User talk:Roger Davies/Archive 6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← Archive 5 |
Archive 6
| Archive 7 →


Contents

Request for review of William King (Royal Navy)

Hello -

Please be so kind as to review my article on William (Bill) King, the oldest surviving submarine commander of the Second World War, solo circumnavigator, and author. I am hoping to get a good rating and eventually to have the article qualified as a Featured Article.

Thank you! DocDee (talk) 07:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the quick response, detailed review, and pointers for future steps that you gave. I appreciate your efforts. DocDee (talk) 17:29, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Operation Castor

My God, it's empty! Okay, why not? Give me a couple of days to warm up and we can get cracking, have a lot of university work to sort out first, so may be slower at working for a little while. Regards, SGGH speak! 08:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Article Review

Hello! I want you to review the article Frontier Force Regiment(if you are free!) in short, so any improvements needed could be made. Thanks! --SMS Talk 09:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

No problem! Thanks! --SMS Talk 15:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks a lot! for reviewing it that much comprehensively, it wasn't long as I know how much busy you are and how many other request for peer review you denied. I have looked at it and going to start working on the article again based on this review. Again Thanks! --SMS Talk 05:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Interview of sorts

Do you have time to be a guinea pig now that you are an admin? I am planning on writing a paper for Wikimania 2008 on "online collaborative writing" and I was wondering if I could "interview" you over email about your experiences writing on Wikipedia. I'm trying to collect as many perspectives as possible and I was thinking that your experience on the military history project in particular would be helpful. I would really appreciate it! Awadewit | talk 01:43, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

YES!!!

I would love another shot at adminship! The only reason I haven't taken another crack at adminship is because I would rather be nominated by a second or third party since self somination (to me) undermines the whole effort. As to when I run: a month or so is fine by me, I've waited seven monthes since my last rfa(s) so waiting a little long won't kill me ;-) Thanks for the offer. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

True, but you do have to condier my answer to the "what will do with adminship" question as part of the reason that was such a telling objection: if I had been a little less specific on that point I think the odds would have been a little more favorable for me. At a minimum I need to refamilarize my self with the adminship pages (what adminship is not and all the others), and as you pointed out it wouldn't hurt to hang out at afd and csd for a while. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Milhist newsletter

Got anything to add to the February newsletter? or are we good to go? Woody (talk) 18:39, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I have :) Obviously something on the elections and then something on the logistics dept. Making that work is going to take quite a bit of exposure. Give me a day or two :) --ROGER DAVIES talk 18:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Sure thing, thought you would have something which is why I asked! Woody (talk) 20:10, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Couldn't see any typos so updated the outreach page and left a note at Cbrown's talkpage. Should be out soon. Regards Woody (talk) 12:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations

Roger, congratulations on your election as the lead coordinator of the Military History Project. Cam (complaints) 19:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Three things

Yes, I'm up for running the scripts; they only take a day or so to run, so it's not a big deal. The only issue I can see is the workshop matter; I'm assuming that we'll need to make changes in order to reduce the number of false positives, and, depending on how complex those are, I'm not sure that it'll be feasible to have everything ready by the end of the month. How firm of a deadline do you expect that to be?

As far as B-Class worklists go: I assume you mean something like the drive, with lists of articles broken up into small pages? That should be quite easy to generate, since it's basically just taking the existing category and splitting it up into multiple files.

(For ease of generation, it helps if any needed instructions are transcludable, as they were in the first drive; that way, I can insert them into the lists I generate without needing to know what they actually are.)

Cheers! Kirill 20:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that'd be doable. How exactly do you want the B-Class worklists laid out? Kirill 14:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Hmm. Technically speaking, Stub- and Start-Class articles also have "incomplete checklists". Given your estimate of the size, I'm guessing that you only want those articles that are actually B-Class at the moment to show up in this initial run? Kirill 04:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, please. About 4000 articles is relatively easy to do and shouldn't interfere with T&A08 in April. Perhaps we can re-visit stubs and start later in the year. --ROGER DAVIES talk 05:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Okay, will do. :-) Kirill 05:53, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Logistics departement

Is {{externalimage}} no longer part of our suggested solutions for graphics? Wandalstouring (talk) 12:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to add an external graphics section to the Logistics Dept, or to add it to the Logistics Dept talk page to be included in due course. --ROGER DAVIES talk 12:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Looks very nice! You might want to add a note to {{MILHIST Announcements}} about it as well, though. Kirill 14:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

First Camp

Just a courtesy heads up that I took it to AfD as I don't see notability evidence. Have a good day :) TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 15:37, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Asking for your support

Good day, I am soliciting your input and support for reinstating an article that I wrote called Leo J Meyer. Col Meyer was a soldier who started out in pre WWII National Guard ranks. After being called to Federal service and serving in the Pacific for most of 1942 he attended USAAF OCS in Miami Beach Fl along with several Hollywood personalities. His squad Sergeant was William Holden. He continued thru the war to Japan and returned after it to NYNY. He reenlisted in the National Guard and then transferred back onto active duty. He managed to get his commission reinstated and spent the rest of his time on active Army until retiring as a Colonel in 1971. He actually participated in combat in three wars and was awarded three Combat Infantryman Badges (read the article and the article on the CIB to learn the significance).

Besides telling a story of a man who “just wanted to be a soldier” I intended to wet the whistle of readers with a glimpse of US Army history (federalization of NG, WWII enlisted rank system, etc) hoping to encourage further investigation and learning of that history via Wikipedia.

I began posting the article to Wikipedia in late November 2007. By late January 2008 I felt the military biography was essentially complete without telling anecdotal stories about him and his friends like Hugh Casey for whom Camp Casey, Korea was named. That would only point out his personality and not necessarily be encyclopedic. At the end of January 08 a Wikipedia Administrator nominated the article for deletion. Although there were a couple of administrators who participated in the discussions who supported leaving the article, the decision was made to delete.

Obviously I feel that the Military Biographical Article falls in line with other articles of soldiers like Meyer’s friend Frederick Weyand whose article was the example I followed.

I found that those people who participated in the AfD did not read everything published or what was there very clearly, i.e. I hade posted an image of an article from an Army publication which addressed Meyer’s earning his parachute wings at age 51 and I had included from the get go the title of a book about Scrimshaw in which some of his art work was published by the books author. One complaint about this later was that there was no ISBN. I could not find one but I have found the Library of Congress Catalog numbers for the two books referenced.

I have modified the article and it is currently at User:Meyerj user page. I am inviting you to read it and if you support reinstating it, helping me to do so.

Thank you for your time. Meyerj (talk) 17:56, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Leo J. Meyer

Please have a look at the DRV for Leo J. Meyer (currently seen at User:Meyerj) located at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 March 3. Its my opinion that the article met the standards for verifiability and notability. I would appreciate your input into the matter. MrPrada (talk) 18:24, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and wieghed in on the matter, although like MrPrada I would apreciate your input as well. Do we have asection withon our project to announce deletion reviews? TomStar81 (Talk) 20:19, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Not as far as I know. (Longer-term, do you think we should have one? ) Perhaps just mention this one on the talk page. The link is Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 March 3#Leo J. Meyer. --ROGER DAVIES talk 20:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
There is Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Military by the way. Woody (talk) 20:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Yep, I was looking at that earlier. Perhaps it could be modified to include other deletion reviews? Didn't this come up during the elections and someone offer to look after it? --ROGER DAVIES talk 20:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Which reviews were you thinking about? It covers them all as far as I know and I help maintain the Footy ones so I have come across most kinds of reviews. Judging by the page history, Nick is the one to ask. Woody (talk) 20:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Categories? I'm up for everything in one place. --ROGER DAVIES talk 20:44, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
As far as I know, all XFD discussions are listed there at the moment. I think it is all there, it just needs someone to manually update them by checking for new discussions as we already have on the Featured content pages. (Note to self, add FPC to watchlist). The deletion page is linked from the main Milhist template, though I am not sure how much throughfare it gets. I agree a centralised place is needed, we just need to advertise it more. Woody (talk) 20:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Per your remarks on lack of citations, I added about 20 sources to Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008 March 3#Leo J. Meyer, I found more but the rest were mainly bibliographies, etc., citing works edited or composed by Meyer when he was head of the Army's Center for Military History. Perhaps this may help ascertain whether or not he is "notable", although as of right now there seems to be no consensus in the DRV. One thing that boggles me is that there are some who are suggesting that he can somehow meet WP:MILHIST but not WP:N. If anything, I believe that WP:MILHIST supersedes WP:N, since they are both just guidelines, but you and I both know that the MILHIST notability guideline takes WP:N into account in the first place, so I can't really follow their logic. Anyway, hope the sources help rescue a decent article. MrPrada (talk) 02:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Mr Davies, I thank you for the time that you have spent on my little issue.

There are variations of the article written by Specialist 5 Bob Ruth and published in the 1969 time frame of the Green Beret Magazine, Army Digest, and Stars and Stripes Newspaper Far East edition which can be sited but I have no idea where they can be verified other than perhaps the US Library of Congress. The book by Martha Bowen (Bowen, Martha. Scrimshaw: Variations on a Theme. San Francisco, CA: Martha Bowen, 1988. LC Control No.:88070736) may be found in museum book stores dedicated to the American whaling industry. It was a museum on the west cost that emailed copies of the specific pages of Meyer's art. Bob Bards 1957 book (Bard, Bob. Making and Collecting MILITARY MINIATURES. New York: Robert M McBride CO., INC 1957. LC Control No.:57010757) also is hard to find today, and there is one other book dedicated to the collection of "tin soldiers" that I am aware of but have not yet located which address Meyer's contribution to the art of making and collecting ....

One of the Wikipedia articles I took inspiration from is about Robert L Howard. Bob was one of my immediate bosses when I was in uniform. In his article is posted the text of the citation from his MoH award. During WWII and the Korean War such citations were not written up for the individual lesser awards. In fact Meyer's citations read from x date to y date earning him B award.

All military awards are a matter of public record, although you may have to go thru hell to get them. There isn't really anything to post regarding award citations. Meyerj (talk) 17:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

AE somewhere in the article

Awadewit noticed that I used some AE in the Zwingli article (now going through FAC). As you are a BE expert, could you take a look? The problem is my English education is of a mixed heritage and I can't catch these things as easily as an English or an American. If you are free, of course! Thanks! --RelHistBuff (talk) 09:46, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Checked it through twice. The only thing I could find was two instances of "center", replaced with "centre". I'll look again after luncheon. Hope this helps, --ROGER DAVIES talk 10:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Many thanks, Roger! And good luck with Milhist coordination. --RelHistBuff (talk) 06:56, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Spam, spam, spam... spammity spam!

Er, sorry, saw Spamalot last weekend and it's been stuck in my head ever since.

Hi, Roger, how goes it? I'm still waiting on my Rimbaud books through interlibrary loan, but I've reading the ones I did pick up and, boy, is his biography going to be fun to write. Scandals! Lovers' tiffs! GUNS! Speaking of tiffs, I'd like an admin's opinion on a rather rude message I received from someone who had added an external link to an online petition on Knut. Aside from accusing me of bias and threatening to report my actions to the press (!), they questioned this link's status as spam, which is a point I politely explained to them on their talk page. I've seen petition links removed from articles before, citing WP:SPAM, so I feel justified in its removal, but is there a better way to explain it to them that won't land me on the five o'clock news? There's a reason why I work with books and not people; not much with the people-skills.  :) María (habla conmigo) 00:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Milhist: Logistics dept.

Thanks, Roger, I'll add a few words tonight. Sadly, I don't have consistent access to JSTOR. (I'm completing my dissertation off campus.) Nevertheless, I'm pretty good at scaring up sources through other means and will help in any way I can. It's nice to be part of the team! Cheers, -- twelsht (talk) 04:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for thinking of me. Regrettably, my skills in the area of computer graphics are uneven. On the other hand, I'm a good freehand illustrator and used to do it professionally. Once my scanner is back in working order, I'll consider joining the graphics team. Cheers, -- twelsht (talk) 06:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
If you think this skill will come in handy, I'll let you know when my scanner is back in operating order. -- twelsht (talk) 15:02, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIV (February 2008)

The February 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 08:02, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

My new admin friend - :)

Can you find out what has happened to the deleted image at Reception history of Jane Austen? It was a DVD cover of the 1995 mini-series of Pride and Prejudice. I know the image I posted was about to be deleted when I initially added it, but I filled out the requisite non-free rationale for both Reception history of Jane Austen and Pride and Prejudice (1995 mini-series), so the image should have been retained. I'm curious as to why it has been deleted. Thanks! Awadewit | talk 13:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Reply

Hello, Roger Davies. You have new messages at Chetblong's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} template.

Your question

Question: You mention that this is original research. What is the source of it? Did it come directly from Col Meyer and, if so, would you mind telling me what your relationship to him is? --ROGER DAVIES talk 13:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Leo Meyer was my father. After he was inurned at Arlington National Cemetery I was asked by some obscure long lost family member I had never met before, but whose side of the family apparently held him in some esteem, about his unit information. I was not prepared to answer that factually so I began researching his records, and putting two and two together and I learned a lot about the little giant I called Dad. I could remember events from his quite extensive photo album/scrapbook, but anecdotes from other family members contributed to a rather lengthy biographical document that I provided to all of the family. One short episode... Around 1960 while a major stationed at Ft Dix, he was detailed to escort the Egyptian delegation during the International Military Boxing Championships (CISM). I attended some of the fights with him. While at an official function at the O'Club he, at 5'8", 135 pounds went up to an official guest of the games, James J Braddock, AKA "Cinderella Man" and told the former heavy weight champion that he was a "Bum". He did this tongue and cheek. Taken aback, the much larger man asked why and my father told him how he had lost a weeks pay, $27, because of him, when he beat Max Baer. Braddock enjoyed the story and asked him to repeat it to his wife. It was his full of "Moxy" persona that enabled him to go through Jump School in Vietnam at age 51, a feat that had not been done (or documented) before by anyone in the Army at that age. And he did it because he was assigned to Special Forces and not airborne qualified which meant he was not authorized to wear the green beanie until he became airborne. He had volunteered to go to Vietnam in his 28th year. So most of what you see there is taken from my original much larger document without the side stories. Additionally quite a bit of information can also be found at the National Army Museum Soldier registry that was taken from his official records.

While in Vietnam LTG Frederick Weyand, who was the top dog in Vietnam after Westmorland, made a special visit to the 5th Group Hq because he had learned that Dad was assigned there and they went back to 1950 in the 7th Infantry. Leo J Meyer was anything but an obscure Army Officer.

Besides being a good staff officer he was a tremendous artist as the Scrimshaw displayed in the article demonstrates. That photo was taken in my living room of one of the whale's teeth that appear in the Bowen book.

Is it original work or just the first time compiled and edited in this manner and depth? I must admit that I do not like copying information from any source and merely citing the source. Why not just post the source?

You may have gathered from my comment of this morning that you Wikipedians need to work toward collecting the history that has been left out of paper encyclopedias because of cost. That is unfortunately editing history and keeping the full story from being told. And I understand cost. I am also not interested in personal notoriety but I never tried to hide my name. Meyerj (talk) 15:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. In the interests of full disclosure, I've posted your message unedited and without comment on the deletion discussion page.--ROGER DAVIES talk 16:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

...for the email. I am back for now, but I have been pulling 18+ hour days for most of this week and am thus rather burned out, so I may be off the air for a good portion of the weekend.

On an unrelated note, I have a question: would it be possible to establish a 'reference department' within the project that catalouges all references (books, websites, journals, films, etc) currently cited as sources in articles within our scope? I'm guessing that would require the use of scripts at a minimum, or maybe even a bot, but the potential to gather all such references could help us help us improve articles by creating a kind of 'library reference center' where people can look for material releveant to an article they are witing/expanding, and could help the project coordinators by allowing us to check for articles using funny citations. Thoughts? TomStar81 (Talk) 01:46, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Good to have you back. Chill over the weekend, dude. That's what weekends are for!
Yes, I suppose it would be possible but it's a vast undertaking. By the end of the summer, we'll probably have 70-80,000 articles. Say, average of five or six cites each, that's half a million things to catalogue. Data integrity would be a huge issue: small typos in book titles or author names will prevent things getting linked together. UK and US editions of the same book sometimes have different titles. Some scholarly works will need citing twice: once to the editor and once again to the contributor. See Operation Camargue and the entries for Cogan and Vaïsse in the refs as an example.) Magazine and newspaper articles for example are sometimes cited by author (correct) or by journal name. How do we tie these together. I think what I'm saying is that a bot could generate the raw data but it will take a lot of human oversight to make it usable. On top of which, it will be a nightmare to keep up to data. This is no doubt all overcomeable but the question then is: Is this best use of limited project resources?
--ROGER DAVIES talk 05:50, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
What I'm thinking for this is actually two fold: the idea of creating a repository for people to check for information is part of it, but the other part of it is checking to ensure that our citations are correctly figured. I was thinking that we might want to invest some time in a reference and citation drive on the size and scope of tag and assess, with the objective of correcting inline citations and book reference sections and such so that article that ordinarily wouldn't show up on the radar can be inspected, check, corrected, certified, and reinserted into the mainstream encyclopedia. Ideally we could do this on a yearly bases, have one big drive in the fall and one big drive in the spring so as to cover our bases equally. Mind you this is just a preliminay idea, but I wanted a second opinion before investing more thinking time into it. What do you think? TomStar81 (Talk) 16:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Sure, invest some time in it. I suggest you run it past the others though first. If it looks promising, we could always do a small-scale trial - say 1000 articles chosen from one task force - to explore the practicalities. Incidentally, where do we warehouse the data, by the way? The wiki-table function is clunky to put it mildly.
And thanks very much for the BS :) --ROGER DAVIES talk 17:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I have firmed up my idea a little since last I suggested it. I think this should be one of two major drives we hold on a yearly bases: We can hold tag and assess in the fall and this reference drive in the spring, I think, as a way to diversify our contests. This referencing contest would have three primary objectives: 1) Check to ensure that the citations referenced in the article are current and appropriete for Wikipedia: by current I mean that any websites provided as references have not expired or changes hands, but appropriete I mean that the websites provided are not blogs or chat rooms or anything of that nature. 2) Ensure that all pages using references are internally consistant, by which I mean all inline citations confer to a single style (havard style or otherwise) and that all pages have indepedent notes, references, bibliography, and external links sections correctly configured to the MoS guidelines. 3) Ensure that all inline citations include all accessable parameters (author name, book titles, publishing companies and so forth). In the process we can invert the repository idea and, if enough info exists, create a page listing sources that fail the required parameters for reliable sources. In this manner we can track pages that may be using material of questionable authenticity and remove such references from our article before there use becomes an issue. How does this refined idea sound? Its still being firmed up, but at this point its clearer than it was a week or so ago. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:58, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for that. This coincides with some major second thoughts I'm having about Tag & Assess and how we go about it/them. In a nutshell, we need to get our in-house structures re-organised so that editors can use the data accumulated on T&A drives and much more focused about the objectives. In another nutshell, the key to getting these things done is to ooomph up massively the task forces. (Please read and comment on my response to your "President/Cabinet" post in /Coordinators.) Give me a day or so to crystallise my thoughts on the bigger picture and I'll post something in /Coordinators. 06:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Mr. and Mrs. Iyer FAC

Hi Roger Davies, firstly thanks for your comments at the FAC discussion. Based on your comments/objections, necessary changes have been implemented in the article now. I request you to re-visit the article and check for any inconsistencies or anything that hasn't been addressed as yet and on this basis, post your further comments. I'd really appreciate you taking out time in doing this once again. Regards, Mspraveen (talk) 06:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

BCAD worklists

I've uploaded the worklists at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/B-Class Assessment Drive/1 to Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/B-Class Assessment Drive/18; there are 3,549 articles in total. You'll need to create a page header template and put the sign-up table on the main page, but everything else should be ready to go. :-) Kirill 03:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Please let me know if you need any other help with it. Kirill 03:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for inviting me to the BCAD drive. This is something that I really feel would be of great importance to the project. I had also added worklists and assessed the articles during the previous drive. This shouldn't be that different I guess. My only doubt is how we have so few pages needing a B-class worklist, since most of the pages I encountered during the drive didnt have the lists, and I doubt whether most of the other assessors added the worklists. Are there any cutoffs like only having start class pages with incomplete worklists only?
Another thing, the worklist pages, could we have a link to the edit talk page directly, rather than having to go through the long route of page -> talk page -> edit page, which is really annoyingly slow. I can create a template if you'd like. Thanks. Cheers. T/@Sniperz11editssign 06:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
P.S. Great opening spell from the new coordinator group I have to say. You guys have really got to your feet fast.
Hi! This drive is restricted to existing B-Class articles and it's really just checking that they fulfill all the basic requirements. This is also meant to be a small "quickie" drive, doing a bit of esssential housekeeping, slipped in between now and the next Tag & Assess which will start mid-April. That'll be a monster! I think the worklist questions you ask are resolved but you can speed stuff up no end using a Firefox add-on Linky. as the pages avoid graphic templates, they should load faster too. Thanks for signing up and all the best, --ROGER DAVIES talk 06:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
The links all look good to me. :-) Kirill 12:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Jack Warner FAC

Hi Roger, I know that you have a busy schedule just now. If, however, you can spare a moment to review this FA candidate, I'd greatly appreciate it. I'm trying to promote a few well-developed B-class articles before disentangling myself from the Youngstown project and moving on to other commitments. Best, -- twelsht (talk) 10:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Roger, The edit-revert-edit cycle is over, I think. User Kevinj located a print source for an anecdote that had raised the eyebrow of at least one reviewer. I reformatted the inline citation, included the book in the "Reference" section, and thanked the user for his contribution. I also pointed out to the user that multiple references to Warner's 'womanizing' could lead reviewers to treat the article less seriously. The user has made no attempt to restore this content. Overall, I think the situation has been resolved amicably. Cheers, -- twelsht (talk) 13:45, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I just wanted to let you know that Jack Warner was just promoted to FA status. Thanks, again, for all your feedback and support. Don't hesitate to contact me if I can be of assistance! Best, -- twelsht (talk) 03:54, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

BCAD Participation

Hi Roger -- thanks for asking me about the drive. I might be interested in participating on a casual basis, but as someone who's not especially familiar with the topics or project beyond the tag/assess drive, I'm not certain I'd be capable of assessing the B-class articles, particularly for criteria 2 and 5. What degree of familiarity/expertise would you say this new drive requires? Thanks! -- Avocado (talk) 15:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks you for your message. If you've been around for a few months, got your wits about you, and have a "feel" for what B-Class is about, you'll be fine. I'm sure these all apply :) --ROGER DAVIES talk 15:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your message. I noticed you changed some of the Criterion 1 assessments I'd made -- am I holding these articles to too-high standards for references / citations?
BTW, I'm reasonably comfortable with the drive now, but still a little anxious about Criterion 2 -- I just simply don't know enough about these topics to identify omissions and inaccuracies. I seem to have landed on a list that's all battles, so at least I now have a general sense of what basic sections should be included in a battle article. On the other hand, I don't know what counts as sufficient coverage of each section, for instance.
Thanks for your guidance. -- Avocado (talk) 16:13, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

BCAD drive

Hello, Roger! Thanks for your invitation, however I feel I will not be able to participate - I've recently moved, my PC's a mess (my hard drive got messed up and I'm waiting for a new one to be shipped to me), and I'm having a geneally busy time so I feel I won't be able to make it. But I will try to take a look and time permitting will consider participating. Thanks again and good luck with the drive! --Ouro (blah blah) 16:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

These are for you

The WikiProject Barnstar
In gratitude for your coordination services to the Military history WikiProject, from August 2007 to February 2008, please accept this barnstar.--TomStar81 (Talk) 16:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

BCAD Drive

Hi Roger, I think we'll be in quite a bit of discussion over the duration of the drive, so I created this section for a single place to post all my queries.

My first question is that if all the pages are B-class assessed, wouldn't that automatically mean that all the criteria are met? Also, if some criteria are not met, do we demote the page to start class? TIA. T/@Sniperz11editssign 20:07, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

An article can be assessed for B-Class without bothering with the criteria (by adding "class=B" to the banner). This drive is to check that al, five criteria are met. Yes, you should demote articles that don't get a "yes" on each criterion. All the best, --ROGER DAVIES talk 20:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
So it has to be 5/5 for it to be B-class right. Anything less, like 4 criteria of 5 is out? TIA. T/@Sniperz11editssign 20:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Absolutely correct :) --ROGER DAVIES talk 20:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Roger. I'm aware of the drive and actually last night was assessing and changing some of the articles on the first workpage. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 21:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Cool :) I didn't think to check contributions .... --ROGER DAVIES talk 21:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Additional worklists

Ok, will do; if nothing breaks too badly, they should be ready in about an hour or so. Kirill 00:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I've uploaded worklists 20–39; I also have 40–68 available if you wind up needing more in a hurry. Cheers! :-) Kirill 01:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

BCAD STUFF

Oh, Ok. Sorry. I'll do the 1-30 and then continue from 140 onwards. That's my bad. Cam (complaints/Discussion) 04:47, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey, here's another question:

Do we have more worklists coming for the BCAD drive? (just out of curiosity) Cam (Chat) 02:02, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Your opinion

Hey, I was just wondering what your opinion is for List of states with nuclear weapons. It is perfect except for one cit need tag and I'm not sure whether to fail it or not. Thanks. Kyriakos (talk) 05:45, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd say pass it. It has plenty of other citations :) --ROGER DAVIES talk 05:47, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

RE: BCAD

Okay, thanks! SGGH speak! 09:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

B-Class assessments

Hey, Roger - just a heads up. I've just been observing the activity of this drive across the articles on my watchlist, and it seems that, in some cases, the editors involved are just checking off all the criteria, rather than seeing if the article satisfies them or not (see Panzer 38(t), for example). I'm not sure if this is a widespread problem, or if it's just a case of one or two slip-ups, but I'm sure a friendly reminded to people participating to actually ensure that the article satisfies the criteria before checking them off wouldn't be amiss. Carom (talk) 11:47, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

BCAD drive

I was wondering for future reference whether 10th Cavalry Regiment (United States) fulfils the first criterion (It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited.)? In my opinion it does not but are my standards too high? Harland1 (t/c) 13:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

There is one thing, do I pass a 2 line stub for grammar if there are no mistakes or do i not as there is not much to judge? Harland1 (t/c) 18:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Don't bother to :) Leave the checklist alone for something that short :) --ROGER DAVIES talk 20:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Adoption

Hi, I was just wondering if you had any time in your busy schedule to adopt me. I have read your user page and i think that with your experience you would be able to help me a lot. Thanks. Gaia Octavia Agrippa (talk) 17:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

EngVar

A new candidate for the great sheet of language mysteries: reconnoitre. Somewhere around here I have an extensive list I compiled for it a while ago, too. If well-intentioned text files were horses, I could mount a cavalry :) Maralia (talk) 03:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

BCAD

Actually I did start assessing. I assessed about 20 articles... --Eurocopter (talk) 19:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry! They weren't struck through and, amid three or four mess-ups, I didn't think to check your contribs. I'll credit them in full on the tally. Apologies again ... --ROGER DAVIES talk 19:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

My internet was accidentally cut off while I was assessing (until now), that's why I didn't manage to strike them. --Eurocopter (talk) 20:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

That is indeed very unfortunate and I'm genuinely sorry if this has upset you. I'm not quite sure what we can do about this now though other than to credit you with the articles you've done, give you another range, and apologise for any harm done. --ROGER DAVIES talk 20:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Oh, nevermind. However, i'm quite busy this days and I would not be able to contribute very effective in the drive. Anyway, be more careful in the future and try not to hurry up so much. All the best, --Eurocopter (talk) 20:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for being so good-natured about it. --ROGER DAVIES talk 20:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Project management tool

This announcement might be something of interest to you in the future. :-) Kirill 22:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Lir

Hi Roger. I am currently advocating unbanning an editor to allow him a probationary participation in editing articles in the Eastern Front (WW2) scope. The mentorship is by myself within the small team of people participating in the project. The proposal was here Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Request_for_unbanning, and continued here Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Request_for_unbanning. Do you mind stepping in and just acknowledging that you are well able to ban the user Lir should he not uphold the terms under which he is to be unbanned while on probation? --mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 00:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

There is little or no support for unbanning him and, to be candid, this is not something I care about sufficiently to offer to keep him on a tight leash. --ROGER DAVIES talk 09:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: BCAD

Ok, done. Kirill 01:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Such requests are pretty much par for the course, in my experience. My normal approach was to minimize my direct involvement in such disputes, both because picking a side on a contentious issue may alienate a significant number of editors, and because becoming involved in certain disputes (e.g. anything having to do with Lir) is a sure ticket to various unpleasant entanglements involving ArbCom. If you do want to play a dispute resolution role, the key is to do so without becoming a party to the dispute itself; but, in some cases, that's all but impossible. If you're in doubt as to whether it's a good idea to become personally involved, I'd suggest directing people to, say, WP:AN instead. Kirill 20:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Five added. :-) Kirill 12:30, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Jack Warner

Roger, I understand your point. At the same time, this user is not unfamiliar to me. I've been locked in combat with him or her for the soul of this article over the past few months. The user's contributions have focused exclusively on Warner's sordid sex life and penchant for treachery. This is part of the story (and it's well represented, I think), but it's not the whole story. That said, I may have overreacted. I have revised some of the comments I left earlier on the user's talk page. I thanked the user for his or her contributions and explained why it was necessary to revert them. Cheers, -- twelsht (talk) 02:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Award

The WikiProject Films Award
I, twelsht (talk) 13:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC), hereby award Roger Davies the WikiProject Films Award for his/her valued contibutions to WikiProject Films. Thank you for your assistance on Jack Warner.
Awarded 13:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


BCAD

It says on the BCAD page that the drive will run till all the article in worklist A are assessed does this mean there is no point doing worklist B? ;) Harland1 (t/c) 16:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not really bothered whether I work on list A or B, is worklist b not part of this then but of the april drive? (no awards for B? :() (I'm not in it for the awards ;))  ;Harland1 (t/c) 17:02, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Great, if you do find that the list A articles aren't getting done then I'd be more than happy to do some, but I don't want to usurp other users:) Harland1 (t/c) 21:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Nah, some drop out :) Least that's what happened last time. --ROGER DAVIES talk 08:18, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Well if any do drop out then I'll take their place. Harland1 (t/c) 17:38, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Incidentally, usurped is a great word :) --ROGER DAVIES talk 18:14, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
It is :) Harland1 (t/c) 18:22, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
[Chuckle] As is ensconced to describe the inactive :) --ROGER DAVIES talk 18:26, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
irrefragable, what a nice word. Harland1 (t/c) 19:46, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for alerting me:), should I remove my name from my current B worklist where I have done about 70 articles? Harland1 (t/c) 21:40, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks will do. Harland1 (t/c) 10:04, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Requesting peer review of Facebook

I noticed that you listed yourself as a volunteer for general copyediting for peer review. I am requesting a peer review from you for Wikipedia:Peer review/Facebook/archive2, if you have the time. Thanks! Gary King (talk) 18:37, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I'd love to but I can't take on any copyedits/peer reviews for at least a month. I have a couple of promises I must fulfil first. --ROGER DAVIES talk 18:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: A very selfish request

Y Done I wouldn't call it "selfish" BTW. I started it, and I planned on finishing it, but then I completely forgot. Sorry. About the RFA, it would be best if you just vote instead of a co-nom Is that fine with you? Please reply on my talk page. Thanks, - Milk's Favorite Cookie 22:58, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Translating articles for WPMLH

Done. My chinese is good enough to translate them into english and proofread it (but I have grammar problems). OhanaUnitedTalk page 00:45, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Timor Leste Defence Force

Thanks a lot for the copy-edit Roger. I really appreciate it. --Nick Dowling (talk) 09:34, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Peer review idea

Hi, I have made a proposal that no peer review request be archived without some response. To aid in this, there is a new list of PR requests at least one week old that have had no repsonses beyond a semi-automated peer review. This list is at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog.

There are just over 100 names on the PR volunteers page, so I figure if each of these volunteers reviewed just one or two PR requests without a response from the list each month, it would easily take care of the "no response" backlog (as there have been 2 or 3 such unanswered requests a day on average).

If you would be able to help out with a review or two a month from the "no responses" backlog list that would be great (and much appreciated). Please discuss questions, comments, or ideas at the PR talk page and thanks in advance for your help, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 23:58, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Re:Damn Fine Idea

Thanks for the award and for the compliment. :) Kyriakos (talk) 07:52, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Alfred Heckmann

Please make sure you get it right when accusing people of copyright violations. This page was not created by me. This page was created by Kabir bd. I was the one who put in the case for copyright violation. Dapi89 (talk) 12:40, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

No probs. Sorry if my above response was a little "angry" (on second thoughts, it does to me), you just caught me at a bad moment. Dapi89 (talk) 15:11, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

By the way, it is a shame this blocking business has to be done. Due the huge amount of German Aces that became so in the Second World War, we need (well wikipedia needs), editors with an interest this field. I don't want Kabir bd to feel that he is being targeted by me, since I am the one that has logged all the copy-vios. But I suppose the rule are the rules. Dapi89 (talk) 15:16, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I did it largely because so many of their contributions are copyvios and they are so prolific about posting them. I'm sure it will turn out to be a simple misunderstanding of the rules and I'm happy to unblock earlier if there's evidence they've understood the message. --ROGER DAVIES talk 15:22, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

SGGK help

This article will be on the main page soon, so I may need help keeping the chaos under control. Wrad (talk) 19:20, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Requesting peer review of PHP

I noticed that you listed yourself as a volunteer for general copyediting for peer review. I am requesting a peer review from you for Wikipedia:Peer review/PHP/archive2, if you have the time. Thanks! Gary King (talk) 21:13, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

Roger, Thank you for the FA medal and the rollback icon, which I will add to my page momentarily. I'll try to use it responsibly. Again, don't hesitate to let me know if I can be of any help on Milhist, or on other projects. With appreciation, -- twelsht (talk) 01:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Lest I forget

The Barnstar of Peace
Thank you for your timely intervention in an editing disagreement. With your support, the situation was resolved amicably. Best, twelsht (talk) 03:36, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Request

Hi, Roger. Sorry for take your time. Another member of your task force (TomStar81) has recently assessed the article about the South Armagh Sniper as B class. There is a conflict there about a proposed merge with another article on the grounds that the narrative is full of "total bollocks" (sic), Original Research and unsourced statements. I did contact Tom, but he will be able to intervene in the discussion about the merging over the next weekend (see my talk page). He recommended me to ask you for help. I would like to invite you, if you can, to the debate. Thanks in advance. Best Regards.--Darius (talk) 12:00, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Ping

I've sent you an email; don't know how often you check it, so I thought I'd mention it here. Thanks. Maralia (talk) 16:24, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Got it now! It was in my spam trap. --ROGER DAVIES talk 16:30, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I've sent another - just letting you know in case it gets caught too. Maralia (talk) 20:17, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

WP BIO drive

Just thought I'd let you know I signed up for WP Biography's drive, specializing in their Military work group, so that any that needs tagging for WP Mil. Hist. are.--Bedford 12:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Crusades task force

Hi Roger, sure, that would be great - I've been copying the Military History project while setting this up anyway. Adam Bishop (talk) 13:23, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Replied on my talk page re: the St. George's shield. Kirill 02:04, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Happy First Day of Spring!

Happy First Day of Spring!

RE: BCAD

I will try, unforseen personal life events have appeared at the moment and have disrupted my work, apologies. SGGH speak! 16:35, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Your kindness is appreciated, but I'll get it done :) SGGH speak! 20:33, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Tag and Asses

Is there going to be a "Tag and Assess 2008"? Because there still was a big backlog left from '07. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 01:46, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Woody's BCAD

Hey Roger, would there be any objections to me substituting for Woody? Dial up doesn't terrify me! ;-) Just for clarity: would that involve reviewing this list of articles for their adherence to criterion and just striking them out when complete? Egg has never looked good on my face ;-). Regards, SoLando (Talk) 18:57, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Haha, I'm not even going to speculate on what Woody's reaction to that would be ;-) Is there a generic edit summary that's become standard for this drive? SoLando (Talk) 19:03, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Hey Roger. Could you clarify the B2 criterion for me? Determining accuracy is surely contingent on verification but verification doesn't necesssarily preclude an article covering a subject reasonably. What's your opinion on this? SoLando (Talk) 20:21, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
The concern I have is that while an article may pass from the perspective of coverage, can an article's accuracy really be determined if it's mostly unverified and therefore unable to meet B1? I'm finding the combination has caused some conflict in some articles I've assessed. SoLando (Talk) 20:35, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Is it too late to revise the scope of Criterion 2, then? Separating coverage and accuracy would be counter-productive, so I'm stumped. I'm going to be abide by my personal solution: meh ;-). SoLando (Talk) 20:48, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, it means a lot :-) Article coverage and accuracy to me is an awkward combination: accuracy can really only be determined by verification, but deficient verification doesn't necessarily impact an article's coverage. Is accuracy really integral to criterion B2? SoLando (Talk) 20:29, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you!!

Well done, Rogers!.--Darius (talk) 21:05, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks a lot! I will be glad to assess these articles. --SMS Talk 12:54, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Harvard and Rambo

Hi, Roger, how goes it with you? Has the military been keeping you on your toes? I've spent the last few nights reading up on our friend Rimbaud and mangling, I mean reciting, his poetry aloud in French. There's a reason why I was in honors Spanish and not French, es verdad. Anyway, I notice that the article uses Harvard referencing, including linked refs, which I haven't seen before. Did you want to use something similar to what you introduced at Emily's article, or are you cool with the Harvard? I have my ILL sources on hand along with a couple others, so I can get started today if that's cool. María (habla conmigo) 15:00, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Ola Maria :) Let's stick to what we used for ED? It's less fiddly :) Please do start. --ROGER DAVIES talk
Gotcha. I'm already on the job. Don't let battles, coups and stratagems keep you away! :) María (habla conmigo) 19:30, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Saw it and wondered! I'm raring to go! Got to do a long-promised peer review and an even longer-promised copy-edit first. But I'll look in later and add a couple of sources I've got. --ROGER DAVIES talk 19:34, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Sam Ware's range on BCAD

Hihi...I was just heading over to is page to ask him if I could snag his range on the A List. Please feel free to slot me in if you don't hear from him. I see there will soon be more on the B List but I'd love a shot at something a little different for a bit. Thanks! LegoTech·(t)·(c) 20:18, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: BCAD

And done! :-) Kirill 23:35, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Abuse of tags

Hi, Roger. It seems that ONHI is arbitrary spraying of tags the article about the sniper. Can you help, please?. Thank you.--Darius (talk) 09:23, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I check the sources, see the usual unsourced text has been added, tag accordingly and my tags get reverted. So I removed the text that wasn't supported, and get reverted. I've clearly demonstrated the problems with the article caused by this editor's misrepresentation of sources, so I'll tag anything that's not supported by the references. And I get reverted for doing so! One Night In Hackney303 09:32, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

You guys have the choice of me protecting the page, me blocking you two, or you working this out amicably between yourselves, without resorting to reverts, edit-warring or disfiguring tags. The message here is get a grip.--ROGER DAVIES talk 09:52, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Question - have I demonstrated before now that there is misrepresentation of sources ongoing? My goal is to prevent misrepresentation of sources and original research being added to the article. How do you suggest I do that whan an editor persistently misrepresents what sources say, removes tags that point that out then restores material removed because it isn't reliably sourced? One Night In Hackney303 10:04, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
I do not share your enthusiasm for accusations of misrepresentation. People, perfectly innocently, get their sources muddled or cite inadequately all the time on Wikipedia, especially when English is not their mother tongue. What I want to see is active improvement of the article: you have Harnden so you could easily edit constructively. I really don't see the need for tags everywhere when the content can either be edited or better still discussed and then acted on. All this tagging and detagging is just winding the pair of you up and that's getting you both nowhere. --ROGER DAVIES talk 10:33, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
I was actively improving the article. That is a removal of text not supported by the references, which the other editor refused to allow to be tagged as such. The first two sentences aren't supported by Taylor, the second isn't supported by Harnden, and putting them together is synthesis. And my improvement was reverted! Call me optimistic, but once I've been partially through an article pointing out numerous errors compared to what the sources say I'd expect the editor responsible to actually check the rest of the article instead of expecting me to do it for him. One Night In Hackney303 10:41, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't honestly think that it's improving an article by removing a chunk of sourced text without explaining exactly what your objection to the entire passage is. If the whole thing is entire moonshine, fair enough, but the basis of some of your objections have been trivial (for instance, objecting to "van" when the source referred to a variety of vehicles) and could easily be fixed. --ROGER DAVIES talk 11:15, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
I never suggested that was a major problem, however I consider it to be a good illustrative example which is the reason I brought it up, and it was already fixed by that point anyway. If the source says "estate car, van or jeep", why put van in the first place? "I don't honestly think that it's improving an article by removing a chunk of sourced text" - perhaps because the text isn't sourced? Putting a reference next to something doesn't make the text necessarily sourced does it? I've got Taylor, I've got Harnden, I've got many, many other books including Taylor's other books from the Provos/Loyalists/Brits trilogy the latter of which deals with the IRA's post-1996 tactics in more detail, and none of them source the text that's in the article, it's all conjecture. Even ignoring the synthesis, we'll take Harnden for example, a quote of "After the Docklands bomb brought the ceasefire to an end, there were remarkably few IRA attacks in South Armagh" is being used to source "Indeed, the period after the ceasefire shows a decline of IRA activity in South Armagh". The post-ceasefire period doesn't show a decline, as for example in 1993 the sniping team killed seven members of the security forces. In 1994 (ceasefire came into place at the end of August 1994) the only people killed by the IRA in South Armagh were a suspected informer killed in April, a soldier killed by a bomb in May, and a post office worker shot during a robbery in November. Therefore while the 1996-1997 activity was low for South Armagh standards, to say it had declined post-ceasefire ignores the fact that during the eight months in the run-up to the ceasefire they were hardly active. And under some circumstances I could have reworded it, but rewording isn't appropriate on this occasion. Harnden doesn't state why the IRA activity was so low, so why draw that conclusion in the article based on what Taylor purportedly said (but didn't actually) about Northern Ireland in general? What Taylor says in Brits is most relevant - "The IRA knew it was vital not to alienate Sinn Fein's growing political support that was the launch pad for the next phase of 'the struggle'.....'New' Sinn Fein voters would probably accept IRA attacks on military installations in the North and economic targets in Great Britain but would not be supportive of operations that resulted in civilian deaths". The IRA's activity in South Armagh itself was overwhelmingly directed at the security forces themselves or their bases, so the idea that the IRA's post-ceasefire "rules of engagement" (for want of a better term) somehow restricted the sniping campaign is dubious, and not directly or even undirectly supported by any source. One Night In Hackney303 11:40, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
I've copied this to the article's talk page. 12:12, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
No problem. And in case you aren't familiar with my editing history, there's currently one featured article and four good articles under the scope of WikiProject Irish Republicanism. Three of the GAs are new articles I wrote, and the other GA and FA are articles I was pretty much solely responsible for promoting. Therefore (although I can slightly understand where you're coming from) I take some exception to the "editing constructively" comments. I'm trying to fix the problems with the article, but I'm encountering plenty of ownership problems and bizarre discussion. For example see this comment about Paddy Hayes (who's cited extensively in the newly promoted GA 1973 Mountjoy Prison helicopter escape) which seems irrelevant to the matter at hand. One Night In Hackney303 12:54, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Noted :) I think you also understand why I must endeavour to remain neutral and even-handed. --ROGER DAVIES talk 13:03, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't expect anything less. One Night In Hackney303 14:04, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me this comment is a clear case of off-Wiki canvassing. User:Eloy is an Argentinian editor making their first edit in nine days, having never edited any articles reltating to Irish republicanism before. Their talk page contributions in general (excluding moves) are virtually non-existent, so I can't be the only one that smells a rat surely? One Night In Hackney303 11:06, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

No. I don't agree at all that it's a "clear case of off-Wiki canvassing". I noticed this last night but can think of any number of explanations, some innocent, some less so. But let's all assume good faith all round, for the time being shall we? --ROGER DAVIES talk 12:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I said "it seems to me". I'm finding it increasingly difficult to assume good faith when it's repeatedly claimed information in sourced, tags are removed, disputed information is restored, then when a lengthy explanation is posted on the talk page about why the information isn't sourced a rapid retreat from the previous position takes place. Then this, I'm sorry but my good faith is stretched to the limit right now. One Night In Hackney303 12:11, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm. You may be underestimating the difficulty of working in a foreign language. I frequently work in French and my focus is often more on avoiding making a fool of myself with schoolboy errors than with strict accuracy. Some people are also considerably more relaxed (or casual or slapdash) about references than others. One editor I know (who will remain nameless) hardly references anything despite having umpteen FAs and when s/he does, it usually scanty (evewn the FA stuff). Now, in this case, I have seen no evidence of malice at all, nor of specific POV-pushing. Sure I've seen stuff that doesn't always stand up to close scrutiny (hey, we've all written stuff like that) but, in sharp contrast, I've also seen stuff that's spot on.
On a related point, someone asked me in my RfA how I deal with wiki-stress. The answer was (and is) that I don't ever let myself be wound up. If something or someone does begin to needle me, I put it to one side until I no longer feel stressed about it, usually the next day. The fact is the sky won't fall on our heads if everything doesn't go precisely to plan.
--ROGER DAVIES talk 13:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

ONIH understands the subject matter evidently well, and therefore I have felt no need to wade in with my comments. However, as has been very well pointed out by ONIH, the WP:OR has no place in the article. Our policies on this should be forwarded to the editor who IS adding their spin to the information, and then told to dissist. I've read the reference to Paddy Hayes above, and can only draw one conclusion, that the editor is only intrested now in trying to provoke a reaction. The only one they have provoked at the minute is me, and unless the issue of WP:OR is addressed, I will remove it. It is my opinion that ONIH has been more than reasonable up till now, and suggestions of a block has prompted this responce. --Domer48 (talk) 13:26, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I have yet to see WP:OR. What I see is a content dispute with all sorts of wild accusations being made on both sides. My observations about blocking were made in response to edit-warring yesterday morning during which fifteen edits and counter-edits were made in a couple of hours. I have been patient and still seek to get the editors to thrash out their differences on the talk page. If the situation deteriorates again, I will take action. For the avoidance of doubt, undoing alleged WP:OR does not exempt editors from WP:3RR. Thank you for your time, --ROGER DAVIES talk 15:20, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I would not consider ONIH's contrabutions as being wild accusations. I find them to be clear, concise and relevant to this discussion. Unlike this post, which is immaterial, irrelevant and attempting to broaden the discussion, to disguise their inability to address the issues raised by ONIH. Now if you care to scroll down through the discussion since the post by ONIH, you will see a singular failure by DagosNavy to address the issues raised. What becomes evident, is their parvaracation and attempts to change the direction of the discussion, the point I rasied above being one example. Therefore I see it more than simply a content dispute. Regards, --Domer48 (talk) 16:55, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that DagosNavy's English is perfectly good when it suits him. However even taking any translation problems into account, that doesn't excuse the issue above. You see, when I was talking about the synthesis of Taylor and Harnden, the Taylor passage I used was from a different book to the one cited in the article (despite me having a copy of that too). In addition to a series of books written earlier, Taylor has released a trilogy about the various factions in the Troubles, with overlap obviously. The text below was being sourced by Provos apparently:

When the IRA broke the cease fire by bombing the London Docklands in February 1996, the organisation made clear that operations in Northern Ireland would be restrained, in order to avoid the return of full scale violence. This policy was aimed to keep an open door for a second cease fire, while awaiting a political gesture from London and Dublin

However there's nothing like it in the source. You've seen how he likes to post verbatim passages in references, why wasn't there one to support this? Simple - it's not in the source. There's nothing that could be misconstrued to mean that, it's just not there full stop. One Night In Hackney303 17:10, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Council roll call

Hi there. You are receiveing this message because your name appears on the WikiProject Council participants list. The WikiProject Council is currently having a roll-call; if you are still interested in participating in the inter-project discussion forum that WT:COUNCIL has become, or you are interested in continuing to develop and maintain the WikiProject Guide or Directory, please visit Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Participants and remove the asterisk (*) from your name on the list of participants. If you are no longer interested in the Council, you need take no action: your name will be removed from the participants list on April 30, 2008.

Melon‑Bot (STOP!) 22:27, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Something for you

Thank you very much (again)! Kirill 23:52, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Igor

Will you be using Igor?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 00:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Tanthalas39 RfA

Hi there Roger. Just a note of appreciation for your support in my recent unsuccessful RfA. I'll be back in a few months with more experience and more coaching, and I hope I still have your support then. Thanks again - Tan | 39 00:42, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Coordinator emeritus

Thank you very much; I'd be happy to take up the position. :-)

(I'm assuming, of course, that it's going to be a more-or-less low-key thing, and not something that turns into another full-time job. ;-) Kirill 22:49, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


All Blacks versus France at rugby union

Hey, I have modified the referencing method by kinda following your lead. Can more be done? - Shudde talk 03:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I did a few more of the others. It'd be good to get the whole article similarly referenced. Other things: I left internal questions in the article a couple of weeks back. Did you pick them up? I think one of the things that needs addressing from the last FAC is adding more varied info, so it doesn't just consist of: venue, score, memorable tries. (I know it's not like that at all, but it's how it was perceived and that perception needs addressing to get this through.) --ROGER DAVIES talk 06:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Hey, I didn't see those internal questions. I'll answer them as best I can.
  • I don't have the Potter reference at the moment. Not sure where the Maori game was played or the score. I do know more about the Maori tour in general [1] It was of Australia, Ceylon, France, Wales and Canada and they won 29 and lost seven and drew two matches. I found some more info actually [2] should be enough there to expand that section.
  • France were expelled from the Five Nations in 1932.
  • I found scores for the Kiwis matches ([3]) but not yet where they were played. I'll let you know if I find anything.
  • I don't know if much needs to be said about rugby's professionalism. If it's had any result on the relationship between the two it will be maybe two things; that they play each other more frequently, but could be argued this was simply the continuation of a trend that started in the amateur era (there are things like cheaper travel and such to consider), the only other thing would be the 2007 tour when France came to NZ and left their best players behind because of the French domestic championship (the Top 14). This would never have happened in the amateur era. A note could be added to that sentence, as the whole movement into professionalism is outside the scope of the article. I'll add that myself if you'd like.
I did find that the comments made by one of the reviewers at the FAC were a bit unreasonable. Obviously the article needs to be interesting, but at the end of the day this is an encyclopaedia, not a magazine or book of trivia. I have no problem adding info to the article, but if it's trivial material, then it shouldn't be there. As far as I'm concerned, the article is pretty comprehensive as is. If you want me to try and find match reports for any matches in particular then I will do my best. Let me know if there is any other information you need. - Shudde talk 10:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Hey, someone was kind enough to help me find info on the 1946 Kiwis, info is at Wikipedia:New Zealand Wikipedians' notice board#Help needed finding info. Thanks. - Shudde talk 05:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Don't apologise! I realise you have been busy with your RfA and the MilHist elections, and I don't mean to place any pressure on you to continue working on this article. I'm completely aware you have been busy so don't stress if it takes a while to get this done. - Shudde talk 05:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The Copyeditor's Barnstar

Image:CopyeditorStar7.PNG The Copyeditor's Barnstar
In recognition of your Copy Editing services to the Milhistry history Project and especially to the article Frontier Force Regiment, I award you The Copyeditor's Barnstar. SMS Talk 09:29, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Coordinator listing

Did you want me to be listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators somewhere, incidentally? Or would you prefer that the emeritus thing be kept more informal? I'm not quite sure how exactly the position is going to be defined (and it would be somewhat presumptuous of me to make changes in that regard without asking). Kirill 13:09, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, ok. I've taken the liberty of changing the displayed title to the original "coordinator emeritus"—I think that more clearly delineates the position as an honorary one (as opposed to, say, an actual coordinator named as an additional expansion seat post-election)—but I'm perfectly willing to defer to you if you think the "co-opted" wording is more useful. Cheers! Kirill 15:59, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Although, thinking about it some more, it's not entirely clear whether the position is intended to be one that's different in nature from the rest of the coordinators (i.e. an honorary one), or an expansion of the number of coordinators by co-option, resulting in an extra slot with a different selection method but the same status as a standard one. I don't have any particularly strong feelings either way; but it'd probably be a good idea for you guys to decide which variant you prefer, as that will define what the better wording would be. :-) Kirill 16:16, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Ok, that works for me. Kirill 16:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Checking in

FYI, I'm slowly but surely working my way through Rimbaud's early years, but it's taking longer than I thought; it's nearly the end of the semester and suddenly all of my procrastination is catching up with me! Oh noes! Perhaps this weekend I'll get him past puberty. ;) Did you see the image I uploaded? I'm not sure the licensing is correct, but as it's from the 1860s, I'd hope it applies. I didn't want to rely on one portrait and crude drawings for these crucial early years of the guy, so I followed Rickword's description of a photo from Rimbaud's communion and came across this. I wonder what the significance of the scarf (?) tied to his arm is? And what is he holding? María (habla conmigo) 18:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Good progress nevertheless:) I've now got Nicholl. An ex libris copy from Amazon for a fiver. It does look as if butter wouldn't melt in his sullen little mouth, doesn't it? I suppose the scarf is a first communion thing and it looks like he's holding a prayer book. --ROGER DAVIES talk 06:02, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Great, we have Nicholl in the library; I'll pick it up today. Were you thinking of starting near the end and working your way back? We could always meet somewhere in the middle, say, with the fateful shot? :) María (habla conmigo) 12:32, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I thought "more pass in the middle" than "meet in the middle" :) That is, you work forward to the end; I work backwords to the start. That way, we able to review each other's edits, without tripping over each other in the process. --ROGER DAVIES talk 13:53, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Right-o. :) María (habla conmigo) 14:45, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

BCAD

I have done a few today, only 50 left in my section I think. SoLando has been doing a lot of my group it would seem, (he knew I was away for two weeks), and it was much appreciated. Sorry I haven't been keeping up with this, I was away for two weeks over Easter and didn't log in! Oh what happens in two weeks away from Wikipedia... Bannershells have erupted, unified login, though sadly no change at one of my FLCs! How are things? Have I missed anything else? A belated Happy Easter Woody (talk) 18:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, don't worry about that. I knew you'd get round to finishing yours sooner or later. It's the people who completely loose interest who are the real problem, especially on the A-worklist. Where did you go, by the way? Otherwise, things have been fairly uneventful. Kirill has been co-opted, but I expect you've noticed that by now :) --ROGER DAVIES talk 06:07, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't object. It is a lot more work than I had first expected, sorry. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 11:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

No objections whatsoever - whole load of work came up at the last minute, sadly. Rockfall (talk) 18:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I should be able to finish mine. Sorry, I haven't been on here as much as I would have liked on some days, but I should be able to finish all of them by tonight.   jj137 (talk) 20:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Y Done with all of them.   jj137 (talk) 01:33, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Please move

Hi Roger. Could you please move article Lublin-Brest Offensive to Lublin-Brest Offensive Operation. Aside from the rather obvious point that the article describes a military operation, the 'operation' is part of the official name from Soviet sources. I had asked for comments on the 14th, but there were none.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 12:02, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, ok, I forgot to look, but it has a redirect! Not sure why, so can I just remove the redirect and move it myself?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 12:03, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
No. You can't move over that sort of redirect. I've deleted the target page and moved the article there. --ROGER DAVIES talk 12:19, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 13:17, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Tel Aviv

Rover, just to let you, Ive replied to your comments. Thanks. Flymeoutofhere (talk) 17:32, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Im going to address your comments on the talk page. If its ok then I will recontact you to check and then I will go for another peer review. Thanks. Flymeoutofhere (talk) 09:49, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
I have worked on the issues brought up in the FAC and renominated it for a peer review at Wikipedia:Peer review/Tel Aviv/archive3. Thanks. Flymeoutofhere (talk) 11:21, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Roger, I saw that you started to copyedit the Tel Aviv article. I was wondering if you were going to do it all because otherwise I want to contact/locate peer review volunteers. It'd be fantastic if you could do it all! Thanks for your input so far thought. Ben. Flymeoutofhere (talk) 08:50, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Hey, Ive responded to your comments at SandyGeorgia's talk page. THanks. Flymeoutofhere (talk) 09:19, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Where to put an unusual peer review request

And don't worry, I'm not trying to have you review it before April 15.

I was looking at the existing insurgency article, found it confusing, and decided to check some of the references. While its introduction refers to various parts of the Geneva Conventions, the actual text has nothing to do with what was in the article.

As you may have seen from some other commentary, I did a fair amount of work on insurgency theory in Foreign internal defense, work that probably belongs in an article on insurgency, not a national* definition of a counterinsurgency doctrine. So, I moved the theory part from there into a draft article, User:Hcberkowitz/Sandbox-Insurgency. There were a few things salvageable from the existing insurgency article, but I found much of it just plain wrong.

So, I am proposing to be bold and replace the mainspace article with that which is in my sandbox, and that includes the limited amount of accurate material I could retrieve from the mainspace article. Since I don't want to be quite that bold, would it be totally inappropriate to ask for the equivalent of MILHIST peer review on the sandbox? I would replace (well, really major rewrite) the article only if there is consensus this is a significant improvement.

Procedurally, since it's not in mainspace, I don't think the Peer Review template will work on it. Where should I put the request?

Thanks. The Wisdom of Solomon is always convenient, but wasn't King Solomon a Wikipedia Project Coordinator?

Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 03:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think peer review is quite appropriate though it's an ingenious idea :) The usual route seems to be to mention the new version on the article's talk page and invite (1) comment on whether the existing text is adequate and (2) input on how the proposed substitute text needs improving. This route was used for Jane Austen, which became a featured article. All the best, --ROGER DAVIES talk 04:56, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Milhist admins

Hey Roger, I have created a new admins section on the logistics page. Please feel free to amend/copyedit/move as you see fit? I was thinking about putting something in the newsletter about asking admins to sign up if they feel comfortable with it. What do you think? Warm regards. Woody (talk) 17:14, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for sorting the new section. Adding something in the newsletter is a great idea! --ROGER DAVIES talk 19:39, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Awards Center Newsletter

I'm pleased to announce that the Awards Center will be getting its own newsletter shortly. If you want to receive the WP:AWC newsletter, put your name here. --Sharkface217 20:47, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Coordinator emeritus

Yes, I'm comfortable with it if everyone else is. I don't view the exact title as a particularly important matter, to be quite honest. :-)

(And yes, the move went quite well; thanks for asking!) Kirill 00:23, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

IP check?

Could you check this IP 124.109.51.98? I also moonlight in the religious articles sometimes, and this IP has been adding "Peace be upon him" in transliterated Arabic for all entries of Muhammed he finds, some of which I can't undo without direct edits. Can admins undo them? I just don't think Wikipedia is the place for it.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 09:31, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.