisted on the community. All separate issues, all bad ideas. Please abandon this, and start from scratch if you want to create a new one. No good can come of this now.
I'm disappointed that you won't give more information about how this was set up, and by whom. You may not have been particularly involved, but you do know, and you did stand on a transparency platform. SlimVirgintalk|contribs15:58, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Mrg issues again
Hi Roger, Mrg3105 has reappeared operating as User:Shattered Wikiglass and has just rather upset the order of things at List of Soviet Union divisions 1917-1945 by readding data to a main page that was previously the subject of a split, and of course is proclaiming that only his way of presenting things is right. If I revert, he just gets into revert wars. Would you like to take a look as an outside administrator, or would you point me toward another if you're busy with ArbCom etc? Thanks for your help, kind regards Buckshot06(prof) 12:37, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
The first step is probably to establish that the two accounts are operated by the same person. The best way to do this is to open a request for an investigation. If the accounts are operated by the same person, the new account would be a sanction-evading sock and automatically banned. This approach has the great advantage of being investigated and followed through by uninvolved admins. Roger Daviestalk17:33, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
What !@#$%^& sanction evading? I can edit using my IP if I want to and I don't need permission from Wikipedia for that. Its a free world thank God, and anyone can edit Wikipedia under any log in they want. Sockpuppet, shmockpuppet.....I don't even know what the word means! You go ahead and investigate your heart out Roger. If I want to edit Wikipedia, I will, and you know there is little you or anyone can do to stop me if I am determined enough. This is just typical of people with mentalities like that of "Buckshot06" who, when they can't actually prevail in making their case using logic and evidence opt out for eliminating the opposition by other "administrative" means. A "bag of tricks" like the one when I was entrapped into the idiotic Darwingian list that prevents people contributing by rigid thinkers. Good to see Buckshot has a new teacher, Piotrus :)--Shattered Wikiglass (talk) 22:19, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Good day to you good sir, I have a page of articles for creation relating to the Medal of Honor that I use for visibility over when a Medal of Honor recipient article is created and I wanted to add them to the Military History page of Articles for creation. Before I go adding 1000 or so to the list I wanted to ask you if it would be better to simply put a link to My page. --Kumioko (talk) 00:01, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
The recent issues with Kirill and Rlevese really bring home the point that while we're quick to criticize when arbcom does something wrong, we rarely thank you guys for the job you do. Sometimes I agree with what you do, sometimes I disagree, but I never doubt that you're doing what you think is right. I'm as guilty as anybody -- given the culture around this place I don't want it to look like I'm sucking up. But screw it, I'm going to say what I want. So: thanks Roger. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:39, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
I fully concur with SBHB - as a community we sometimes seem to excel at setting people up only to knock them down, and as it's often our best and brightest that step up to take on responsibility, the very editors we can't afford to lose are the ones that get the most aggravation. Although I tend not to spend too much time on the drama boards, I do monitor them and haven't seen a single reason to regret the votes I cast in the Arbcom election. Obviously I can only speak for myself, but my feeling is that complaints from the vocal minority are just par for the course; it's only if the silent majority start taking time off from article-building to make torches and sharpen pitchforks that you need to worry about the job you're doing ;) EyeSerenetalk08:58, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi Roger. Thanks for the advice. I am concerned that the AE page seems to think it is not the place for such appeals, but then no other forum seems to be appropriate either. We first tried ANI, with complete indifference from the admins, before putting in the request for clarification. Can this entire body of information be copied into AE, or do we need to start all over yet again? Wdford (talk) 17:09, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi roger,
I would also like to know the best place for such appeals as I have done my due diligence in appropriately finding such a place. As it turns out, the rule regarding the enforcement of Ancient Egyptian Race Controversy is as follows:
Enforcement by block 1) Should any user subject to an editing restriction violate that restriction, that user may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeated violations. After 5 blocks, the maximum block shall increase to one year. All blocks are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dbachmann#Log of blocks and bans. Passed 12 to 0, 19:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
You are banned from Ancient Egyptian race controversy and its talk page, per [1], for a period of six months for POV-pushing, adding unsourced content, and personal attacks. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 20:06, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Please note the time of the block. And please recognize that the individual administrator does not have the ability to violate the terms of enforcement. I am to be blocked for up to one week. Not six months. This is my first violation, of which itself I am still contesting without resolution. There is no doubt the enforcement code is clear. One week. When I contribute, if, any editor seeks further enforcement, for merely contributing within Wikipedia's and the article's policy, please assist in denying it, and of undoing any further action taken upon me (unless of course I violate any rules established by Wikipedia and/or the article's policy. Thank you. --Panehesy (talk) 19:52, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Improvement of bio articles on flying aces
I am currently revisiting my very first attempts at writing for Wikipedia, with the aim of improving the articles to the best of my ability. I find myself adding and correcting citations, as well as adding new info that may turn up. The aces whose bios I am writing are generally not the "stars" of World War I aviation; they are mid-ranking in their victory totals. The amount of internet information available is usually limited; so are my library resources.
Once I have taken the bios as far as I can go, I want to pass them on to someone with greater resources for finishing. I would like them all to be at least B Class, as I feel that is the minimum for true readability and usefulness.
Any suggestions that will further this aim would be welcome and appreciated.
Why did you let that guy out of his cage? Look at the fallout he is causing in less than 1 month after the ban was lifted? Nergaal (talk) 23:42, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
I've been contacted by the unit historian for 4th Supply Battalion, who has given me some information and an image to use for that article. However, it's not published anywhere but in the unit's records, which are not generally accessable to anyone not at the unit's headquarters. How would I be able to source this information in order to use it in the article? Would I be able to forward the email to OTRS and cite the ticket as a source? Or perhaps simply just cite "unit historian"? It would be a shame to be unable to use this history. Thanks in advance. bahamut0013wordsdeeds08:07, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Kurt Schneider showed on my watchlist, and upon investigation was found to be a shrink who shares a name with a WWI aviator. Does this signal a need for further disambiguation? If so, would you please commit such?
Georgejdorner (talk) 22:07, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Roger, I've recently found myself in conflict with a user due to some ownership and badfaith assumptions that galled me. My reaction to that was not perfect. However now I find this user is supposedly on arbcom restrictions (Arbcom overturned a community ban on him) that he is rather blatantly not following. What is the correct method to apporach things from in such circumstances? As it seems it might be a tad beyond WP:AE and I suspect a warning voice and a watchful eye will do a finer job than a hammer ever would. --Narson ~ Talk • 15:22, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Narson, I removed the quarrel from Talk:MyWikiBiz and asked the other editor to unwatch that page and do something else. Hopefully a word to the wise is sufficient. Editors should try to help each other behave better. JehochmanTalk16:33, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Thank you Jehochman. I apologise for my part in it, I should not have let him rile me (though I stand by my comments on the page itself, but I'll hold off on any edits for a few days) --Narson ~ Talk • 17:22, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi, would you please consider, provided you haven't already, my proposed motion 4? You seem anxious to get this case over with, that is understandable, but let's not allow the cost of haste to be injustice to one of Wikipedia's most venerable and best writers. Thank you,--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 21:32, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the welcome
I already thought WikiProject Military History was good, and then you give such an immediate welcome! I'm in awe of the work you guys do; definitely the best WikiProject around. I'll be watchlisting a number of the things you suggest and becoming active in the project. I guess I'll be seeing you around. Thanks. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 15:20, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Roger, the July contest has been scored and the top two point-scorers have received the appropriate awards. Does MILHIST give any award other than the notice in the newsletter for third place? (If so, it needs to be awarded to Parsecboy) I'm a bit confused as to where the newsletter blurb about the contest is (does it go in July's newsletter, or August's, or… ?), so the blurb has not been written. I'll be away on vacation until about 15 August, so I won't be able to complete that part of it. — Bellhalla (talk) 14:33, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
...Also, do you want to start the DYK award idea I proposed earlier? We could write a short piece on the new addition and inaugurate the process by issuing the awards for the DYK honor now. Just a thought. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:30, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm afraid there probably isn't sufficient consensus for that, Tom. I also have a couple of nagging concerns about this which I was going to raise if the idea was developed. I'll mentions them now, I think, on the /Coords page. Best, Roger Daviestalk15:23, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Essay Draft
Hi, I recently joined your MilitaryHistory project, and noticed you needed people to write essays. I wrote a very short one but I think it could still be useful to the project. I don't know what it would fall under, I think an appropriate title would be "Why we do what we do" or something along those lines. I look forward to contributing to this project, and will help out here and there. Oh here is my short essay draft link: User:Burningview/essay draftBurningview (talk) 18:38, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes, some very interesting thoughts there that could use expansion. Have you looked at what philosphers say about war and history? That might be fruitful. The ideal would be three to four paragraphs. If you can do this, it would be a good over-view piece for The Academy. Roger Daviestalk18:45, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I could expand it more, an overview is what I had in mind when I first thought of the idea. I'm thinking about branching it out more to include other ascpects. I'm also contemplating writing a motivation essay so to speak. Its for editors of this project who are merley spectators and not actively contribute much. Just some thoughts. Burningview (talk) 18:54, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
I think I'm about done with the essay. Since your the coordinator you can move it to whatever category you like in the academy. Burningview (talk) 17:57, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
I am fed up with CoM's continual fabrications about his being an advocate of NPOV. So I have taken that arbcom page off my watch list to avoid further temptation to call him on it when he lies about anything. Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots07:41, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Roger, could you also comment on this since you wrote it: User_talk:MBisanz#Free-Image_content_work. I'd like to know if those two reversions are a violation of his 0RR restriction on free image content. Also do you feel the edits should include all edits outside of his userspace, or just article edits?--Crossmr (talk) 01:56, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I am leaning towards a five day block. I will probably implement it tomorrow evening. Am I supposed to log it somewhere? MBisanztalk07:52, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
5 days? for a minimum of 5 violations of his editing restrictions by a user who has tried the patience of the community beyond the limit? A user who many demanded was on his very last super duper ultra chance?--Crossmr (talk) 08:39, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Well, by the terms arbcom gave me to enforce at [17], I am only permitted to block him for "short periods". I would generally define a block longer than a week as not short. I am not sure what should be done, Roger, advice? MBisanztalk08:58, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
*blinks*you're telling me that other than arbcom yanking the chain, there is absolutely no way he can get anything more than a "short" block? and there is no provision for the community to reinstate its ban if it sees fit?--Crossmr (talk) 10:09, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
I imagine the community could reblock him for a longer period. I am simply hesitent to do it myself since Arbcom made me promise to abide by my mentoring role in the unblock conditions and if I were to block for a long period of time, I would be violating it. MBisanztalk18:15, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
(od) My take is that these are not hanging offences and Betacommand's current editing is broadly a net positive. My attitude will change sharply if the editing throttle is serially disregarded or if he gets into the habit of reverting. For the moment, a reminder to stay on the straight and narrow with a short block is fine by me. Further infractions can (and should) be dealt with promptly by similar blocks. If the behaviour becomes persistent or egregious, then we need to look further at the situation. This should best be done at WP:AE. Roger Daviestalk20:35, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
I've reviewed his edits and agree that a 5 day block is the correct action to take for this minor violation of his editing restrictions. He is making loads of good contributions and addressing concerns when raised in a civil manner, so overall I don't see a severe problem that would warrant more drastic measures. FloNight♥♥♥20:47, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
If everyone agrees with 5 days that is fine, but I still haven't gotten a clear answer on what is covered as part of "free image content work" does that include image work in articles or only in regards to licensing on the image pages?--Crossmr (talk) 01:22, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the welcome - quick question
I'm new to Wikipedia as well, so I was wondering how I would go about making a suggestion to change the nomenclature used for a group of weapons, to match the original spelling? Christian Ankerstjerne (talk) 11:05, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Well it took less than a month, and already the witch hunters are out, as I predicted. See User_talk:MBisanz#Edit_throttle. Betacommand has now been blocked for five days for exceeding his self imposed edit throttle. In two cases, he "exceeded" it because he reverted himself. In all cases, the vast majority of his edits have stood unreverted because they were good image finds on Commons that he helpfully put into articles.
And who is leading this charge? None other than User:Crossmr who has been working against User:Betacommand for at least a year and a half now (see this). He was heavily (and I mean HEAVILY) involved in efforts in July and August of 2008 to get him kicked off the project (sample), and again in January of 2009 (sample 1,sample 2).
Despite his vigor, Crossmr's analysis is flagrantly wrong. The second series of edits where he claimed Betacommand exceeded 4 in 10 minutes is false. The 5th edit was in the 11th minute (3:29 first,3:39 fifth. The third series of edits, Betacommands adds an image then realizes his mistake in the image and removes it a minute later. Some common sense please? No, of course not. It COUNTS! Onwards in the same series of edits, Betacommand adds another image to another article, then realizes it's not displaying correctly so he fixes it. In both cases Betacommand made an error in the initial edit that could have been fixed with a "show preview" step, and avoided the second edits...but common sense should have prevailed here and it should have been viewed as a single edit. In the fifth series, another post then reversion, followed by 4 edits under the 10 minutes.
Furthermore, in each of the cases Crossmr cites (most of which are common sense wrong), it's 5 and 6 edits in 10 minutes. It's not as if Betacommand blew up and did 30 edits in 10 minutes. He barely eeked over the limit.
Calling for Betacommand's head on a platter every time he makes the slightest error is absolutely wrong. Crossmr wants his head on a platter, as is blatantly obvious from a dizzying array of comments from him (see August 8 comment). It isn't common sense prevailing here, nor is it in any respect fair to Betacommand, who even as you acknowledge "is broadly a net positive" [18]. Worse, when Betacommand develops a tool to help prevent himself from exceeding 4 edits in 10 minutes, Crossmr goes after him over a ban on using scripts [19]. This is absurd!!!
Betacommand is human. He was given the unban with restrictions he proposed and agreed to by the ArbCom. He wasn't freed from a cell to march him to a guillotine. Either this is a fair chance for him to prove his worth to the project or it isn't. If it isn't, just permanently ban him now and be done with it. If it is a fair chance, then some corrective action towards Crossmr is in order, to the point of urging him to use some common sense with respect to Betacommand, and failing that to stop monitoring his edits. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:30, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
You might want to try reading WP:AGF as it seems you've forgotten yourself. already the witch hunters are out and WP:NPA, you seem to have gotten yourself quite worked up. I'm no the only one who is shocked that betacommand is being given yet another upteen millionth chance. There were several who spoke out about it and probably plenty more who didn't even know about it. I only found out because I was on a wikibreak when it happened and came back and was mystified to see betacommand posting on AN. Betacommand has had far too many chances so yes, his slightest misstep is important. As we've repeatedly said if this was any other user they'd have been buried and forgotten about long ago. In all cases, the vast majority of his edits have stood unreverted This is completely irrelevant to his editing restrictions. I don't see any exception that says if people don't revert him he's allowed to exceed 4 edits per 10 minutes.
Calling for Betacommand's head on a platter every time he makes the slightest error is absolutely wrong. Expressing disbelief in a course of action as it seems different from the tone set out in the conditions of the ban being lifted isn't calling for his head on a platter.
I also never went after him for a ban on using scripts. If you want to complain about misrepresentation you might want to start with yourself. I said his solution sounded ominously like a script and I was hoping he'd clarified further, which he did. I never once said ban him for it. For all I knew at the time betacommand was going to use some script to schedule his edits so that he was going to make exactly 4 edits every 10 minutes. Given his past history that isn't unreasonable to worry about. I also said that I didn't buy the explanation that he "misunderstood" that he wasn't allowed to use twinkle, but never once said he should be banned for using scripts.
He barely eeked over the limit. which is still over the limit. I didn't actually monitor them. What happened was I saw him post on AN, I visited his talk page and noticed a user mistaking him for a bot which set off a red flag. I then looked at his contributions. After noticing a violation of his editing restrictions I checked his edits as the mentors apparently hadn't done that. When it was raised at the mentors page one agreed there was a problem. I also didn't take it to AN/I I followed the procedure, since then I haven't checked a single edit of his, nor do I plan to continue to. I'm still waiting for clarification on one of his conditions because frankly I think trying to work himself into the fringes of a dispute over a free image and doing two reversions on those images is a violation of that restriction. This is exactly the same kind of behaviour that got him banned before. The same with his assertion that something was vandalism which wasn't. I wasn't the only one who picked up on that.
error in the initial edit that could have been fixed with a "show preview" step Betacommand has often been criticized for not properly considering his edits in the past. In fact some of his previous restrictions revolved around making sure he properly considered all of his edits (hence the ban on scripts). Should I be calling for your head on a platter for your misrepresentations, personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith here or are we just going to move on? In fact if I could get clarification on the questions I asked about his editing restrictions (which edits should count towards his limit, what exactly is free content image work) and those were made really clear for betacommand, I'd support an unblock.--Crossmr (talk) 02:26, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Frankly, I haven't read the above and have no intention of doing so. Your actions speak for themselves. At any rate, I wasn't addressing you. --Hammersoft (talk) 04:29, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
And now we have people questioning if his off-en.wikipedia activities constitute a violation of his community un-ban. ArbCom's remit covers en.wikipedia. It covers nothing else. Betacommand's work on the toolserver is outside of the jurisdiction of the local ArbCom here. Betacommand conducted no edits in support of the toolserver work he did, made no mention of it here, in fact did nothing at all here related to it. Yet, people are after him because of his toolserver work. The witch hunt goes on. What's next? People following him around in public to see if he talks about non-free content? People monitoring his edits on Commons [20] to see if he violated his edit throttle? People wanting to ban him here because he's violating the prohibition on operating bots? He has one on Commons you know [21]. ArbCom is failing in its responsibilities to keep a lid on this situation. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:09, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Thankyou for your quick response to use of my real identity by User:Mrg3105. I appreciate your speedy work; when I want to link my personal relaxation with my professional identity, I'd like to pick the timing!! Would you be able to dump the recent deleted additions of List of infantry divisions of the Soviet Union 1917–1957 at any appropriate scratch page in my userspace? Although he's extremely annoying and now starting to break rules seriously, he's adding useful information, which I may be able to reformat for inclusion. Thanks again very much Buckshot06(prof) 02:48, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
to go and delete all that information I added....but at least I know what the D stands for....
until now I just played around but still added very much useful information despite the way I have been treated by yourself, Roger and that asshole Colin, but, since you used your administrator access to vandalise what I had added, I can also play this game....and now I know why people vandalise Wikipedia...at least some people like myself --138.130.71.47 (talk) 03:47, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Will this be the editorial, Rog, or did you have something else to go there? I just ask because I've had something in mind re. approaching the review process for less experienced editors but would need some time to knock up and get a quick peer review so was planning to complete and offer it for next month's, unless you're at a serious loose end for this one... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:28, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I thought so seeing as the graph is done and the article is more or less ready to roll. Yours will be very welcome next month :) Roger Daviestalk05:31, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
In case you miss this in your watchlist: I have corrected the start date for the coordinator nomination period from "Saturday 7 September" to "Saturday 5 September". I made the fix in the newsletter and in the announcement at WT:MILHIST; is there anywhere else? Hope all is well with you :) Maralia (talk) 15:16, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Thank you very much for picking that up, Maralia. Everything is very well (I'm on holiday in Sunny Provence) but I do have connection problems, especially during the day/evening, thanks to a broadband "upgrade" the other week. Is all well with you? Roger Daviestalk17:31, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
A-Class Medal Question
Hello. Last month you awarded me an A-class medal for promoting three articles: 7th Infantry Division (United States), 24th Infantry Division (United States) and 45th Infantry Division (United States). However, the ACR for the 45th Infantry Division was reopened shortly afterwards and has recently been closed with no consensus, effectively undoing the third successful ACR. However, I recently promoted a fourth article, I Corps (United States). Just wanted to know if my A-class medal should be ammended to say that it is for the 7th, 24th, and I Corps, instead of the 45th. It's also messed up my Eligibility tracking because now I have 4 A-class articles to my name when I really only have three. Sorry to make such an annoying situation! —Ed!(talk)13:19, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for sorting it out, Woody! I'm glad it's fixed. Yes, Provence was indeed sunny and lovely though I got home yesterday to find we'd been the victims of an attempted break-in. What with a 1000-mile drive, an internet breakdown, and a complete electricity blackout for three hours last night, it's been an interesting weekend :) Roger Daviestalk04:50, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Nation of Ownership
In some of the articles it is not made clear to which nation the subject belongs. I would expect that to be indicated in the title.
This point applies to pages in other topics, too. John C Kay (talk) 20:34, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
File copyright problem with File:MILHIST FAC DATA.png
File Copyright problem
Thank you for uploading File:MILHIST FAC DATA.png. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.
Seems rather daft to tag this, Roger. I tried to add some kind of 'free' copyright license tag, but frankly after five minutes searching through them, I'm not even sure which area of copyright tags is the correct once, let alone the correct tag. Skinny87 (talk) 08:40, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Hello Roger. A generalised mistake don't become a truth. There were proofs on french Alfred Heurteaux article justifying the E in the name. Two of them are documents of the time :
Thanks for your comments and for putting the picture of Heurteaux on Commons (I've added it to the English article). I did look at the sources: it's funny how the spelling has changed over time. Here, we go with the version used by the preponderance of reliable sources, I guess. Incidentally, you must have been very pleased to get a message from his great grandson :) Roger Daviestalk11:24, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Elections
Honestly, Roger, I'm more likely to resign from the project than run for anything. MILHIST has been diligent about taking credit for my work, but basically never helps with it. And for what it's worth, the Library of Congress credits me by name in its updated bibliographic record of the Wounded Knee Massacre aftermath. The Montréal Museum of Fine Art incorporates the discovery into its official program notes for a photography exhibit. And I still have two potentially publishable discoveries that are sitting unused because we haven't found anyone with the credentials to pursue them. Durova31222:23, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi Durova. We often don't get credit for what we do. But we do know that we helped improve things. It must make you proud that these esteemed organizations have acknowledged you. Well done! :) Wallie (talk) 03:22, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Sorry I am to here that we have taken credit for your work. I apologize for this, as it was surely not our intention to deprive such an outstanding editor of due credit. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:26, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
That's not the direction intended, fellas. To put the matter another way, compare to the baseball project. After several people assisted with background research for portraits of Ty Cobb and Babe Ruth, one of the regulars requested coaching. We've collaborated on restorations for the portraits of Ed Walsh and Walter Johnson. On the strength of that I've committed to a featured portal drive. As the collection grows to portfolio size we're making plans to approach the Hall of Fame in Cooperstown and ask them for historic media donations. Over in Europe, the Tropenmuseum has announced a physical space exhibit in collaboration with the WMF Netherlands chapter. I'm the technical and creative lead for the media portion of that project. With growing commitments in other areas, things are approaching the point where it becomes impossible to continue prioritizing MILHIST.
A period Confederate map for the first major land battle of the American Civil War, in manuscript, with notations on troop strength as they were known at the time.
We could have restored period maps for nearly every major battle of the American Revolution and American Civil War; if we built upon that by establishing contact with other national archives then that sort of coverage could globalize. But I've never had the time to accomplish that much alone; gave samples in the hope that people would see what was possible. This year on the sixty-fifth anniversary of D-Day, Wikipedia's main page ran a restored copy of the official US Twelfth Army position map from the close of D-Day. The cleanup took a week to complete, but it felt good to provide while some of the men who fought there are still alive to see it. But at one of the articles the primary editor had taken the map down and expressed a preference for red and blue schematics. It's reaching the level where I might as well withdraw from the project formally; the principal effect of staying is a misleading impression that collaboration is happening. Durova31217:35, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, it's been two days and Roger has been editing, yet no reply from him. Not exactly encouraging. Put it this way, Roger. Look at the difference. If you walked a mile in these moccasins, which direction would you be headed? Durova31421:08, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
I assume you'd head wherever you could best do whatever you enjoy doing, no? It's certainly not our place to tell you otherwise.
It's good to see that the baseball project has some editors interested in image restoration, and it's regrettable that military history, by all appearances, does not; but there's really nothing to be done for it—if the interest isn't there, then the interest simply isn't there. I'm sorry that we're unable to be of more use to you. Kirill[talk][pf]04:22, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Kirill, might as well cut to the chase. That's a nonanswer if there's ever been one, and there wasn't any need to post it. In terms of total featured content contributions you're talking to the most prolific editor MILHIST has ever seen. I've been with the project nearly four years and am the only one who's gotten offsite press coverage for project-related work. If the subtext is we'd rather not have you anyway; toddle on then the message is coveyed equally well with silence. If that's not the intended message, then Roger could answer himself? Durova31404:55, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Please, you don't need to remind me of how long you've been with the project; I remember helping you put infoboxes on the Joan of Arc battle articles back in 2005. ;-)
As for my response, it wasn't intended to be a substantive "answer", but merely an acknowledgement of our failure to assist you. I don't have an answer to the problem itself; as I said, if there aren't any editors who'd be interested in learning image restoration—and, based on the lack of response to your many inquiries on the matter, that seems to be the case—then I don't know of anything that I can do to cause them to appear. I'd be happy to investigate whatever the images depict, if it's an area that I'm familiar with—and no doubt most other editors would feel likewise—but I can't really do anything to help with the actual restoration itself.
I'd much rather you not "toddle on", in other words; but, given the circumstances, I can't really offer a convincing argument for why you'd want to keep helping us as you have. Kirill[talk][pf]05:21, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Durova, the way things are on Wikipedia, officeholders/functionaries, WikiProject leaders informal/formal self-styled or just adopted by the populace, particularly Wikiproject leaders tend to get acclaim for FAs etc from the WikiProject, regardless of whether they or their policies are responsible for the WikiProject's success. However they somehow tend to not get blamed if a fight breaks out within the project, even if they just sit on the fence and refuse to try and help clean up the brawl. That's just the mindset of a lot of people on Wiki, for whatever reason, people with hats tend to get an illogically disproprtionate share of credit and lack of blame, due to some adulatory culture (maybe brown nosing). Some try to manoevre themselves into the landscape if there is a goldmine in the vicinity, and promote themselves as the reason for the success, and slink off if there is trouble or try and find a scapegoat, others don't. If you think the leadership of some area is rotten, and/or that you think that they're unfairly making a free lunch out of you, then the only thing you can do is to walk out. As for people giving barnstars and all that, the real test is what support is given when there is a dispute or a ruckus. I know some folks have been disappointed because they get given barnstars, but when there is a fight, their "guru"s wouldn't lift a finger. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 05:44, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
It's a wonder that everyone seems to be posting here except Roger. What fight has broken out? (looks around, sees nothing) Decided months ago to reevaluate the commitment to MILHIST. Giving things until the end of the year; not making any rushed decision. Sooner or later there comes an occasion to post onsite what good friends already know. Of course the reconsideration was delayed a long time out of good faith: not many people do this type of editing and a substantial portion of the community mistakenly supposes it's accomplished in ten minutes in Photoshop. But it's already getting to where if MILHIST turns around the project may have to wait in line behind WMF Netherlands, the Tropenmuseum, and the baseball project. So it's time to say where things stand, see whether this situation is worth improving. Of course there was also the option of walking away quietly. But would that be fair? One learns a lot through candor, not the least of which is who else is willing to get real. Durova31406:30, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry, Durova, my response has been slow but I've had my hands full with unexpected real life things over the last few days.
While I regret that you feel undervalued, I'm not sure what, practically, can be done about it. Essentially, WikiProjects provide frameworks for facilitating collaborations of people with similar interests and enthusiasms. By any measure, Milhist is a successful and friendly environment for achieving this, where at any given moment dozens of collaborations of varying degrees of intricacy are underway, with only very rarely a hint of drama. Unfortunately, the interest doesn't seem to extend much into image work, where among other things we have problems with map production.
Thinking about your comparison of Baseball and Milhist, this may simply be down to the very different nature of the wikiprojects. Baseball is about people playing a game, and its time-scope is closely contemporaneous with photography. In contrast, Milhist is often about things (weapons, planes, ships, battles) rather than about individuals, spans the globe and thousands of years, and accordingly has much more fractured membership. It may simply be that Baseball is a better fit for image restoration than Milhist. It would be very interesting to see image restoration focused on star Milhist names (really well-known generals, for instance) generated more collaboration than respring maps. Thoughts? Roger Daviestalk17:01, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Nominations open for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election
Thanks for letting me know. I did notice it earlier, but it's good to get confirmation. I will definitely be voting, but not running. Are you yourself eligible to run again for project coordinater and will you be doing so? MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 13:00, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
←Roger, have you decided to run for another term? There is less than 24 hours to go in the nomination period and you still haven't indicated a yes/no answer to the table here. You know we all respect you either way, plus you can probably guess that an emeritus position would be waiting for you if you decided not to run again (but I hope you do). -MBK00405:57, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Do you need a coordinator or someone to help with vandalism etc.? As you can see from my record (in my talk page's archives) I don't mind making a name for myself or causing temper on both sides! If you need anyone to take the risks I don't mind doing it!
This message is being sent to all non-recused arbitrators.
I have sent a message to the Arbitration Committee at the amendment page, that mentions what I feel that I need to say to ArbCom before the ban takes effect.
Roger, how could you not be standing for re-election???? You are the backbone and driving force of the entire WikiProject! There are very few I could see being able to run the show even half as well as you do. I know that I, for one, will sorely lament the loss of yourself from a coord position. Are you sure you couldn't reconsider? Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 07:06, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Roger, as well as echoing the above comment, I'd like to thank you for your excellent leadership and many outstanding contributions since last February. I hope that you'd consider taking a Coordinator emeritus role like Kirill. Nick-D (talk) 07:41, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
...Wow. I did not see this coming. I figured you would run for at least 1 more term before hanging up your spurs. Would you like for us to introduce a motion to promote you to emeritus, or would you prefer not to be promoted to the position of emeritus? TomStar81 (Talk) 08:23, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
What they've said. Your decision is yours and I'm sure hasn't been made lightly, but I hope you can still find the time to drop by every now and then. Your calm words of wisdom and insight are a great asset to us all. EyeSerenetalk09:11, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Geez, I go off for a day at the beach with the family and look what happens - yes, wot they all said from "hope you'll reconsider" to "the decision is yours" and everything in between...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:26, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm speechless. It has been an absolute honour to serve as a coordinator under your leadership for the last year. I have enjoyed every second of it. Like EyeSerene, I sincerely hope that you will continue to drop by often to offer your superb and thoughtful insight on the issues plaguing MilHist. Cam(Chat)23:17, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for all the very generous comments. Although I am not running again, I have no plans to leave MILHIST as, in truth, it represents for me all that is best in Wikipedia. In response to Tom's question, I would be delighted to assume an emeritus role if one were offered. Thank you all, once again. It has been both a pleasure and a privilege to serve the project alongside you. Roger Daviestalk18:05, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
I can't speak for Roger, but it looks good advice to me. If you feel like writing anything more, please do! We can always worry about the organisation of the material into coherent courses once the content (in whatever form) is written. Your input is much appreciated ;) EyeSerenetalk14:26, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Good advice, WT. Perhaps rename it to "Why images are important"? I've just added some more image-related stuff as "Specialist courses". These could be separate from the overview articles for beginners, intermediate and advanced you suggest and could go into considerably more detail. Perhaps, ES, we could do something similar for copyediting? (Hint, hint.) Roger Daviestalk04:43, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Our copyeditors have been of limited help in the past. The only reliable copyeditor I know are User:AnnaFrance and User:SGGH. She's currently on wikibreak. I'll contact her to write on this topic as soon as she's back.
It would also be a good idea to contact Sandy to write about reviewing FAC. Sure, I can help her, but she's definetly more knowledgeable and can recruit other knowledgeable editors to write on special issues.
That leads me to a general suggestion to invite members who excell in a field to write about it in the academy. That keeps the individual workload low and we get good input. Btw it's certainly a great honour. Wandalstouring (talk) 09:31, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
The general shortage of Milhist copyeditors is a perennial problem. (The best way to get an actual copyedit done is to ask copyeditors direct on their talk pages.) We tried to address it by setting a copyediting section in the Logistics dept. This had only limited success so I contacted the entire League of Copyeditors membership list just after LOCE folded to recruit more. I think Anna France was one of the few who came actually signed up, though many expressed their support in principle.
I approached a few specialists a couple of months back. Awadewit, for instance, wrote the excellent Plagiarism and how to avoid it article for us and Tony1, one of the encyclopedia's best copyeditors, has been working on copyediting essentials (though he needs a nudge to get it finished). Otherwise, as regards FAC, I believe YellowMonkey is doing something (I'd be hesitant to ask SG as she always has so much on her plate). Perhaps, before contacting more, we should wait until the drive ends and then consolidate the sections into coherent articles; this, in itself, will be a big job.
One concern that has been expressed about the Academy is the very low number of hits the content is currently attracting. As with all these things, a serious consideration is whether the huge amount of time required to generate really excellent content is going to be repaid by the use it's put to. Roger Daviestalk12:47, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
You don't need to read the academy stuff again and again. We will have less than a hundred people voting in the coordinator election. I count them to be the active core of the project. How many of these are veterans who don't need advice for what they've chosen to do? But there will always be newbees who need some guidance on how to do things. Our academy is in this respect more an investment in quality than quantity because it teaches a few the best methods. Wandalstouring (talk) 15:43, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Hint taken Roger, though I don't want to step on Tony's or anyone's toes (which is why, when I noticed you'd asked specific editors, I left that course alone). Regarding the hits, as you say the material still needs a huge amount of work - not so much in actual content as in organisation and presentation - so perhaps once it's been polished it will be more generally useful. In fact, I hope that its utility will spread well beyond our small corner of Wikipedia and become a well-regarded resource for everyone. EyeSerenetalk16:11, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
PS: Given the generally sceptical/hostile environment at RfA, your friend's nomination will probably need a lot of work if it is to succeed. I say this because many people become understandably demoralised by a failed RfA, especially when opposers are harsh in their comments. Roger Daviestalk13:00, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
I decided to break off my RfA some years ago because of the hostility that resulted in a MILHIST against wiki battle, so yes, I know what you're talking about. He has decided on his own that he wants to run for adminship and all I want is that he gets a fair chance. Wandalstouring (talk) 15:43, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Werner Moelders FAC
I'm concerned Werner Mölders won't make it through FAC. It only has two reviews (supports), mine and JN, and there were initially a lot of problems with it. Mr. Bee is not a native English speaker, but the article is in good shape now. I don't know where else to post to get the project people on top of this. Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:27, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
I was thinking along the same lines and wondering what to do to get more eyes over the article. Thanks to you both for taking the initiative! JN46620:00, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
A user who edits socionics named Tcaudilllg is threatening to go to arbcom to get his sole way with the socionics article. He seems to be avoiding posting credible sources and has resorted to telling white lies, such as saying that leigitimate portions and methods in the theory are 'fringe', in order to remove information he does not want in the article and get only what he wants in the article. He has also resorted to a number of personal attacks when he does not get his way with the article. He has also been makeing insistance reverts to the article that are unnecessary and for reasons that are insufficent for wikipedias standards, such as using making 'personal attacks' against another editor as a reason to remove articles in the headline. He has also been removing information that is sufficently sourced according to wikipedias standards.
I had a brief look through last night but wasn't able to make any edits because of the software updates. It seemed as if the content is mostly there, however I would make a few stylistic changes. I'll take a more detailed look this evening and then provide some more opinion. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 07:50, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi! I know you're working on a MilHist guide to image editing. I've just finished a fairly comprehensive discussion of sound editing. It's at Wikipedia:Wikivoices/Episode_48. I'm thinking of following it up later with a sequel that uses an easier-to-restore file, so that I can revisit part II in a bit more detail (and with a more successful result), and possibly a part on sources of images, copyright, and Featured Sounds. I have used the CC-by license for the podcast part, if that's going to cause any problems, let me know and I'll relicense.
We do have numerous MilHist related featured sounds, including several songs, such as "The Battle Hymn of the Republic", "Le régiment de Sambre et Meuse", "Oh! How I Hate to Get Up in the Morning", "– When Johnny Comes Marching Home", and a couple Spanish Civil War songs, amongst numerous others. We also have directly historical material, such as Himmler's Posen speech, Neville Chamberlain's declaration of war, Rooseveldt's Day of Infamy speech, Truman announcing the surrender of Germany, also Japan; "Ich bin ein Berliner and "Tear down this wall" (Cold war counts, right?); Ford's Vietnam clemancy remarks, Bush's address to the nation after September 11 - You get the idea. Shoemaker's HolidayOver 206 FCs served22:05, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Great! Do you have time please to write a paragraph or two of introduction, perhaps summarising what the soud file contains, here? It would be greatly appreciated if you could. Roger Daviestalk01:46, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
These are simplicity itself to make. You merely add <ref> and </ref> before and after the text you wish to use as the reference. For example, if you wish to cite page 212 of a book by Harper, published in 1970, you type: <ref>Harper (1970), p 212.</ref>.
Using one reference several times
If you're going cite, say, "Harper (1970), p 212", two or three times, you start by creating a special type of multi-ref for it and giving it a unique name, like, "Harper212" or whatever. These multi-refs are the ones that appear as:
^a b c Harper (1970), p 212
You start by deciding on a unique name for the multi-ref. Using author name and page number, with no spaces, is popular as it's easy to see what it refers to. If you wish to use spaces in the ref name, you need to enclose it double quotes (for example, <ref name="Harper 212">. Otherwise, you build up the multi-ref in a three-step process by typing:
1 <ref name=Harper212> (comment: this creates the name tag)
2 <ref name=Harper212> Harper (2002), p 212 (comment: this adds the ref material to appear in the sources section)
3 <ref name=Harper212> Harper (2002), p 212 </ref> (comment: this "closes" the ref).
You use the "full" version above the first time you cite the book.
To cite the same source elsewhere in the article, you create a shortened version and repeat it as necessary
4 <ref name=Harper212/> (Comment: this is just adding a "/" before the first ">".)
To create a new multi-ref, say for Harper p234, you repeat the process above, modifying the ref name and the ref material accordingly. Example: <ref name=Harper234> Harper (2002), p 234 </ref>
That's the basics. You can make these quite sophisiticated by nesting other strings within them. Does this answer it?
Thanks for the message, Ill try to put what I know to work (finally) and help out. Im pretty good at the Eastern Front (along with the Balkans) and Italy. I also have several books for sources like the "Rise and fall of the third Reich" Anyway, see ya later!--ColdplayExpert23:02, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks & a request!
Thanks for your service as coordinator on WPr Military History for the last six months. Great job, the Wikiproject has matured some more. Lots more needs to be done though.
Would you consider giving a para here on what you planned to do, what you could achieve, what gave you happiness, what irritated you and your suggestions for the road ahead to the new team?
I'm a bit pressed for time today but here's the draft statement I was working on for the election. This pretty much covers "what gave me happiness":
I have been Milhist lead coordinator for eighteen months, and before that was an assistant coordinator for six months.
Worked on decentralising the project's management structure by empowering the coordinators and introducing task force adoption by coordinators;
Revamped, renamed and edited the Milhist newspaper, The Bugle;
Set up, recruited for, and administered three large Milhist drives (T&A07, BCAD and T&A08). The key innovative element was the worklist, which I designed and developed with Kirill, which has been much copied since.
Set up and moderated post-drive workshops, to get feedback for fine-tuning and improving subsequent drives.
Worked on creating an atmosphere where Featured and A-Class Articles flourish (194 A-Class articles today as against 69 in Jan 2008; 396 featured articles today compared with 206 in Jan 2008).
On the subject of elections, I'll assume you'll go through tomorrow and do your usual cadre of supports. Juliancolton is one vote away from joining the coordinator team, and I'd really hate to see him get so close and yet miss it. Cam(Chat)05:26, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Operation Majestic Titan and India
Hi Roger, Since Operation Majestic Titan is on, I was wondering if it is possible to get some article on the Battleships built in India before the British Raj. I believe that if you know someone with a good source on Kanhoji Angre vs EAst India company or Saamoothiri vs Portuguese article can be written.
--Vinay84 (talk) 16:40, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Happily, this has been dealt with, I see. It is best to refer requests of this nature direct to the oversighters by email for urgent response (Oversight-l-at-lists.wikimedia.org). It is staffed 24/7 Thanks for the message. Roger Daviestalk01:00, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the MILHIST welcome, I have been active in the U.S. Military History Task Force for sometime now, and thought it was about time I add myself to the main page. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 11:57, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Good! We've talked about a TF welcome template, and sometimes update the main members' list from the TF list, but have never got round to automating it. Roger Daviestalk12:06, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Hmmm. It probably doesn't represent a global view of events. It is of course true that, in the late 19th/early 20th centuries, Western nations were engaged in imperialist adventures, with a view to grabbing influence, land, and trade, but it doesn't mean that this has to be threaded through the article. A paragraph or two of dispassionate background or context would do the job better. Perhaps more to the point, the article does need reliable sources to back up each of its claims and for each of the quotes scattered liberally in the text. Without going into it in detail that's my initial reaction anyway, speaking as a regular human being rather than as an arbitrator :) Roger Daviestalk13:01, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Roger, I'm guessing this might be a bit too narrow of a focus, but as I've been writing airborne warfare-related articles over the years, there have been a few things I've come up with to help me; sources to use or, more importantly, to avoid; the best and worst websites, probably ways of writing the articles themselves. User:Ranger Steve might know a few tips as well. Would an essay on 'How to write Airborne Warfare-related content' be possible, do you think? Skinny87 (talk) 21:42, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Coordinator Emeritus of the Military history WikiProject
We give the title Coordinator Emeritus to thee, Roger Davies, in the name of the Military history WikiProject. Having received this title from the project by ratification vote we hereby present you with these stars, and wish you a long and prosperous time in your new position. For the Military history Project, TomStar81 (Talk) 00:13, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
By order of the cooordinators of the Military history Project, you are hereby awarded the WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves in recognition of your outstanding leadership of the Military history WikiProject, including your introduction of the logistics department, your dedication to the Tag and Assess 2008 & B-class Assessment Drive efforts, and your astute advice and never-ending support and encouragement as both a coordinator and lead coordinator. For the coordinators, TomStar81 (Talk) 18:15, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for the Barnstar, always nice to get recognition. I have the original book that Williams research appears in (...and the entire Library of Wales database) so I'll get stuck in this week. Davies is an interseting character, there should be enough for a DYK. FruitMonkey (talk) 19:40, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
I write to you in your capacity as Coordinating Arbitrator to advise that a draft is under development. Your feedback and that of other arbitrators would be welcome. Tony(talk)05:55, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, Roger. I tried to locate a minimum-time-as-editor requirement, but apparently there is none. The three-years was a hunch that I left in to see what people thought, so it might be removed or changed, whatever people think. Tony(talk)07:09, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Hello. I was wondering if you would be willing to grant me the rollback permission. I am currently installing Huggle and upon reading it, I have found that having the rollback permission is highly useful and almost necessary with this program. Thanks very much, JhfireboyTalk16:13, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
I mentioned the idea long time ago, and it probably got lost in the shuffle, but has there been any consideration for the creation of a fourth alternate slot for non-arbitrators on AUSC? That is, the 4th place person is not an active member, but will become one in the event one of the other three needs to drop out.--Tznkai (talk) 19:20, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Yep, just doing it now. There was a slight hiatus, involving dinner, in between finishing the election and the announcements :) Roger Daviestalk
I think checkuser-l is a cross-wiki list. Might not be the ideal recipient for notices meant for en.wp checkusers, especially worded in quite that way ;) Other projects tend to be sensitive about that sort of thing. Nathan T 22:15, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, I don't know, (or care), whether you are right or wrong, but I MUCH prefer your wording to the original, and if you prefer your wording to mine, well, I can live with that. All I really care about is that somebody has improved upon the original rubbish. Thanks. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 15:03, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
I won't comment on the article itself as having edited it I'm involved but it would probably be a good idea to tone down the associated rhetoric here and elsewhere. Being outspoken is one thing; posting stuff that increasingly looks like personal attacks on Bryce is another. Perhaps concentrating on your tax returns is best: not only will it let this blow over but it will help you avoid the tax penalties you've been talking about :) Roger Daviestalk06:09, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Hello. On 13 June, you announced that Anonimu's ban was being suspended on four conditions. I believe his latest violation of point 4 ("you behave at all times impeccably") is so serious as to warrant a restoration of that ban. I will say nothing of his tendentiouseditsthatcontinuallyinterferewithmoreproductiveeditors'work. But I will mention this edit, because it crosses a very clear line.
First, a bit of context. There's a Romanian-language wiki (ER for short) from which I translated two articles a few weeks ago. I was completely unaware this was against their policy; I cleared up the matter with their founder; the articles were deleted; end of story. Except that Anonimu decided to show up on my talk page, unsolicited, as the "voice of conscience". The first two sentences of his message aren't really actionable, although they are condescending and smarmy (and ironic in their attempts to lecture me, since I've turned out vastly more content than he has). The third sentence begins to cross a line: I have some respect for the people at ER; they know how to write encyclopedic articles, even if not quite at our standards; and they're certainly not "the Romanian Conservapedia". And the fact that their article on the Universul newspaper doesn't mention its enthusiastic support for Romania's wartime regime doesn't imply the author meant to conceal anything; it may simply have been a function of the sources he had access to. I also resent the charge that I'd draw upon articles from a place that is as he portrays it.
Be that as it may, it's in his final sentence that Anonimu unambiguously violates his terms. He makes reference to the fact that I "used to claim" I don't let my "real-life political views" influence my editing. That's true. I still claim that; what's more, I practice it consistently. But the implication here is disgusting: it's that I'm a fascist admirer who edits in order to cover up darker aspects of Romanian history because of such views. I am emphatically not a fascist; I find much to abhor in Romania's wartime record; I have sought to detail that history fairly and fully; and I resent any charge to the contrary. These types of slanderous insinuations I find intolerable. In the four months since he was allowed back here, Anonimu has not shown himself an asset to the project, and far from being in a position to scold me about NPOV, he should not be editing here at all. This experiment has gone on long enough, I would submit. - BiruitorulTalk23:11, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Roger: To follow up on the discussion on Anonimu's talk page, I remain unconvinced that there has been a violation of the terms of the unban conditions. A discussion did follow the initial complaint in which additional evidence seems to have been submitted, but frankly no volunteer should be expected to read something of such excessive length. AGK10:18, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't really know you but have seen you around. Awadewit mentioned you as someone who might be able to help with copyediting. I've put the article up at peer review in the hope of pushing towards FAC later. I want this to be accessible to the general reader, with no prior knowledge about the diet, metabolism or epilepsy. I suspect it needs to have some grammatical bugs picked off and a bit of polish to help the prose shine.
I know copyediting can be very time consuming, so if you don't have time or inclination at present, then any overall comments would be useful. Many thanks, Colin°Talk12:50, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Science, I'm afraid, isn't really my forte but I could have a very general, very layman's look at it, in perhaps ten to fourteen days or so. If this is any use, please nag me nearer the time. Roger Daviestalk07:54, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Ping. I wonder if I could take you up on your offer. A "layman's look" is just what I need as I want it to be understandable and engaging for all readers. It is just a diet... no quantum physics here :-) OK, there's a bit of neurology at the end but I do explain it and I'm no neurologist myself so it can't be that hard.
There's a paragraph beginning "The biggest modern study..." that I've just reworked last night with additional material. It is understandable? Do you think I need to combine some of the percentages to simplify it? Have I got the grammar right and tense consistent? In terms of copyediting, from the history I see that Awadewit has gone through as far as Discontinuation. So perhaps the stuff after that is most in need of a critical eye and a red pen.
I'm picking on you since you happen to be the last person who edited the list at WP:OR of people on the Oversight team. No one updates the date; currently it says "accurate as of July 10". Should we just removed that date, or change the date every time someone updates the list? (Watching) - Dank (push to talk) 17:22, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Updating the date with the updated data seems easiest (though I expect it will get overlooked). I've just done this anyhow. Thanks for the reminder :) Roger Daviestalk18:21, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Request for a decision - Socionics arbitration between rmcnew and tcaudillig
Can you guys please hurry up and make a decision? This is just getting more and more rediculous the more it drags on and tcaullidig keeps talking loads of crap about me concerning things that happened outside of wikipedia and is now even claiming to have in his posession some supposed database of a website I owned and never gave him permission to have. I think he is just bullshitting about it or in the event he does have it may have obtained it illegally through some slight of hand methods and is now trying to blackmail me with it.
And also, I would be perfectly alright with receiveing a 3 month ban from wikipedia per my own request, as editing here gets sort of addictive and I think I should have a break from this place. Feel free to give tcaullldig a ban too for other reasons. He seems to have given wikipedia a couple already. Ad hominem attacks, insulting other editors, being uncooperative with other editors, and claiming to have illegially stolen an internet database, personal, and other information from specific editors with blackmail threats being legitimate reaons for that ban. This information against tcaulldig is all recorded and accessable from a talk page in the arbitration area. Thanks. --Rmcnew (talk) 16:16, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm inactive on cases at the moment so I can't help with the timescale, I'm afraid. You are better off raising it on the relevant arbitration talk page. Roger Daviestalk20:19, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Further to what Roger said above, I've posted here, and on the talk pages of the two parties. Rmcnew, can you please in future post to the case talk pages, or to my talk page if urgent, rather than to multiple arbitrators? I should have proposals up on the workshop soon, but need to review the new evidence. Carcharoth (talk) 06:07, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Rog, from memory we used to tally up content reviews and make awards every three months, so we're due for another round's worth (covering Jul-Sep) now. I'm happy to do some leg work on this but can you let me if there's a master tally progressively maintained somewhere, as with A-Class medals, or is it a matter of manually going through every review Jul-Sep? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:53, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
For the peer reviews, every person who makes a comment gets their own header, so if you go to the archive and cut and paste the TOC, that part is pretty easy. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 02:55, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Lord Roberts Barnstar of Accuracy
Awarded to Roger Davies for correcting a serious error in Library of Congress records. It's Lord Roberts, not Lord Kitchener.
Followup: the Library of Congress staff has expressed thanks for your correction and is updating its records. It could take about a month for the update to appear on its website. Excellent catch! Now that the information is confirmed I'll be updating the relevant wiki pages. Feel free to contact the LoC firsthand if you spot another error, although I'd be glad to relay the information if you're unfamiliar with their site navigation. Regards, Durova35217:24, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Pronunciation of poilu
Hi, I see that you're fr-3, but, on Oct. 11, you changed that, erroneously. It's been put back and expanded a little as well. I put a citation on for clarity.
I've jumped up this roster lately and have down some work on Battle of Jaluala.I am new and do not completely understand the laws here.Please check my article it is 70%complete.Waiting for your reply.MOHKUM —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mohkum Shabbir (talk • contribs) 13:55, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi Roger, how are you mate? Per Eurocopter's request for ideas on awards for the World War I contest, I posted a stand on the contest talk page here with your poppy idea. Eurocpter likes it, so we were wondering if you would know of someone who would be willing to create the awards? Thanks mate, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:42, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi Bryce. Sorry about the slow reply, I've been in France. I presume this is to modify the service awards so that they have poppies under the stars, and to put a poppy behind the golden wiki? Unfortunately, I no longer have Photoshop (it was on my laptop-before-last which I've given away) otherwise I'd do it. If you get absolutely stuck I can still do something with Paint, though the results won't be very good. In theory, Bellhalla, Noclador or EyeSerene could do it. There's an existing poppy image File:Royal British Legion's Paper Poppy - white background.jpg which I've just modified to make File:Poppy cutout.PNG, which could be used for the background image. Roger Daviestalk09:08, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply, mate, I hope you had a pleasant time in France. :) I just left a note on EyeSerene's page then, asking if he would be able and willing to create the awards, so hopefully we can have them done soon. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 10:04, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks very much for alerting me to this. I contacted the editor to ask for his comments and as I have had no response so far I've reblocked him. If and when he replies, I'll ask the committee to formally review the position. Roger Daviestalk17:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
As a member of the Military history WikiProject or World War I task force, you may be interested in competing in the Henry Allingham International Contest! The contest aims to improve article quality and member participation within the World War I task force. It will also be a step in preparing for Operation Great War Centennial, the project's commemorative effort for the World War I centenary.
If you would like to participate, please sign up by 11 November 2009, 00:00, when the first round is scheduled to begin! You can sign up here, read up on the rules here, and discuss the contest here! This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:26, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for starting this workshop. There are clearly advantage to SecurePoll but very legitimate opposition to it also. I think your suggestion in RFC II is excellent and satisfies both views. Far superior to my own madly complicated system. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 21:09, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi again. Happy-melon has offered a response to my clarification request there. I'm not sure if Happy-melon's explanation is exactly what you had in mind, though. You said "Then, once the election closes, an overall tally is published, along with the individual tallies for each candidate, specifying which voters supported and opposed them, with say a week set aside for public scrutiny." (emphasis mine) Happy-melon, however, says "...after that time they would be public, and would be public in perpetuity." In your proposal, are the votes made public "in perpetuity", or only for a week or so? If "in perpetuity", what occurs when the week (or so) is over? Is that when the elected people officially begin their terms? -kotra (talk) 01:41, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
The idea is that at the end of the week's scrutiny, the appointments are made, taking into account any stricken votes. The data remains public; there's no point in trying to put the genie back in the bottle :) Roger Daviestalk02:07, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi Roger (or anyone else reading), I was just wondering if it has been proposed that the ArbCom vote be public, but editors be limited to support or oppose without comments? I don't know if that addresses any of your concerns, or if the idea has already been dismissed. Mackan79 (talk) 22:22, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
One issue with this is that it tends to lead people to create subpages describing their rationales, which they then linked in the form of Support and anyone seeking to curry favor with them will of course click the link and figure out how to vote to curry favor. MBisanztalk22:49, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
I was thinking that even a link would be prohibited, although I suppose you could put it in your signature. Having seen one of the votes Roger mentions, though, I admit it didn't occur to me to click on anyone's name (and if I did, would I be impressed?). Mackan79 (talk) 04:27, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
This subject has suffered from Graves' Disease, which causes ocular proptosis. Various people who may be part of a paid network of wreckers who tamper with the biogs of people who disagree with global warming have repeatedly inserted an obviously offensive photo of the subject that exploits his physical disability by making a feature of the proptosis in a ludicrous way. Please refer these people - one of them is ChrisO, who has been warned before - to the arbitration committee. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.210.85.112 (talk) 02:01, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Mattisse, Motion 2.2
Forgive me for getting in direct contact, however I have serious concerns about this motion:
"Mattisse is indefinitely banned from participating in FACs, FARs, GANs, GARs or DYKs of editors with whom she has had previous conflicts."
The wording is imprecise and is likely to lead to difficulty in implementing which will cause more conflict than it is intended to resolve.
Problems of wording:
"FACs, FARs, GANs, GARs or DYKs of editors" - The intention is to avoid Mattisse being involved in any article quality assessment process of articles where certain users have been significant editors. The wording, however, doesn't make that clear, and doesn't give guidance as to when a person is a significant editor.
"editors with whom she has had previous conflicts." - This is also unclear. Again, there are people in mind, but they are not named, as they normally would be in an ArbCom case. I do not know who all these people are, so I cannot advise Mattisse on this matter - and Mattisse herself may not know who would consider themselves to have had a previous conflict with her.
"indefinitely banned" - This is going against the spirit of the case, which is to allow the mentoring process some time to work, to give Mattisse an opportunity of working toward co-operative and harmonious editing. Motion 2.3 has a 6 month restriction, which appears more appropriate.
This case has gone on for quite a time now, and it would be a shame for all concerned if in an attempt to close it quickly before the holiday season these ambiguities were not addressed.
Clearer, more workable options may be:
Mattisse is banned from FACs and FARs for 6 months.
Mattisse is banned from tagging Featured Articles for 6 months.
Users who have difficulty working with Mattisse are to make themselves known to ArbCom who will then inform Mattisse and Mattisse's advisers. Then for 6 months, Mattisse is to check the Revision history statistics of Featured Articles she wishes to become involved with by editing, tagging, talkpage comment or article quality assessment to see if any of these users are among the top five contributors. If any of these users are among the top five contributors, then Mattisse is to consult with her advisers and await a response before getting involved.
I have removed DYK and GA from the list, as these are not significant problem areas. Incidents there have been isolated. I feel some or all of these options, or a variation of them, would be acceptable to all concerned, and are worth considering. SilkTork *YES!01:59, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
I also have concerns about Motion 2.'n'. It may be worthwhile to explore the behaviour of all editors in this shenanigans, but the present motions are not really the place for this. Roger Daviestalk04:10, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
This gave me cause for concern. Sidestepping the process gives the appearance of wrong doing and corruption. "Not only must Justice be done; it must also be seen to be done" This particularly true of organizations that depend on donations and volunteers.In the light of the time of year I raise the thought of cutting his block by a few days. Wikipedia can always use a bit of peace and good will. Happy Holidays - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:15, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't see that appearance here at all. Roger need not have said "sidestepping the process" - as an administrator, he could have made the same block on the same basis. All he did was make the determination ahead of any other administrator, and perhaps slightly quicker than otherwise because of his familiarity with the situation. Nothing bars arbitrators from enforcing their own decisions, and there is no corruption implied when they do so. Nathan T 15:22, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Nathan, you are confusing what an Admin. "has a right to to do" and "what is right for Wikipedia". Certainly, I have seen Admins. do far worse than "sidestep" the process and block an editor! - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:51, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
You are mentioned as suggesting to Thomas Basboll that he take his topic ban lift request to
arbcom requests/enforcement...few commented, but I think my comments are material...why does arbcom now believe that this matter should be discussed here rather than continuing to enforce
Thomas Basboll's topic ban that was handed down by arbcom earlier this year? I think you should examine the discussion and chime in as you can.--MONGO02:01, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
I have an open mind about continuing the topic ban: it's been in place a very long time; editors do move on in their beliefs; and Wikipedia generally believes that rehabiliation to proper editing is the most desirable outcome. That said, it's always very useful to get community input in these areas. No final determination on this needs to take place for a couple of weeks but, at that time, there are at least three options open: (i) lift the topic ban completely; (ii) leave the topic ban fully in place; (iii) suspend the topic ban on terms that it can be restored at any time by an uninvolved admin if the editor returns to contentious editing. Incidentally, there is nothing new about the approach in this instance, we often ask for input from the community, usually at WP:AC/N. I'm going away for four days in less than an hour but will continue to monitor the discussion on my return. Thanks for your comments, Roger Daviestalk05:30, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
IMHO this is seriously broken behavior. Both of these should redirect to the same article (or we should have a standalone article on this topic.) It might be a good idea to merge some existing content from these articles.
Thank you for being one of the people who has made 2009 such an interesting and enlightening year for me. It has certainly had its challenges, but also many highlights. I wish you peace and contentment in 2010, and a joyous holiday season to you and yours.
In honour of the season, I hope you will enjoy a little musical token. Your choice: traditional or cheeky.
Roger, for being one of those awesome wikipedians who produces great content in a collegial manner, helping out all over, and great dispute resolution. Not to mention helping me over wiki rough spots. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:52, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
A noiseless patient spider, I mark'd where on a little promontory it stood isolated, Mark'd how to explore the vacant vast surrounding, It launch'd forth filament, filament, filament, out of itself, Ever unreeling them, ever tirelessly speeding them.
And you O my soul where you stand, Surrounded, detached, in measureless oceans of space, Ceaselessly musing, venturing, throwing, seeking the spheres to connect them, Till the bridge you will need be form'd, till the ductile anchor hold, Till the gossamer thread you fling catch somewhere, O my soul."
Double Whack!
File:Milhist coordinator emeritus 2.svg
~ Lord Oliver The Olive Branch 02:05, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
~ Lord Oliver The Olive Branch 02:22, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Resolved
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.jpg)