Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Hotline

Overview

Welcome to the Military history WikiProject's stress hotline. The intent behind this initiative is to provide support for editors who may be experiencing Wikistress, in order to reduce the effects of editor burnout on the project.

There are just two ground rules:

1. Be kind and courteous. Editors coming here are probably having a bad day already; be gentle to them, even if they did something wrong. If you can't say anything nice, it's probably better to say nothing at all.
2. Don't argue over content. This is not the right forum for continuing disputes on particular articles. Serious editorial debates are better placed on the main project talk page.

Have something you want to talk about?

Firearms in Popular Culture Sections (or lack thereof)

As we should all be aware, "In Popular Culture" sections in articles are- generally- to be avoided (WP:MILHIST#POP. Now, my understanding is that (and I'm reposting part of a comment I made on the talk page for the Winchester Model 1887/1901 article here) the Pop Culture guidelines were introduced to stop Anime fans from including every. single. piece of obscure anime in which someone had a Mauser Broomhandle, or people adding lists with things like "A character in Randomfilm can be seen holding a Tokarev TT-33 in the scene when Something Interesting happens". It wasn't intended to create a situation in which we all pretend that firearms don't appear in movies or in popular culture, which is what we're veering dangerously close to at the moment, IMHO.

It is (rightly) a given that any given WWII film is going to feature people with M1 Garands, Mauser K98s, or Lee-Enfield rifles, or that people in Westerns will be brandishing Winchester rifles and Colt revolvers, and that this doesn't need to be mentioned. But when people are deleting references to Arnold Schwarzenegger's Winchester Model 1901 Shotgun in Terminator 2 because it's "not notable", or factual references to the Lee-Enfield rifle being mis-used in films (for example, the Turkish soldiers in Lawrence of Arabia and the German soldiers in The Blue Max are shown with Lee-Enfield rifles, despite the fact the Turks or the Germans did not use the rifle in WWI) being removed as being "trivia" I start to get very frustrated. I'm not 100% sure if this is the right place for me to raise this particular concern, but it's been bugging me for a while and I'm starting to feel like I'm the only one who actually cares about it... --Commander Zulu 12:53, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh no! You are not the only one. Be bold and don't forget that your "firearm" is WP:MILHIST#POP. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 16:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

A useful resource in this struggle with well-meaning trivia-deleters could be Wikipedia talk:Article Rescue Squadron. It appears to be inactive for the last week or two, but maybe with a few more posts we could draw in the lurkers. ;-) llywrch 18:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Without touching on the content issue, I agree that it can be a really frustrating experience to continually have the same discussion (sometimes even with the same users). If the case is isolated, a third opinion is often useful. In a broad case like this, it might be useful to clarify the guidelines through discussion on the main talk page. This will give interested users a chance to determine exactly what the purpose of the guideline is, and allow us to reword the guideline to more accurately reflect the intent. Carom 21:27, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Withdrawl syptoms

Has anyone else ever that problem where you know you should be doing work but you end up here and it starts effecting your grade? I'm almost two weeks overdue with an important paper and trying to get it done and all I seem to able to think about is how badly I want to get back on here and edit like there no <omitted> tomarrow. At this rate I am going to end up burned out of another class for my legendary procrastination, and here I am again, logged on at 2:40 in the morning because I can't help myself, the school material is sooooo boring and this so much more invigorating. Its to the point now where I think I am on the verge on burning out, both here and at school :/ TomStar81 (Talk) 08:46, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

As far as cutting back on Wiki-time, some users have asked admins they know to block them for some time so that they can't edit. If all else fails . . . - BillCJ 08:56, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

When I was in school, I used a behavioral approach to help me get tedious schoolwork done. I would promise myself a reward after finishing whatever onerous task I needed to get done. In this case, I would suggest rewarding yourself with a four-hour (or some other arbitrary time length) Wikipedia editing binge after completing the paper you're supposed to write. Cla68 12:51, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Before there was the distraction or time-sink of Wikipedia, there was the Internet & the addiction of following hyperlinks; before the Internet, there was ... well, something. I remember having your exact same problem in college, before you were born. And the problem existed before I was born; during the late Middle Ages, numerous city ordinances included clauses against playing cards because they distracted apprentices from doing their work. (These are our earliest documented references to playing cards, BTW.) Simply put, everyone at one time or another has had the problem of procrstination; most people have solved it. (I'm still working on it here.) The trick is to simply make some kind of progress: if you're still reading this, stop right now and write two sentences on that overdue paper. Don't think about why you can't, just do it. Often just this little trick will break the logjam that is keeping you from finishing a chore. Now excuse me, I have some work that I've been procrastinating over myself. -- llywrch 15:46, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I will try to keep that in mind, it may work better than sensory depravation/solitary confinement, which is what I usually use when I have trouble with work. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:17, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Been there and done that plenty of times (and many of the distractions mentioned by Llywrch in times past, too) :P I had to literally force myself to do unpleasant work I didn't want to do and in the end Wikipedia improved greatly in certain very narrow areas while my work did not. I'd say just keep it up on the work front and treat Wikipedia as a reward for getting x000 words done on your essay or whatever which is what I did (and very similar to Cla68's advice too) Orderinchaos 12:11, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

My friend you are not the only one. I just keep Wikipedia as a goal to reach and my work is obstacles. Especially if its boring.Knowledge is Power 01:22, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Stalker

I am posting this anonymously, but have edited Wikipedia for several months now. I currently have a stalker that is harrassing me and editors who help me for a few months now, and the stress is getting to me at this point. This user has been banned because of harrassment and sock-puppeteering, and so has reason (at least in his small little mind) to hate. I'm not asking for help in dealing with him, because the policies on Wikipedia can do NOTHING to stop him as ling as he uses dynamic IPS. Just letting off some steam here. I don't know if he is aware of this page, but since he trolls my contributions, I could not come here under my username as he would continue his harrassment here. How long are regular users of WIkipedia going to put up with this crap before we revolt? As long as Jim Wales' open-editing policies allows this type of harassment to occur, there's no way I'm ever contributing money to Wikipedia. I enjoy the good aspects of the product, but the inmates are allowed to run free, and they know it. THere aren't any alternatives out there right now with similar levels of content, so we're stuck here if we're addictied to editing, and I certainly am! I'll be watching this space, but I my not respond. I've you'd genuinely like to know who is involved and more of the situation, I can e-mail you with the details, provided you're an editor I'm familar with. Thanks for listening! - 172.167.143.90 (talk) 20:29, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know you, I'm a complete newcomer to WPMILHIST (just here to help with the Tag & Assess Drive) - but I saw your note and wanted to drop you a note of support. I don't know if there's anything that anyone can do, but (having recently gone through something similar, although not as hostile, IRL) hang in there! And do whatever you can to protect yourself, because you shouldn't have to put up with it. *hug* Cricketgirl (talk) 01:14, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Was foreign internal defense, but now getting into theories of insurgency/counterinsurgency

Sometimes starting an article is like trying to eat one potato chip. There is a great deal of information in Foreign internal defense, but it needs to be split up, both for size and the ability to do serious editing.

In particular, there is solid, referenced material, still needing work, on several major theories of insurgency and nation-building (e.g., Kilcullen, Eizenstat, McCormick). When I looked at the article Insurgency, I quickly gave up trying to edit into that -- there just wasn't structure.

Thoughts? A separate article on "models of insurgency", and hold FID to history and operations? Although there's lots of US information available, I think I've managed to get a reasonable amount of British and French doctrine into it. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 05:44, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Suggest this at the article's talk page, outline what you think, that's the place to put the things you've mentioned here. Have a great day! --Ouro (blah blah) 07:54, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Editing at work

Who here thinks that it should be OK to edit at work, as long as you stick to articles concerning your business during your idle moments? I've managed to convince a few of my seniors that editing articles about the USMC is OK when I don't have any better tasks to do (though honestly, one of them wouldn't care if I was committing crimes at my desk, so add a grain of salt to that statement). In fact, it seems that the majority of my edits have occurred between 0700 and 1630... when I'm at work! bahamut0013♠♣ 20:38, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm for it! I usually edit at work... because I work from home :) --Ouro (blah blah) 17:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

im all for it too. i take my PSP to work and edit all night long. but i get paid to sleep at a group home so technically as long as i dont leave the house im good to go killkola

I suppose you only asked for responses from people who are for it, but I'm going to respond anyway.

I have two problems - I'm a hopeless procrastinator (only an approaching deadline will motivate me), and I'm an obsessively-compulsive WP adict.

Fortunately for me, my employer has disabled the ability to edit WP, and I'm very greatful that they have, otherwise I'd never do any income producing work. (And it wouldn't take long before they noticed, and sacked me.)

Occasionally when I'm looking for something, I find myself in WP, I notice an "error", and I "automatically" hit the "edit" button and get blocked, but in those cases I send myself an email from work to home to follow it up.

So, sorry to rain on your parade, but I'm against it.

Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 15:05, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Frustration

This has got to be the single worst new year I have ever experienced in my twenty-someodd years of existance. Half way through January I got hit by truck, this weekend I got very sick and missed out on the superbowl parties, and this morning I discover that some fiend has stolen 1/2 of my hubcaps. I'm almost afraid to see what the rest of the year is like... TomStar81 (Talk) 17:31, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Never been one for American football, much prefer rugby or soccer! Your luck ain't great at the moment is it? They do say though that things can only better!!! Well, you did get the Illinois through FAC (and an AFD), so that has to be a bonus!! I hope you feel better soon, and you catch the hubcab fiends, students seem to have a fascination with them, almost as much as road signs; (he says whilst looking at the cones in his room). Things will get better I am sure! Woody (talk) 17:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Don't allow the situation to take you down, friend! All of us have a bad time now and then, but it usually turns for the better. And it's up to you not to succumb to a few bad days. I usually say to myself, that when the next big concert comes up, next excellent trip or next great photo, then I'll know why I'm still here. Stay positive! --Ouro (blah blah) 17:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

A few bad days are one thing but its been like the never ending beat down: everytime I get clear of one thing something else crops up. Although I did finally get my cast off, which i consider something to cheer about. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:20, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Believe me, you won't notice when it turns around. Just don't ever lose faith. --Ouro (blah blah) 07:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Mmmmm. Maybe. I never found it that easy. If the black dog is really bothering you, I have found that zoloft has helped me put things back into perspective. For me, it's the difference between being able to function, and the alternative. Pdfpdf (talk) 14:28, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Anyone know Frank Freeman? Trying to reduce CIA main article size

There's been, I believe, a consensus of editors working on the still-huge main CIA article to make it more a place for agency-wide structure, authorizations, etc., and get the details, wikilinked from the main page, into topic-specific article. I've moved, although not fully merged, a large chunk of material from User:Frank Freeman to CIA transnational anti-terrorism activities. In the move, I've split it out by date to correspond with the structure of the subarticle, but haven't changed any content or done any merging.

Does anyone know Frank? I can't revert again without 3RR, but I haven't gotten a response to my requests on the article page(S) or his user page. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 10:52, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Destabilization of articles is stressfull

I've recently improved Armia Krajowa - likely the largest WWII resistance group - to an A-class status, but recently edit warring and other issues have led to article's protection. It is quite stressful to see a good article subject to POV pushing and edit warring. I believe that an influx of neutral editors who would comment there would reduce my and other's editors stress there. Perhaps we should create a section, akin to RfC, where we could list milhist articles in need of such input? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

There is a new project in the German wiki to safe the last good version of an article for display and only allow new edits to appear after censorship by a trusted editor. It will be available here in a few months. Wandalstouring (talk) 10:22, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

RAF Tempsford

Could established editors please step in for some help in arbirtrating this dispute? - User talk:Neddyseagoon#RAF Tempsford. For background, I edited the sentence "This barn contained several plaques and memorials to the brave agents (men and women) who were flown from the airfield, many of them to meet terrible deaths at the hands of the Germans." (italics my own, to indicate areas of concern) as I felt it showed possible bias, which has since been disputed and reverted by User:Mark126 and User:Deben Dave. Neddyseagoon - talk 09:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I hope the issue has been solved. Wandalstouring (talk) 10:24, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Frustration returns

I am again and again frustrated by people who insist on using terms and names in articles that have no origin or meaning in actual sources of military history, but are popular, even populist, or even worse, politically correct adaptations by published authors. Lest we forget that Hitrel was also a published author. There is no place for this sort of attitude in a reference work that purports to be define any given entry in it based on sources. A source is where something begins, the beginning, commencement, origin of, a start, etc...Consensus be damned, one can not "write" history based on what the latest trend in language use in any given society happens to be this week, year or decade. Grrrrrrrr--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 23:26, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that if quoting, you can use the original language. However, language is like a constantly flowing stream with nothing set in stone. Wandalstouring (talk) 08:12, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

It is a shame sometimes that even a majority can be wrong. I share my frustration with you against popular culture language. bahamut0013♠♣ 13:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Wow! What a rich topic!! And what a plethora of possible viewpoints!!! (No, the next sentence is not going to have 4 exclamations at the end of it.)

I don't know what I can say that it helpful. (Despite the fact that there's an almost endless list of relevant comments that I could make ... )

"C'est la vie" is the best I can come up with, which, in your case, is best translated as: "Life's like that, learn to live with it". Otherwise, you're in for a LOT of irritation until ALL of your antagonists retire and/or die.

Good luck! Pdfpdf (talk) 14:43, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Disambiguation Overusage

I think that the use of "(United States)" starting to get out of hand. First of all, if it contains some unique name such as "Airlift Squadron", no other country uses it. Of course the USAF disambiguators have been removed but the Army ones still remain. Some of the ridiculous instances of unneeded disambiguations are shown in the "Maneuver Enhancement Brigades". This truly seems like a unique name in the way that it it worded. If no other country has this unique name, then why should we put a disambiguation there in the first place? They are meant to be placed only when there is a conflict. This usually occurs in units that are the oldest, as they are more likely to share names with European nations. Otherwise there is no point to have them placed. I will be glad to place them on pages when some conflict of titles arises but as of right now, half the units probably don't need them on them. I think that there should be some sort of amendment to the naming convention so that people can understand that there is a lot of overuse in these things. Hopefully people who agree with me can help to stop the madness one move at a time. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:49, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

You are right. Please voice your concerns on the main project page for other users to give their input. This way we can achieve a binding solution that backs up your changes in case (and that is very likely) you encounter some people objecting to your changes. Wandalstouring (talk) 18:09, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Good faith versus blind faith

I have been editing on Wikipedia for over two years now, and my credo has been "If you can't get it right, don't bother." I'll admit I've made a very idiotic edits in my time, but not for a good long while. I do believe in the idea of "good faith" but I am starting to get seriously peeved with what I call "blind faith" edits. Someone reads a book and reckons that the person who wrote it is an expert, and that having read it, the reader is now an expert and proceeds to make idiotic edits. I know of one editor who used one book which was hardly the most reliable of sources, and explained to him the concept of reading other, more specialised works to get a more detailed understanding of ideas big-picture authors don't seem to grasp. So what does he do but find another general overview book which is littered with inaccuracies. There are so many hours in a day and I can't possibly refute every single inaccuracy which pops up (many). Why can't people just leave well-enough alone!!! --Harlsbottom (talk | library | book reviews) 17:13, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

We could improver the reliable sources criteria to deal with this issue. Specialist books then get favored over generalists because they are more reliable on the special topic. The problem is that to iron out one cited error you need at least two sources to somehow prove it's a fringe opinion.Wandalstouring (talk) 16:02, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

3rd opinion regarding sources

I'm ready to cook off in a dispute over what I feel are dubious and inadequately-sourced statements in T-80. If someone has a bit of time, would you please have a look? Thanks. —Michael Z. 2008-08-24 16:39 z

I am fucked up

Hi all I am fucked up due to WIKIPEDIA during tag & assessment 2008 drive there was my exam I concentrated more on drive and got failed in 7 out of 10 subjects :( I think I'll have to retake my year. I am engineering student :( Help me I am totally addicted to wikipedia. Even if I go to any outing/picnic I take picture from wikipedia's point of view (lol). Our Kind coordinator Roger Davis tried to Block my by giving me wikibreak enforcer But since I am a engineering student I know how to break it (XD) help me to to stay away from wiki and concentrate on studies.(Dont Dare to Block me)-Suyogaerospace^{talk to me!} 14:50, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I have a similar problem with Wikipedia, I usually focus on the wiki for the first part of the year and then in the last month scamble to try and catch up in the class I have neglected. I have failed a few because I put the wiki first. What helps for me is to use wiki as a reward for completing assignemnts, treating my self to an hour or so of wiki time for every assignemnt I complete, in this manner I have a goal to work for. Also, remeber that the wiki will be here no matter what, and that as humans we all understand that things happen in real life. To help reinforce that train of thought for yourself you may consider adding a school template to your user page so that others know that you are in school; if they know, they are less likely to lean on you for harder workloads. TomStar81 (Talk) 16:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that you don't organize your wikitime. You must have a daily routine when you check your mails, edit what is on your wiki watchlist and afterwards continue with your work - no more wikipedia on that day. For larger editing commitments like writing articles take 1-2 weeks in the semester breaks and try how far you can get. If you don't finish by then, leave it and edit during another semester break. That is possibly painful, but it works. If you feel that it is possible for you to contribute more, take a fixed time on the weekend like Sunday morning until lunch and do some reviews or even a small chunk of a tag&assess drive. However, the workload was definetly too much in the last drive. We have already adressed this issue. Wandalstouring (talk) 17:17, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

←Respectfully, if your time on wikipedia is adversely affecting your academic performance, perhaps it would be in your best interest to try and cut-back your on-wiki workload and not increase it by running for a coordinator position with this project. -MBK₀₀₄ 18:25, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

So you all suggest that I should online only on weekends??--Suyogaerospace^{talk to me!} 09:43, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Do not run for coordinator, check only your watchlist on weekdays and do editing during a limited time at the weekend or during semester break. Wandalstouring (talk) 15:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok i got But I still run for coordinator because most propobely I'll get a drop and I'll be having free time--Suyogaerospace^{talk to me!} 16:36, 4 September 2008 (UTC)_{think +ve}

Putting a cast list in a ppage

I have added the cast list for "The Desert Fox: The Story of Rommel." The problem is, now the list is at the bottom of the page, instead of under the heading. Does someone know how to fix this? Openskye (talk) 01:53, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. It needed a closing " |} ". - BillCJ (talk) 02:24, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Much obliged, Bill. Guess it was a little too late at night for me. LOL. Feel better. Openskye (talk) 12:16, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Why do I bother?

I'm not even sure why I bother with Wikipedia anymore. Sure I love editing articles, I love the satisfaction one gets from completing an article and taking it to GA, A and FA. But I can't stand the constant (basically) harassment, nit picking, and having my every move questioned by this one editor! He has virtually taken control of all of the current Australian Defence Force personnel bios, and questions nearly every edit one makes to them! If someone has added something to the article that he does not understand, he will revert it even if it is correct! I'm not a big fan of adding the medal ribbons to the articles, and when I went and removed some of them that were incorrect he reverted my edits saying that's my opinion, and only to remove the ones that are incorrect. I did, and he reverted my edits again saying (in a very rude manner, I might add) these were correct. After a bit of a dispute and investigation with further editors being brought in, it was discovered that I had been correct in the first place! Did I get an apology? Hell no. Another time, I was expanding and fully referencing an article I had created some time ago trying to get it up the quality scale. In comes this editor, like usual questioning most things, and adds further references on the already referenced awards the article's subject had received during his military career and adding lists of service medals at the end of each section. I told him the service medals cannot be verified, and it is best not to list them as it is OR. Also, the references he was adding were in violation of WP:VER as they were not third party sources. This turned into a massive heated dispute between the two of us with him claiming that was all of my opinion and not fact, and I needed fact and evidence, despite that I was directing him to WP:VER multiple times! Our most recent dispute is over the addition of something to articles that are already covered by categories, and he is making me out to be a childish, rude and arrogant person to several other editors who I hold in high esteem!

These are only a few incidents, and I'm just so sick of it. I even try to avoid some articles as much as I can so I don't have him cracking down on me. I've been through enough crap without having him dump more on me. Well, at least I've got it off my chest; I think I really needed that. I apologise to anyone who has to read this. Thanks, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:53, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Sooner or later, the pressure vavle breaks for everyone, and we all need aplace to vent and someone to vent to. And I do agree about certain editors and their instance are running certain article there way. Its annoying as hell, and whats worse is that the editors at fault never seem to realise that they are the problem. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:00, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't it feel better after you type it out to someone? Please, don't "apologize to anyone who has to read this", as this is what the hotline is for. Keep soldiering on, friend - you are doing an excellent job here. —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 01:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much; I appreciate it, especially coming from you two. I'm just surprised that he hasn't been blocked before, or even warned, for his very rude comments that boarder on personal attacks; and I'm not the only one who gets it! I remember he once got into a dispute with an admin, who he later claimed was bullying him when the admin done nothing wrong! Thanks, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:43, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Abraham, if you've got a real behavioral problem with the user, you might want to consider bringing it to the coordinators on our talk page: WT:MHCOORD, to Roger, Kirill, or Yellow Monkey, or if it is bad enough to WP:ANI for some help. It always helps to get members of the Arbitration Committee on your side to help out. -MBK₀₀₄ 01:51, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion, MBK, but I'm not sure that will help much. I don't think I'd be able to really "pin" him for much, and during the process he would not doubt subtly blame me and my "childish" behaviour, and I'd end up looking like a fool or the "bad guy". Also, even though he makes contributions to this project and is sometimes active on the project talk pages, he isn't a member of Milhist. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 02:18, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry, you won't have to "pin" him for much. In these situations, and when someone else is acting as a neutral 3rd party, it's often best to just sit on the sidelines and watch them dig their own holes. It's how I've survived being phoned @ 06:30AM and accused of being an "F---ing Commie". If they can dig their own holes, why bother throwing them shovels? Cam ^(Chat) 04:54, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Concur. No need to throw a shovel to those who dig thier own holes. Better throw grenades. Its more fun to watch :) TomStar81 (Talk) 04:57, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Plus then you don't have to have nearly the aiming abilities. Cam ^(Chat) 04:59, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Lol, thanks. At least I know now he is stalking my contributions; he posted comments here disputing my frustrations, but Ed reverted them. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 05:04, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

What's all this about? I've looked up the recent edit logs for about a week and the only thing I see is a difference of a opinion as to whether it is appropriate to add "See also" for VC when there is already a VC cat at the bottom. Well it certainly doesn't change anything wrt POV. Well this surprises and upsets me. I've never seen anything untoward from either editor, except for this page... I guess perhaps if one only edits pages about Australia, and the topic is not a current political matter with the usual party hacks, then there is basically never any problem between established contributors, usually only SPAs v SPAs or SPAs v proper editors. I'm not sure why Pdf's comments were deleted though, it isn't fair it someones posts a complaint and another isn't allowed to reply, although the tone is likely to make some people automatically assume that it is a load of rubbish, ireespective of whether it is or not. A group of Tamil SPAs, some of whom work for Tamil Tiger websites are always very polite, whereas their Sinhalese counterparts are not, basically resulting in the Sinhalese guys being punted off and the Tamil guys having the freedom to write articles using Tamil websites without being challenged etc ... YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 05:22, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Disputes have been occuring between the two of us for a long time. The only time we seem to work in harmony is when Pdf gets what he wants from me. I'm just sick of all of the crap I cop off him, and I seriously do not want to discuss anything with him at the moment because all I seem to get is "that's your opinion" even if facts and evidence are presented. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 05:32, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Examples? Diffs? It's no good to have two productive users engaging in endless niggling. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 05:34, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Just left a few examples on your talk page then. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 05:50, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikistress

There is an editor that I just can't seem to communicate with, in that he refuses to communicate. He reverts my edits without explaining why. When I ask him why he has reverted my edits, he complains that I'm "always questioning his edits". In fact, he rarely provides an answer to the question asked. When it is pointed out to him that his response does not answer the question, he either complains that he has already "adequately" answered the question, or he simply doesn't reply at all. Very occasionally he does supply an answer that is relevant. In these cases, I usually agree with him, or just fall in behind because I can't be bothered with the agro. I used to argue with him, but discovered that was a pointless exercise - it never achieved anything. Now I don't argue with him, but he continues to be agressive, rude and periodicly, make libelous assertions.

I no longer wish to put up with his unpleasantness.
Today I waved an olive branch at him, concluding with the paragraph:
I really don't see why I should stop editing Australian military history articles solely because interacting with you is "just too hard". As I have said before, there was a time when we worked together productively, happily and enjoyably. I don't really understand what changed, but I would much prefer that you returned to the behaviour patterns that made working with you enjoyable and productive.
His response was to undo my edit with the comment: "I have no time for your rants when they are inaccurate, rude and hypocritical"
What I posted was not intended to be inaccurate, rude, or hypocritical. It was intended to restore co-ordial relations between us. I have re-read my posting, and don't see anything inaccurate, rude or hypocritical, but then, I probably wouldn't, would I. The response was most definitely the opposite of what I'm trying to achieve.

What's ironic is that he would probably make similar comments about me, except he would be more aggressive about it, and wouldn't let the facts get in the way of him stating his point of view. And he would probably accuse me of also doing that. I don't know what to do next; I can't see a solution that doesn't involve major changes in personality (both his and mine). I have shown I'm willing to try to get along with him, but he doesn't seem interested. As I said, I really don't see why I should stop editing Australian military history articles solely because interacting with him is "just too hard", but I no longer wish to put up with his unpleasantness. Pdfpdf (talk) 11:33, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Non-communiative editors are hard to communicate with. It may help to point out who causes this trouble and what articles are affected, so a number of editors can have an eye on the issue. This way we might help to establish a secure line of communication and solve the current misunderstandings by making the messages clearer. Wandalstouring (talk) 14:25, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Is this about User:Abraham, B.S.? I just read the pervious discussion above, and it's about ABS having trouble dealing with pdf, from 5 months ago! There is definetely a personal interaction problem here. I have a feeling that each editors' style irritates the other person, and after some time of it it becomes harder to tolerate. Both are good contributors, and actually seem to be trying to be reasonable. Perhaps some mediation is needed here, or maybe just some time off the contentious subjects to reset the tolerance level. I took a day and a off of editing WP last week (because of a contentious IP on one talk page), and it did wonders for me! - BillCJ (talk) 15:24, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you both for your replies. I have only just read them; I decided yesterday to not use WP, and not look at my watchlist for the day. (This is probably the first day in two years that I haven't!) Much to my surprise, I discovered I managed! So thanks BillCJ; in the past I have implemented the occasional "alcohol-free-day" - perhaps I should now also implement the occasional "WP-free day"!

I'm interested that both of you feel that knowing who the protagonist is, is useful information. Full points to Bill - yes, it is Bryce Abraham. Much to my amusement, I see that he's managed to piss-off two other editors with his Adolf-Hitler-like dictatorial behaviour whilst I have been blissfully absent.

(Still, I should be careful; when I was his age I was supremely confident that I was always right and that anyone who didn't share my point-of-view was either misguided or an idiot. Maybe one day he'll grow up. For his sake, I really hope it's soon - it took me many unhappy years before I woke up. My God! I must have been unbearable!!)

So gentlemen, thanks for your concern, I appreciate it very much. What do you suggest we/I do next? Many thanks, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:13, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Let's collect a number of editors that have had troubles with this individual and discuss matters with him. Other wikimembers will be invited and the scope of this discussion is to explain while such a worthy fellow causes so much trouble and how he can avoid the trouble and retain being a worthy fellow. Wandalstouring (talk) 16:33, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Wandalstouring, the only editor I really have trouble with is Pdfpdf. I do not believe it is totally my fault, or his. We just do not get along very well. You must also remember that the above is Pdf's view or events, which could, and does, vastly differ from my own. That said, I fully intend to be cutting down my editing over the next few days in the endeavour of a possible/probable wikibreak. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 09:25, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Dearie me Bryce. You just can't leave "well enough" alone, can you? Pdfpdf (talk) 15:09, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

From Bryce's pov, I imagine that he honestly believes what we is saying. However, that does NOT mean that there are not others who are having "trouble" with his "points of view". Pdfpdf (talk) 15:09, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Wandalstouring: Thank you for your concern - I assure you that it is very much appreciated.
I'm not sure which is the best way to address Bryce Abraham's very narrow point of view. I have no particular problem that he does have a very narrow point of view. My problem is when he insists that his is the ONLY point of view, and insists upon imposing it on others without prior discussion.
Yes, maybe I'm the only editor He has trouble with. But there are many (OK, exaggeration. Several.) other editors that have problems with him.
Although he annoys the pants of of me, I'm not sure of the best way forward. The fact that he has subsequently responded in a manner suggesting that a solution is possible is, in my view, a major step forward, and a big relief to me.
As he says, we both feel that we have no problems interacting with others. OK, we're fooling ourselves - I know there are others that he annoys; I don't know, but would not be surprised to learn there are others that find me annoying.
I'm not disagreeing, and I most definitely do NOT want to sound or be ungrateful, but I'm not clear of the benefits of what you are suggesting.
"Help!". Pdfpdf (talk) 15:09, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Pdf, how could I "leave well enough alone" when this has basically turned into a witch hunt against me with only one party's views being presented? That does not seem particularly fair. I have been quite civil towards you of late, have answered all of your questions, and have even put up with such things as you comparing me to Hitler. You are the only editor who has stated you have problems with me; no other editor has ever stated as such to me, nor have I seen another editor state as such to another, so I really don't know who you could be referring to when you say "several". I truly believe many of your above claims are highly hypocritical. I'm just so tired of this. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 23:56, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Dear Pot,

I read your reply.

Signed: Kettle.

how could I "leave well enough alone"? Answer: I managed to.

If you re-read my above posting, you should be able to work out that it is not me pursuing a witch hunt. In particular: "The fact that he has subsequently responded in a manner suggesting that a solution is possible is, in my view, a major step forward, and a big relief to me." and "I'm not clear of the benefits of what you are suggesting."

"I have been quite civil towards you of late, have answered all of your questions" - Yes, you have, and yes, I have noticed, and yes, I have appreciated it. As I said: "The fact that he has subsequently responded in a manner suggesting that a solution is possible is, in my view, a major step forward, and a big relief to me." Pdfpdf (talk) 12:33, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Is there any way for you guys to not run into each other and not comment on one another's pages...? —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 02:35, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

"Is there any way for you guys to not run into each other?" - I don't think so. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:33, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

"and not comment on one another's pages" - Yes.

He is currently being very polite and considerate with his edits; this is a situation I find much more enjoyable. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:33, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

The reason I wrote here is that: "I no longer wish to put up with his unpleasantness."
He has recently reduced his level of unpleasantness, so my "problem" has largely "gone away".
Who knows - we may even be able to move towards a point where we can work together without offending each other. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:33, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

You're arguing with each other but the style is OK. Pdfpdf didn't list the "several" other editors having problems. As long as this isn't solved, the best solution is you both stay as polite as now and don't comment on this issue any more. Wandalstouring (talk) 16:35, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Am I a bad person?

I mean, is it wrong of me to want to go to school and not work until I graduate? Do I really seem to be the cause for the greatest disasters ever in history? Is refusing to move out of my parents (well, parent now) house a sign that I am somehow immature? Is it some sort of sin against nature to need more than four years to graduate from an institute of higher education? And is it always my fault that I could not take more then 6-12 hours the first two years here at UTEP? It seems to me that the harder I try to live up to my brother and father's expectations the worse I do, and every time my brother insists on bringing up his outstanding accomplishments and concluding with statements that I should follow in his footsteps I end up feeling very hurt. I'm half tempted just to leave; simply through everything in the car and hit the road, tell no one where I am going and see how much they like their advise then. Why must it be the fate of mortals that we are not to know the hour of our death, because right now the Almighty's realm looks a hell of alot better than another day on this earth. (I'm not suicidal again, as I am not depressed; I'm just venting on a dream of mine, so do not panic when you read the above.) TomStar81 (Talk • Some say ¥€$, I say NO) 01:25, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Tom, I am continually amazed at how alike we are (except for the broken home and brother). It is not wrong to want to go to school and not work until you graduate, that is exactly what I am doing. Not moving out of your parents home could be a sign of wisdom and maturity if done for the correct reasons (in my case it is fiscal responsibility). It is absolutely not a sin to need more than four years to attain an undergraduate degree, heck even I need more than 8 semesters (but I only need one extra). Living up to expectations can be the hardest form of peer pressure to deal with, but know that the reason they are saying these things is because they do really care about you and your future. That last line took a long time for me to personally understand, but once I did, I have done magnificently, I even made the Dean's List this past semester. Even though you say you are not suicidal, I am still concerned because making those types of statements is a little alarming even if you have the disclaimer of venting only, so my friend, please get help instead of making any rash decisions or anything that would impact your relationship with your family. -MBK₀₀₄ 01:45, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I can't add much; what MBK says above echoes my own thoughts down to the letter. If it is a sin to need more than four years, many people around the U.S., including me, are committing that sin. You're certainly not alone, my friend. —Ed (Talk • Say no to drama) 18:53, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikistress 2

I'm having a hard time, mostly WP related; too much stuff going on at once. I thought I'd post here first before I try email. Anyone still watch this page? - Dank (push to talk) 00:10, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm still watching it. What's up? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 00:13, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

To the extent we're talking about me, voice or email would be better, and to the extent that it's just normal wikiduties (but too much at the moment), on-wiki is probably better ... so let me know which works better for you. Let's start with the on-wiki stuff ... someone tell me if Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Peter Jeffrey (RAAF officer) looks like a coherent response or a stress-addled, defensive reaction. - Dank (push to talk) 00:23, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

That looks coherent to me, but I fear I don't have the whole context. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 01:41, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

←No other context that I know of. Ian's one of our best writers, and I've always told him so. Okay, let me just throw some things out that are stressing me. I guess I should say first that my brain isn't the standard-issue brain (as if that weren't obvious) ... I can get depressed from something as simple as having too much to think about, too many unresolved questions. Kind of like mental constipation.

What we're talking about at WT:RFA is a big part of it, because I've realized that I didn't see some things that are obvious now in retrospect, and I could have been more helpful if I hadn't been so timid of the last couple of years. I got a sympathetic email tonight and I think I have someone to talk with about that, so I don't need to go into detail. But there's just so much to read and recall, trying to sort it all out, it hurts my brain. Jimbo wrote asking my opinion of what to do, and apparently he didn't ask anyone else (I asked at WT:RFA) ... I don't know exactly what he's asking for, he didn't respond. I also have no idea how fast he's going to pull the plug on RFA if he doesn't get what he wants, and I don't know what he wants other than in general terms. (People should be nicer, apparently.)

I don't understand where all the Milhist reviewers went; I'm shouldering more than my share of the load, and of course copyediting isn't very helpful by itself.

I get the impression Sandy needs me to do more at FAC, although of course she never says so. It seems to be happening more often than it used to that if I've weighed in at all, she doesn't promote until the point where I can copyedit the whole thing. I don't mind, FAC is in some ways where I feel most comfortable, but some of these articles are really long, and there are tough issues.

There are some RL problems, mostly resolved, that have contributed.

At Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Ernst Lindemann, I don't understand why other reviewers aren't backing me up; there's a clear policy violation (WP:UE) in overuse of German. When you pick up a newspaper or buy a book or read an encyclopedia or anything else intended for a general audience, you don't expect 1 in 10 words to be German. Style guides such as Chicago are clear on the point. My experience at FAC tells me that there's no point in reviewing if other reviewers won't back you up when you have to deliver bad news.

At least one WPian finds it necessary to insult me whenever he gets a chance (for years). Not sure what to do about that, I'm talking with a friend about it.

I'm wondering if I'm making a big mistake not going to more wiki-meetups. I'm wondering to what extent other WPians feel connected with me, and whether that makes a difference.

I'm wondering if we're making a big mistake not actively trying to collaborate with academic and professional military historians (other than Hawkeye of course ... there may be others but I don't know of any). There are a lot of good things that could in theory happen from that, and I can't help but wonder ... if we can get collaborations that lead to scholarly articles and books, does that mean I have to do all my work over again after professionals have had their input?

My level of history knowledge is that I generally get Jeopardy! questions right but I don't have any one period or area that I know well. I'm really regretting that; I like history, and especially the military historians' take on history. I want to free up some time for reading but I can't seem to ever make it happen.

Does that get us started? - Dank (push to talk) 02:16, 25 March 2011 (UTC) P.S. The thing that's been the most stressful is the RFA part ... I just made a post on my thoughts at Wikipedia_talk:Rfa#Eureka.21_We.27re_all_morons., and you can see from that (and above and below) what a difficult problem we're struggling with. - Dank (push to talk) 22:49, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Being timitd can be a blessing and a benegit – you're the stabilizing "let's slow down" influence, but occasionally you may miss items that need to change. Don't beat yourself up over it; people make mistakes. Just try to move forward now!

ACR tends to have reviewers in spurts. I don't really understand it. Maybe we need to make a plea for more reviewers at [[WT:MILHIST]}?

Lindemann has too many translations. I'm actually a fan of some 'useless' translations because I like learning foreign words, but that's way too many.

Wiki-meetups seem like they'd be fun. I don't know about the connections, but considering 99% don't go to meetups, I doubt that is a central problem.

I don't know what to say about historians. I think we'd have a problem when people don't recognize them as experts (c.f. WP:CRED).

The RfA proposal looks really good so far... I think you need to move it in a certain direction, towards an outcome, before people loose interest. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:01, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Agreed, I'm pushing for User_talk:Dank/RFA#What next now. I started feeling much better after I got all the RFA arguments out of my system; they were clogging up the works. The plan now is to focus on just one thing at a time (RFA at the moment), aside from routine copyediting, which improves my skills and my mood. - Dank (push to talk) 19:35, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi Dank, You're a very well regarded editor, and you really don't have anything to worry about. As a suggestion, if you're feeling stressed about Wikipedia I recommend taking a few days (or weeks if that works for you) off from it. You definitely shouldn't feel that you're letting people down by not doing various things - this is a volunteer/hobby website, and the standard pattern of participation is for people to dip into and out of different areas as their time allows. Best regards, Nick-D (talk) 22:33, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I may need to do that, Nick, thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 22:45, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. If you're feeling overwhelmed, a day or two away always helps the mind. Take a weekend off and enjoy some places around NC. :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 01:12, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Expletives deleted!

I wish Bryce Abraham would stop stalking me and vandalising my edits with rude and arrogant edit summaries. I also wish he would stop presenting his POV as indisputable fact and as indisputable justification for doing whatever he pleases. Rest of lengthy whinge deleted.
For a long period life was harmonious. I wonder what has changed? Pdfpdf (talk) 17:25, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh dear. Here we go again. Doesn't he have anything better to do with his time than make an arrogant rude nuisance of himself at wikipedia? I wish he'd get himself a life/hobby/interest/pet/friend/group of friends/girlfriend/etc. This, perhaps, would actually contibute to his education. (Which, by-the-way, I and the other Australian tax payers are funding. I just don't feel like I'm getting any value for my money.) Pdfpdf (talk) 13:44, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh. My. God. He's doing EXACTLY what the tobacco industry tried to do! (Listen to http://www.abc.net.au/local/stories/2011/05/18/3220237.htm?site=conversations&date=201105) Pdfpdf (talk) 14:27, 2 June 2011 (UTC)