User talk:Rwenonah/Archive 1

Reliable sources

Please see reliable sources. The website that you are trying to proffer as one isn't. Thank you,
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 21:14, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh, really?

- (posted on Berean Hunter's talkpage in response to "Edits Wars"): "[Rwenonah, this] Certainly [is] not the first time Berean Hunter has gotten into an Edit War or abused her admin privileges..." Thewolfchild (talk) 22:10, 4 April 2012 (UTC) - (Correction: it turns out that BH isn't an admin. She just acts like one.)

- This comment mysteriously disappeared the next day. It seems like any and all comments that Berean Hunter finds embarrassing, regardless of how factual they may be, she simply goes and deletes them. Quite vain and sanitary, all at the same time... Thewolfchild (talk) 12:46, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Acroterion

"A couple of points: Berean Hunter isn't an administrator, and Rwenonah has been edit-warring with a number of other editors over the past year. I'm trying to help Rwenonah to understand the problem with his edits and you're not helping by dragging your apparent grudge against Berean Hunter into an unrelated matter. Please try to assume good faith. Your issue with BH appears to be a minor misunderstanding that has gotten blown out of proportion: [s]he has the right to remove material on [her] userpage if [s]he wishes. " - Acroterion (talk) 13:38, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

- As do I. (hence the reason I moved your comment here) I will assume good faith to the point that you are probably a decent admin, most of the time, but here you are clearly jumping in without being informed or impartial. The "minor misunderstanding" was both created and "blown out of proportion" by Berean Hunter. She made a mistake, compounded it by making another, then made a fool out of herself by trying to blame it on me. She has since gone and tried to delete everything and anything related to the incident to cover it up.

Now I see an Edit War going on with Rwenoah, and you jumping in with a clear bias. I see no action taken against your little girlfriend "BH", while at the same time you and your admin buddies seem to continually punish Rwenoah without really providing clear reasoning, or responding to any of the counter-complaints that Rwenoah has brought forward. (yes, punish, as in "go sit in the corner and think about what you did!")

We all appreciate the work you admins do, but you need to try to stick to the principles you preach. Wikipedia should be a meritocracy, administered with total neutrality and transperency, else it become an insulated, dictatorial, cronyistic regime.

Good day. Thewolfchild (talk) 21:54, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Cont'd

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Hunting, you may be blocked from editing. Acroterion (talk) 21:34, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

You appear to be soapboxing against hunting, using inappropriate sources: pleasebekind.org isn't a satisfactory source, and you have no consensus to make these changes. Please stop edit-warring. Acroterion (talk) 21:36, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I also note that you were blocked for the same thing under a previous account, so you clearly should know better. Acroterion (talk) 21:37, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

And, by my count, you've hit 3RR: as you've been blocked for that before as well, please take care not to revert again. Acroterion (talk) 21:40, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I've brought up your latest revert at WP:AN3. Acroterion (talk) 23:32, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

Kuru (talk) 03:14, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

You're simply reverting in a slow edit war now. I've set the time at 2 week in continuation of your blocks at your previous account. Kuru (talk) 03:14, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

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

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

---

Request reason:

I believe I should be unblocked because I was not the one who instigated the edit war. I in fact explained my planned changes on the relevant talk page and gave three days for anyone to object. No one did so, and I thus made the edits. Then someone reverted me , even though I had specifically asked for people to give some kind of notification before doing so. I replaced my edits on the page. This continued on for a large amount of time, until I recently became blocked. I feel that the block could be shortened somewhat, although I do have something of a history of this.However, I did not mean to evade blocks or block history by changing accounts, I simply forgot my password. --Rwenonah (talk) 12:56, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Decline reason:

We don't care why you were edit warring; you were edit warring, and that's not acceptable. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:46, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

---

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

For what it's worth, I never thought you were abusing multiple accounts or evading scrutiny of your previous account, and I don't think Kuru thought so either: there's a clean break between accounts, so I don't see that as a concern or any kind of violation of account policy. You did, however edit-war with the previous account on two subjects and have returned to those subjects and done it again with the present account, which is why the block lengths keep getting longer. At least five different editors have objected to your edits to Hunting in the past year, so you know that there's a problem with your edits and that there's no consensus for your changes; silence doesn't give assent, nor do I see an explicit declaration that you would add the content for the fifth time if you didn't hear back on the talkpage, or it was lost in your comments. I haven't reviewed your edits to War of 1812, but given that you picked up there where you left off causes me to be concerned about your understanding of collaborative editing on a broader scale than a single subject. Acroterion (talk) 13:50, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Such is the case; I have no problem with the multiple accounts and see no evidence of block evasion. The length of the block is simply the natural progression of block lengths for repeated occurrences of the same problem. Kuru (talk) 01:49, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

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

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

---

Request reason:

I in fact was not edit warring. I gave notification of my edits and asked not to be reverted without notification (I was ignored). My counterpart has undergone no punishment for actions that are equally "edit warring" and I feel that the block is overtly long. Perhaps it could be shortened somewhat? Rwenonah (talk) 13:24, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Wikipedia does not do "punishment", we do prevention. Blocks are escalating in nature: your previous account was blocked for 24hrs, 48hrs then one week. The next escalation is obviously 2 weeks. It is expected that you learn the impropriety of your behaviour the first time. You have no right to "ask for it not to be reverted without notification", and you have no right to edit-war; period. You need to read WP:GAB, because further unblock requests like the ones above will lead to a lockign of this talkpage for the duration of the block (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:52, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

---

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

Okay, if Wikipedia "doesn't do punishment", what is this? And more to the point, I have never been blocked for a week, so 48 hrs to 2 weeks seems a bit of a jump. About the unblock requests, I think I misunderstood the concept and made a bit of a mistake in the content . --Rwenonah (talk) 19:33, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

You're being asked to use this time to reconsider your approach to editing: repeating the same behavior leads to longer blocks. Your last block on the previous account was for a week: [1]. You've interacted with a number of other editors, yet the consistent outcome has been an edit-war with whomever you encounter on two subjects. You reverted five different editors last summer, and you've done so with two recently. The constant has been you willingness to revert to your preferred version against consensus, regardless of stated objections by others. Acroterion (talk) 20:03, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I noticed that User:Berean Hunter has not been blocked (at all ) for doing the same thing as I did ( as User:Thewolfchild said). Most of their comments seem correct and they agree that I have been punished ( yes, punished). --Rwenonah (talk) 22:27, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Stop Editing My Talk Page

User:Berean Hunter has removed other editors comments from my talk page. I do not want them removed, so, to Berean Hunter, PLEASE STOP REVERTING ON MY TALK PAGE NOW. It is my talk page, and if I want something gone I'll delete it. I decide, not you (User:Berean Hunter), whether you think the edits are the work of a troll or not. --Rwenonah (talk) 21:06, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Why No Action

Why has no action been taken against User:Berean Hunter , who appears to have something of a mania for deleting other editors comment, be they on talk pages or actual wikipedia pages? They did the same as I did and have not been punished( because I have been punished). They deleted other editora comments on my talk page with no justification besides what seems to be dislike and without my consent. More to the point, if I have been blocked for edit warring, why haven't they? Most of their comments are unsourced, biased and some simply incorrect. --Rwenonah (talk) 21:33, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Rwenonah

Hi Rwen, (can I call you Rwen? Or Ron?) Anyways... it seems I've been spelling your name wrong, please accept my apologies.

Also, I am here to notify you that the discussions that BH, Acro and myself have been having have been reported as an "incident" to Wiki ANI. The complaint, along with my response is here: "ANI"

I thought I would bring this to your attention, as some of the issues being addressed concern you. I do agree with some of the concerns you have raised and I hope they can be addressed, at some point, to some degree of satisfaction. As for Berean Hunter, I would suggest you longer waste your time with concerns about her. Life is just too short for her nonsense. I had hoped that Acroterion would be more helpful, but judging by his attitude, I'm not counting on it. Which is unfortunate, because he is an admin and you should expect more from him. Anyways, there's just way too many interesting things elsewhere in Wikipedia, (and the world for that matter) to dwell on these petty issues.

I'm sure you'll be editing soon. Take care.

thewolfchild 04:52, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

ANI Noticeboard

Just for the record, I looked at the ANI complaint( I'm commenting here only because I am still blocked and cannot edit the noticeboard) and do not consider myself an uninvolved party, having been blocked for edit warring while User:Berean Hunter has not ( especially as my questions about User:Berean Hunter's questionable actions and nonexistent response went unanswered except by User:thewolfchild) . I completely agree with User:thewolfchild about the complaint on the noticeboard. (PS-My questions still haven't been answered-I sense bias).--Rwenonah (talk) 15:21, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Rwen, I re-posted your comment to the ANI. It's ridiculous that you can't contribute to that discussion. It's equally ridiculous that you are still blocked and haven't recieved any feed-back about your concerns. Perhaps you should consider your own ANI, regarding Berean-Hunter, Acroterion, et al. Admins shouldn't be exempt from accountability. - thewolfchild 04:44, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I think you're right and I will do that ... once I'm unblocked.--Rwenonah (talk) 16:03, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

You are of course free to do so if you wish. I have, however noted at ANI my concerns that you are being encouraged to continue edit-warring, which I don't see as beneficial to you. You will note that at no time have I taken an action as an administrator with respect to you: I reported your resumption of edit-warring to the appropriate noticeboards and left it to their discretion (which includes scrutiny of all parties, including the reporting party). I will not take any administrative action with respect to you, as I am involved in a content dispute with you and may not do so; that doesn't mean that I may not dispute your edits or your sourcing, or refer the matter to others for action. You have been blocked four times now for edit-warring, by three separate administrators (Gfoley4, Rjanag and Kuru (twice)), the most recent after four reverts of other editors on your part. Your unblock requests have been reviewed and declined by more (Jpgordon and BWilkins). My (non)actions as an administrator have been discussed extensively at ANI by TWC. I would take that as an indication that you may wish to review your approach to editing, at least with respect to the two subject which appear to interest you the most. Acroterion (talk) 17:17, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

@Acroterion Now that you're actually answering questions, why was no action taken against Berean Hunter? They were also edit-warring and in fact reverted TWC's comments on my talk page , but the fact that you supported them seems to have shielded them from punishment. --Rwenonah (talk) 19:58, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I've been answering questions all along. You've been edit-warring with multiple editors at hunting (and War of 1812) for a year. You keep doing it, you use dubious references and do not acknowledge your own POV or those of your references. I respect that you oppose hunting, but it appears to have led you to an extreme position that can't be supported in an encyclopedia. Rather than discuss this with the half-dozen or so editors who have disagreed with you over time (I haven't looked at War of 1812, I refer to hunting for now), you've chosen to try to force edits without gaining consensus first. Berean Hunter and I are only the latest editors with whom you've disagreed. You appear to be blind to your four reverts: you only get three at the most. Read WP:3RR again. Editors are permitted to disagree with you and are not required to stand for determined edit-warring against consensus. Otherwise whoever shouts the loudest wins, and we have a lot of extremely determined POV warriors on subjects like Palestine, abortion, vaccines, the Balkans and so on who are prepared to do just that if they aren't controlled by 3RR. I referred your case to AN3 so it could be reviewed by a third party, because my policy is never to revert more than twice in a content dispute unless it's libel or vandalism (even if I'm technically permitted to do so), because after that it's a pointless ping-pong match that helps no one. That AN3 report was filed, and you were blocked by another administrator (Kuru, in this case), because you had kept on doing it after you were warned through messages and previous blocks that you couldn't do that. You don't get to add up the edits of those with whom you've disagreed and balance them against your own position: you have to consider that consensus might be against you. More than three reverts by a single editor is a bright line, immediately blockable. You did four.

My point a while back was that the general media use the term "conservation organizations" for outfits like Ducks Unlimited, The Nature Conservancy and the Izaak Walton League, all of which have preserved lands for wildlife conservation in the US and Canada. Of course, they do that so that those lands can be used for hunting, or so that the wildlife population they support can be hunted. You reject the term "conservation organization" for such outfits as far as I can see, but that appears to be your opinion rather than either the consensus on Wikipedia or the consensus at large in the world, which is what Wikipedia uses. I've never hunted in my life, but from the point of view of presenting a neutral encyclopedia article about hunting, I (and at least five other editors) feel that your edits pursued a specifically anti-hunting agenda that attempted to heavily emphasize your POV in the article, which while appropriate to mention, was too extreme. That's not to say the article can't be improved or that balance can't be adjusted. It just has to be done through discussion, by editors who are willing to acknowledge their inbuilt bias and who are willing to look past that to discuss the issues. Acroterion (talk) 20:41, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

That does not answer my question. Why has no action been taken against Berean Hunter for edit warring the same as I did and reverting on my talk page. I respect your point of view towards reverts, and in fact think that Wikipedia would be a better place if more editors acted that way, but you seem to be biased in this particular disscussion. As for the three reverts, you can only revert three times in a 24-hour period. Emphasis on "24-hour period". I have read 3RR extensively, especially as I was blocked without knowledge of the rule the first time. In addition, Berean Hunter made more than 3 reverts, have you reminded him\her? As to the hunting article, it is a badly-sourced pro-hunting manifesto with a lot of incorrect points. I know that several of my edits were much to biased for Wikipedia, and I regret that, as it has undermined my credibility in this issue. However, many of my edits were correct and non-biased, but were removed anyway.You seem to think that, for example, hunters did not force the Bluebuck, Steller's sea cow , Javan tiger and Caspian tigers or even the Dodo to extinction. If you don't disagree with that, then it should be on the page. I would be willing to see the hunting article moderated to a truly neutral (not its present pro-hunting or my admittedly rather anti-hunting) stance. About consensus ,I and 3 other editors have expressed that the talk page is pro-hunting. As for War of 1812, my point was placed on the page with the full agreement of the disputing editor(s). Please do not compare me to the "determined edit warriors" on those other pages. Those editors are advocating a point of view. I simply want the page moderated ( although before I was somewhat advocating anti-hunting). Can you or Berean Hunter say that much? Two more points. As this is the second time Kuru has blocked me, I feel a little aggreived. I am unsure if he is just really strict on imperfect citations or edit warring, or if it is just a coincidence, but... And finally, please tell me why no action has been taken against Berean Hunter! Stop avoiding the question( as you did in a very wordy way just above. --Rwenonah (talk) 21:25, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

To respond to your comments on the article, one criticism I have concerning the article is that it covers too much ground, lumping indiscriminate slaughter for food, feathers, blubber, skins, tusks (think of the bison, a wide variety of marine mammals, egrets, beavers, elephants) or market hunting (arguably responsible for reducing passenger pigeon numbers to collapse level, as they needed to be in huge flocks), or elimination of creatures perceived as pests (Carolina Parakeet) in with regulated recreational hunting. As for "moderating" the page, well, that's up to all editors: admins don't moderate in that sense (at least not when wearing the admin hat). I'd suggest a short outline of proposed changes on the talkpage, with reasons and and ironclad mainstream (preferably academic) sources: this isn't one of the finest articles on Wikipedia and really needs some focus, and maybe some pruning. Acroterion (talk) 01:29, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Rwen, have you ever tried to pick up a fish in a stream with your bare hands? Well, now you have. You try asking this person a simple and direct question, and he slips right through, leaving you empty handed. Let's summarize what just transpired, shall we?

- Rwen: "...why was no action taken against Berean Hunter?"

- Acro: "I've been... (blah, blah, blah...) hunting page this, revert policy that... (yadda yadda yadda...) Ducks... (something, something...) abortion... (blather...) consensus... (condescension...) POV... (more condescension...) the issues."

Not one word to answer the actual question you asked.

My suggestion is the same as with BH - don't waste anymore time with Acro (his nonsense on my ANI just shows you won't get anywhere). Wait until you are unblocked. Gather up all the facts and quotes you need, then create your own ANI (Hopefully yours will be more productive than mine).

Oh, and by the way Rwen - please don't edit war. (happy Acro?)

- thewolfchild 21:39, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Acroterion (talk) 00:26, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

You're right, there were reverts by BH on 3/24, 3/29, 4/1 and two on 4/2: still not full edit-warring (but farther than I'd take it), since only two were in 24 hours. It is possible to edit-war with three or two edits, but it's triggered by a long-term problem repeated after warnings or previous blocks: i.e., by someone who's been blocked before for the same thing. See the blocking summary by Kuru: "slow edit war at hunting; continued from previous account user:Ronald Wenonah)", and you'd continued after I'd specifically warned you about POV and reverts. Soapboxing like "but these often aim to conserve wildlife only for future death by hunting" tips the scale against the person who repeatedly adds obvious polemics with no references and without achieving a consensus on the talkpage, having done the same thing, reverting three separate editors to insert things like "However, these organizations are not truly conservation- they only want animal populations to rise high enough that they can start hunting the animals to extinction again." The primary burden is on the editor proposing the change and it was repeatedly made clear to you that you'd achieved no consensus. Another way to stop an edit war is to fully protect the article. BH shouldn't have reverted TWC on your talkpage, as I noted at ANI: it tends to lead to bad feelings. Still not sanctionable (though unwise), and admins do consider previous history. Blocking isn't about punishment, it's about getting the problem stopped and avoiding damage to the encyclopedia, but if the behavior doesn't change, the blocks tend to increase in length by factors of two for each subsequent block. Kuru's reasoning is his own, and he was free to sanction anyone he saw fit: this is how I see it, as one who's registered objections to your edits. You were returning to a place where you had previously edit-warred specifically to repeat the behavior: That is the crucial difference between you and BH. Acroterion (talk) 00:12, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh yeah? i have taken a look at Berean Hunter's talk page archives, and he\she is as bad as me:

"Please don't accuse editors of vandalism unless you're sure they have committed it. In particular, avoid using the word in edit summaries (such as "reverting vandalism"), and be very careful about posting vandalism warning templates on user's talkpages. Review the vandalism policy thoroughly before you do that, and see especially the section "What vandalism is not". Note that content disputes are not vandalism, and that good-faith edits of any kind, even if you think them misguided, are not to be considered vandalism. Vandalism accusations without any basis in policy are bad for the climate on the wiki and make constructive discussion more difficult. See also Wikipedia:Avoid the word "vandal".Good luck with your editing, too." or "Please stop. Wikipedia is not censored. Any further changes which have the effect of censoring an article, such as you did to Peter Sutcliffe, will be regarded as vandalism. If you continue in this manner, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Hennessey, Patrick (talk) 01:10, 10 February 2008 (UTC) and : Please keep in mind the three revert rule when editing, specifically editing at Peter Sutcliffe. You made the following reverts to that page within a 24-hour period: 1, 2, 3, 4. Please stop edit warring, or you could be blocked. Instead of constant reverting, please try and discuss changes with users on their talk page, or the articles' talk page. Thanks" (They made four reverts in a 24-hour period - why weren't they blocked? I was, even though I didn't understand the rule). There's also: What on earth do you think you were doing with this edit? "Remove mass edits where good faith edits were removed by DreamGuy" is just ridiculous as an edit comment to justify an edit that was nothing but a blind revert of several unrelated changes... I fixed capitalization errors, removed nonnotable trivia from the culture section, and a made whole slew of completely unobjectionable good faith edits that you completely removed for no reason other than you called otehr people's edits good faith... well, of course they could have been made with good faith, but unless you assume mine weren't then your edit comment makes no sense.

Please make sure to edit in good faith yourself. Completely undoing a bunch of changes with no apparent justification wouldn't seem to apply." and then :

And please do not put false vandalism warnings on my talk page. Those kinds of actions demonstrate clear bad faith. Do not post to my talk page at all unless you do so with constructive comments to try to follow Wikipedia policies of working together and not just to make false threats. But don't think that's all- there is lots more:"Please don't accuse editors of vandalism unless you're sure they have committed it. In particular, avoid using the word in edit summaries (such as "reverting vandalism"), and be very careful about posting vandalism warning templates on user's talkpages. Review the vandalism policy thoroughly before you do that, and see especially the section "What vandalism is not". Note that content disputes are not vandalism, and that good-faith edits of any kind, even if you think them misguided, are not to be considered vandalism. Vandalism accusations without any basis in policy are bad for the climate on the wiki and make constructive discussion more difficult. See also Wikipedia:Avoid the word "vandal". Good luck with your editing, too." (He\she seems to do this often- they did it to me, but I considered it such an affront I deleted it)

Please note that this is only in the first ten posts on their 1st talk page archive . There are forty posts and 3 more archives which I haven't looked at yet. You seem to think that Berean Hunter is less predisposed to this or makes disruptive edits or receives reprimands or annoys people or ... something less than I do, but they don't. Can you come up with another valid reason for the lack of action? --Rwenonah (talk) 22:24, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

And they soapbox ,too. One editor removed an absurd comment(As conservationists, hunters have been the main driving force behind the conservation movement (Citation? No. Consensus?No. Soapboxing? Yep). The survival of many species has been due to their successful protection such as the protection of the bison ) already. (Note - hunters are not the driving force behind conservation and they nearly killed the bison- this statement is uncited,incorrect and extremely soapboxing .--Rwenonah (talk) 19:12, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

iustitia omnibus

Rwen (if you don't mind me commenting on your talk page) I'll say again that you should consider an ANI. Judging by your recent posts here, your concerns do have merit, you have identified multiple issues and you certainly seem willing to put the effort in. It just seems wasted here. No one has responded to your queries, with the exception of Acro... and even then he only responded after I called him out on his ANI, re-posted your comments there and then challenged him again here. But I wouldn't expect much more. I called Acro out for multiple offences, in his own ANI, and even then he wouldn't respond. He's an admin. He has some buddies who are admins that have his back. He thinks he's untouchable and won't bother addressing anything that doesn't suit him or may serve to embarrass him. He will certainly never admit when he's wrong. That said, it doesn't seem likely that anything will be resolved, or even addressed here (or even seen for that matter). You should be able to edit again today or tomorrow. If you put together a well constructed and supported ANI, then it will be seen by many. Perhaps some admins will review the conduct of BH and Acro and determine if it indeed does require sanctions. (Then again, Acro's ANI on me was a complete joke and a total waste of time) But either way, what do you have to lose? - thewolfchild 20:57, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Good ideas.--Rwenonah (talk) 21:25, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Circle hunt

The circle hunt's an interesting topic, possibly worth its own article if sources can be found, but you should provide context (like that it happened in 1760, when all predators were regarded as vermin), and references - otherwise you're leaving it to the reader to guess that it must have happened when there were wolves and cougars in PA. I haven't found anything beyond a blog entry, so some digging would be needed to find a policy-compliant reliable source. Acroterion (talk) 18:39, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I note your reversion of BH and your comments to him: your changes were poorly referenced, or not referenced at all. It is plain that you seek to advance an anti-hunting POV in the article, though I note that your most recent changes appear to seek a more neutral approach, which is appreciated. While this is not a bar to editing the subject, it does mean that you must make the effort to appropriately discuss and source your changes. Given your history of problems with reversions leading to edit-warring, I'd advise that you seek consensus if your additions are contested rather than just reverting. See WP:BRD. Acroterion (talk) 19:46, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Hunting

Thank you for your efforts to reach a consensus at Talk:Hunting. I appreciate your willingness to work with other editors and to seek compromise. Acroterion (talk) 12:10, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Welcome

Hello and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.

A few features that you might find helpful:

• Our navigation box points to most of the useful pages within the project.
• The announcement and open task box is updated very frequently. You can watchlist it if you are interested, or you can add it directly to your user page by copying the following: {{WPMILHIST Announcements}}.
• Important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you watchlist it.
• The project has several departments, which handle article quality assessment, detailed article and content review, writing contests, and article logistics.
• We have a number of task forces that focus on specific topics, nations, periods, and conflicts.
• We've developed a set of guidelines that cover article structure and content, template use, categorization, and many other issues of interest.
• If you're looking for something to work on, there are many articles that need attention, as well as a number of review alerts.
• If you have an idea for improving the project, we have a strategy think tank that provides a dedicated forum for discussing it.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask any of the project coordinators or any other experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome, and we are looking forward to seeing you around! AustralianRupert (talk) 08:05, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 2

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Diploglossus millepunctatus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Regurgitate (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:25, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Crysler's Farm vs Stoney Creek

I was going to add this in on the Crysler's Farm talk page but figured this a better location. Regarding the Battle of Stoney Creek, although it too is marked just as "British victory", I personally would posit that that was the point at which the breeze of tactical momentum and advantage was stripped from the States' sails ne'er to be regained. James Elliot picked up the mantle of Berton and Malcomson (though not without controversy) writing a quite-detailed and engaging book on the battle, "Strange Fatality", one I'd highly recommend to anyone interested in our little war. It invited some criticism from the Stoney Creek Historical Society for taking to task a local story about Billy Green (in the same vein as Laura Secord) and they put out a rebuttal which you can download from this link if you're of a mind. http://www.uelac.org/Book-Reviews/PDF/Billy-Green-And-Balderdash-The-Facts.pdf Hope this is of interest  Natty10000 | Natter  22:47, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your consideration. This is definitely of interest. I never thought of the Battle of Stoney Creek that way,and was admittedly rather taken in to what I now realize is an illusion-that of Crysler's Farm as "the battle of decision". Upon reflection, the American withdrawal seems more due to Wilkinson than military defeat. Rwenonah (talk) 23:23, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Definitely so. Militarily, 1813 started-out swimmingly for the States, what with prevailing at York and Niagara-on-the-Lake in short order. On numbers alone and training (and given the British loss of momentum that could be traced back to the musket ball that downed Sir Isaac Brock at Queenston Heights), U.S. forces should've been able to push the disheartened British troops back to Kingston easily. However, there were still the residue of political appointees within the States' military command structure and they served to remind the troops under their command that they were being led by a bunch of desk jockeys for whom the thunder of cannon and musket was only a sound and who were positioning themselves for presumed post-War victory laurels. Stoney Creek turned on a single cannon shot not delivered followed by bombardment from Yeo's fleet on the retreat to Fort George followed by Beaver Dams and nailed shut by Crysler's Farm. 1814 however would be a horse of an entirely different colour.  Natty10000 | Natter  23:54, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXII, January 2013

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: The month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at Mongol naval power Op-ed: Crisco 1492 on war films

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:03, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Battle of Ulan Butung, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Oirat and Fuquan (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:45, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXIII, February 2013

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at US Army leadership since World War II

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 07:18, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXIV, March 2013

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at refugees during the Battle of France Interview: Editors discuss writing articles about the former Yugoslavia Op-ed: Prioryman on German V-weapon sites and the historian's responsibility

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 03:48, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

American Revolutionary War

Please do not remove content based on what seems to be logical reasoning. Historical documents such as Petition to the King and Olive Branch Petition clearly show the colonists tried to remain loyal to the king until it was clear war was inevitable. Transcendence (talk) 21:47, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited First Oirat-Manchu War, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Oirat and Fuquan (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 19:15, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited First Oirat-Manchu War, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Plague (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 02:00, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Fort Bowyer

I have added the sentence "The final attachment of Mobile to the United States was the only permanent exchange of territory during the War of 1812." back to the article on Fort Bowyer. It now has a reliable source: The Encyclopedia of the War of 1812 by Spencer Tucker. If you object go to the talk page and give your reasoning. Do not remove a properly sourced statement without discussing it first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.195.77.214 (talk) 00:48, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

The statement wasn't sourced when I deleted it. Rwenonah (talk) 14:20, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

No Pierre Burton

There is no Pierre Burton. There was a Pierre Berton a popular Canadian writer who write a lot about Canada but was not an expert on US politics and often garbled what was happening in Washington. Better to rely on one of 100 other scholars--Stagg is best. Rjensen (talk) 13:07, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

It is not the prerogative of non-proffessional Wikipedia editors to judge the reliability of proffessional historians. Pierre Berton is a proffessional historian who has written multiple books on the war of 1812 (sorry about the misspelling) .You have nothing to back up your empty claim that his writing is not appropriate for use on the page, and if we decided that authors of one country couldn't write reliably on the politics of another country, we would be left with a vast amount of useful literature ruled out. By the way, as Arthur Bowler is an American scholar, he probably "garbled what was happening in" Canada, and the part referring to Canadian public opinion should be removed immediately. ,Rwenonah (talk) 13:21, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

yes it is the job of editors to decide if the sources they are using are appropriate. Editors look ignorant when they are unaware of the scholarship, especially in a field that has been so heavily studied as 1812. The best way is to read the reviews. Rjensen (talk) 13:38, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm using the source,and I think it's appropriate. Editors do look ignorant when they are unaware of the scholarship and its reliability, as you have just demonstrated for me. I'll make sure not to make that mistake: there are no real reasons for Berton's exclusion except your objection,which isn't an adequate reason. Rwenonah (talk) 13:45, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Berton wrote over 50 books on Canada over a three centuries of history; he never did research on US politics which is how he is being misused here. Better read the reviews -- he has a lively anecdotal style that sells books and indeed sells well because he tells a thrilling story of combat and warfare while avoiding the political and diplomatic complexities and nuances. Rjensen (talk) 14:05, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I read the reviews. While they did say his writing is "like a fast-paced novel",there is no mention of his avoiding political complexities,which seems to be entirely your invention. And his nationality does not change the reliability of his writing,a fact you find difficult to grasp.Rwenonah (talk) 14:18, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Rjensen that Berton should not be used. He was an enormously popular writer in Canada but that does not make him a reliable source for Wikipedia. I can recall, and this dates me, that in 1983 or 1984 Berton did an interview on CBC radio where he was asked why Canadian academics had a low opinion of his work. I don't recall his answer but the mere fact he was asked that when he was promoting his books on the War of 1812 is telling. I suggest you contact Donald E. Graves, a prominent Canadian historian on the war, and ask his opinion of Berton.

You state that R. Arthur Bowler "is an American scholar, he probably 'garbled what was happening in' Canada, and the part referring to Canadian public opinion should be removed immediately." Bowler is from Canada even though he has taught at the State University of New York at Buffalo. He did his undergraduate work at Queen's University in Kingston, Ontario and graduate work at the University of London in Britain. That is an embarrassing mistake by you and suggests you are careless in what you state.

The section on American Expansion in the article on the War of 1812 is getting far too large relative to the other reasons for war such as impressment, trade, etc. You seem to be obsessed with it. Dwalrus (talk) 18:04, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

The fact that Berton is a popular writer in Canada does not prevent him from being a reliable source for Wikipedia,as you seem to think it does. Whether I'm totally careless in what I state, morbidly obese, or a chimpanzee has absolutely no impact on this discussion. My valuable talk page space has been needlessly used up. The fact that you found it necessary to emphasize my mistake suggests you seem to have made this dispute personal for some unfathomable reason, which is not the way editing should be conducted. As for my "obsession", you seem to be obsessed with it as well,or what are you doing here? And my valuable contributions have greatly extended this previously neglected and one-sided section. Oh, you're most welcome. Rwenonah (talk) 20:32, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm trying to help you understand how historical scholarship works as applied to Wikipedia. The goal is to get the best evidence available, and that means scholars who have actually worked with the material. Berton is an entertaining writer but took his speculation on American politics from some unspecified secondary source. Much better is to rely upon scholars who actually studied American politics. (I recommend Stagg, who comes from New Zealand.) Rjensen (talk) 22:21, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

If you always use the same sources, than it is impossible to extend the page. Stagg has been used hugely already. And he works at the university of Virginia.,which, last I checked, is in the US. Here is wikipedia's policy on reliable sources. Please show me where Berton does not meet these requirements.

What counts as a reliable source The word "source" in Wikipedia has three meanings: the type of the work (some examples include a document, an article, or a book), the creator of the work (for example, the writer), and the publisher of the work (for example, Oxford University Press). All three can affect reliability.

Base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Source material must have been published (made available to the public in some form). Unpublished materials are not considered reliable. Use sources that directly support the material presented in an article and are appropriate to the claims made. The appropriateness of any source depends on the context. The best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments. The greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source. Be especially careful when sourcing content related to living people or medicine.

Where available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources, such as in history, medicine, and science. You may also use material from reliable non-academic sources, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications. Other reliable sources include university-level textbooks, books published by respected publishing houses, magazines, journals, and mainstream newspapers. You may also use electronic media, subject to the same criteria. See details in Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources and Wikipedia:Search engine test. Rwenonah (talk) 12:46, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Found a new source for the "controlled congress" bit. Rwenonah (talk) 12:46, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXV, April 2013

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Sturmvogel 66 and Hawkeye7 look at aspects of the Pacific War Op-ed: ErrantX considers the rabbit hole of research

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 15:13, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXVI, May 2013

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Dumelow on the French Foreign Legion and Nick-D on New Zealand military history Op-ed: Nick-D on military history tourism

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:06, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

United States

Please read about the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle. It's designed to prevent edit wars. Basically, you were bold and added the environment section; it was reverted; and now we are discussing it. It's poor form to put it back while it's being discussed. This isn't a race, and you aren't going to win it. The best thing to do for now is discuss the section and see what a consensus can come to for putting it back. But just slapping it back in as it was is edit warring and will not be looked at as you acting in good faith. --Golbez (talk) 13:46, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

PS: You said "lack of consensus to remove", but far more people have discussed it being removed or heavily modified, as opposed to one person - you - who wants it in there in its current form. So regardless of if there is consensus to remove, there is certainly no consensus to add. --Golbez (talk) 13:47, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Actually, someone else removed it before the discussion was over, thus destroying that cycle you just mentioned. Please go warn this editor also. Rwenonah (talk) 14:02, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Er, no, you don't understand. Someone is bold and makes a change. Someone else reverts the change. We then all discuss. The first person reverting was in the right, and anyone else reverting your undo of that revert is also in the right. Now is the time for you to gain consensus before placing it back.

Put another way: You were bold. Someone else reverted. You don't then get to undo their revert without gaining consensus. Their actions were valid, yours were not. --Golbez (talk) 14:08, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm the "somebody else" here. My problem is that the material I reverted was bad quality. It did not even try to give an overall view of the issues involved. It seems to be based on a careless google search. The first story was 99% about China's environmental problems and only mentioned the US in passing. The second was an ephemeral evening news report on an upcoming conference that happened 8 years ago. the third cite was a dead link. There are many WP:RS that cover the field, especially in the last year or two, that were simply ignored. Rjensen (talk) 14:20, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Golbez and Rjensen. I was one of the somebody else's also, for reasons I have outlined on the US talk page. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 15:51, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Could you please give me the names of some of these sources?Rwenonah (talk) 05:53, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Byron W. Daynes, and Glen Sussman, eds. White House Politics and the Environment: Franklin D. Roosevelt to George W. Bush (Texas A&M University Press; 2010) 300 pages; evaluates how 12 presidents helped or hindered the cause of environmental protection. Look at http://www.epa.gov/students/teachers.html and http://www2.epa.gov/science-and-technology Rjensen (talk) 07:19, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks.Rwenonah (talk) 16:52, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXVII, June 2013

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Works on the RNZAF, World War I in the Baltic, and British battleship construction Op-ed: Anchors Aweigh for the Majestic Titans

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 08:43, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

War of 1812

I have been cleaning up some citations in the article War of 1812 and have found some things that I can not clean up easily but they should be easy for the original author.

• With this edit you added two quotes to the article on 21 June 2013. Please add inline citations to support the quotes (see WP:ONUS).
• With this edit you added a citation. The problem is that these authors are used in several citations so a date is needed to disambiguate it.
• With this edit you added a citation "Pierre Burton, War of 1812, pg. 84", unfortunately without year and publisher (and preferably an ISBN) it is not possible to know which edition of the book you are citing.

-- PBS (talk) 17:29, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXVIII, July 2013

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at Australia's frontier wars Interview: What Wikimedia chapters can offer military history editors

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 15:18, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXIX, August 2013

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at the death of Osama bin Laden Op-ed: Sturmvogel_66 presents his secrets of prolific contribution

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:54, 20 August 2013 (UTC)