User talk:Roger Davies/Archive 2008

Archive 2005

Archive 2006

Archive 2007

Archive 2008

Archive 2009

Archive 2010

→

Archive 2015

Jimmy McAleer

I recently sent this sports-related biography to the FAC. The piece benefited from your earlier suggestions and includes more data on the subject's personal life. Now that it's an FA candidate, further comments or recommendations would be greatly appreciated! Thanks, -- twelsht (talk) 16:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your support on the FAC! By the way, your earlier recommendations were helpful. They inspired me to include the (albeit limited) material available on McAleer's two marriages and also to mention his early interest in vaudeville--a detail that provides some context for his later friendship with George M. Cohan. Your comments also led me to dig deeper into the circumstances surrounding McAleer's fallout with Ban Johnson. Below is a small token of my appreciation for your help on this article. Cheers, -- twelsht (talk) 17:01, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Roger, Your recommendations would have been even more useful if we hadn't been dealing with the "Ghost of the American League." They were still quite helpful, however. Happy New Year to you, too, -- twelsht (talk) 17:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi, T. I always enjoy reading your stuff (I never thought I'd find baseball interesting; I loathe cricket) and adding my 2/100 so feel free to ask any time you want input. I can do detailed CE as well as broad brush stuff but I prefer working on directions and expansion rather than combing through for literals. (Seems too much like real life somehow.) Anyhow, when you got a moment, take a look at Hamlet which is up for FAC: it's been occupying my every waking moment recently and I'd be interested in hearing your view. (The Dane will also give you a Total Break from Jimmy McAleer, so you can return to him with fresh vigor and new eyes.) Best, --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 09:13, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Roger, No problem at all. I feel honored that you asked. This project may be more in line with my longstanding interests. (Baseball is a relatively recent discovery.) Give me a couple hours to handle a New Year's Day obligation, and I'll be right on it! Best, -- twelsht (talk) 17:57, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Funny, you know, but the link to Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hamlet was entirely triggered by your reference to the "Ghost" of the American League. I'm not sure if this is free association or stream of consciousness. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 18:46, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

They both qualify as vengeful "ghosts," too. McAleer did everything in his power to steal the last word on the Red Sox debacle. By the way, I read the Hamlet article, thoroughly enjoyed it, and posted a few comments below. Best, -- twelsht (talk) 15:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I overlooked it there earlier partly because I was expecting you to dive straight in at the Hamlet FAC. (Any registered editor can comment at a FAC, by the way, you don't have to be part of a committee or anything.) Your Hamlet edits were great. The only one I'd take slight issue with is the change of king to monarch to avoid repetition; sometimes repetition is very useful for clarity. But that's trifling:) And the "20" was a good catch. Thanks very much for such a painstaking approach --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 15:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Very good! I'll join the Hamlet FAC ASAP. Best, -- twelsht (talk) 16:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

You'll enjoy FAC, I think. The knack is not to spend toooo much time reviewing there. It can get addictive! --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 16:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

In the case of Hamler, the biggest challenge was composing a message of support that adequately summarized the article's chief merits. I'm not sure I succeeded on this score, but it wasn't for lack of trying. By the way, as someone relatively new to the FAC process, I'd like your advice. Is there a protocol for dealing with reviewers who leave negative reviews and then fail to either revisit the talk page or respond to messages? Your thoughts would be much appreciated. Best, -- twelsht (talk) 17:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Thanks for the comments. Regarding reviewers who go walkabout, best is to mention that you've contacted them and they haven't responded. SandyGeorgia takes a more pragmatic view than Raul, regards subsequent silence as bad form, and will make her own mind up whether the points raised are addressed. It might slow things down a day or two but it shouldn't derail the candidacy. Hope this helps .... --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 01:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

This helps quite a bit. Thanks! -- twelsht (talk) 02:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

		The Barnstar of Life
		This Barnstar of Life is for your assistance on Jimmy McAleer, a sports-related biography that benefited significantly from your comments and support. Cheers, twelsht (talk) 17:01, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Your Final Tag & Assess Award

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		For your excellent work on 3000 articles in Tag & Assess 2007, by order of the coordinators I hereby present you with this Working Man's barnstar. -- TomStar81 (Talk) 23:38, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I do believe you have earned this. Thanks for the help, and Happy New Year! TomStar81 (Talk) 23:38, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Hamlet

The Hamlet article is wonderful, and I can't think of ways to significantly improve it. The piece offers a seemingly comprehensive overview of the play's incarnations. It describes how Hamlet was adapted to meet the needs of specific cultures or to address popular political concerns. The discussion of critical perspectives struck me as inclusive, and I found the sections on the play's sources and rhetorical characteristics informative. The article is well referenced and includes illustrative (sometimes amusing) details, e.g., the reference to the American actor addressing acquaintances in the audience. By the way, the passage on 19th-century American productions of Hamlet reminded me of Lawrence Levine's Highbrow/Lowbrow: The Emergence of Cultural Hierarchy in America, which might prove to be a useful source. Levine argues that Shakespeare's works enjoyed wide popularity in the U.S. until the start of the 20th century, when they were increasingly identified with the cultural elite. He describes how U.S. productions of Hamlet tended to highlight the more sensational elements of the fifth act, occasionally inspiring unwanted audience participation. You'll see that most of my edits dealt with minor issues related to punctuation and style. I take a conservative approach to comma usage, so I won't be offended if you choose to remove some of them. As the summary edits show, I revised several sentences to improve clarity and addressed a handful of MOS issues. I wish I could be more help. It's a very impressive article. Best, -- twelsht (talk) 06:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

T&A workshop

I dropped a note on the workshop talk page (well, the one it's redirected to), but just to make sure you don't miss it—I've posted my workshop comments here: User:Maralia/MHA07, since they're pretty lengthy. Maralia (talk) 22:45, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Barnstar of High Culture
		For stunning work on the FA drive for Hamlet, I hereby award you this Barnstar of High Culture. AndyJones (talk) 13:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXII (December 2007)

The December 2007 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) 23:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

1345

Thanks for the support on the talk page! Most people seem to favor this change. I'd like to invite you to help out as we try to improve 1346, or at least to pop in every once in awhile to see how it's going. A Military History rep is a good thing to have around! Wrad (talk) 06:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Wrad, I missed this earlier! Glad to help, --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 00:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Here's to many more successful literary collaborations in the coming year! I'm so happy that we've found each other. It's nice to work with people dedicated to improving each word, slowly but surely, on Wikipedia. :) Awadewit | talk 08:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

What a nice thought! And heartily reciprocated. Incidentally, next time you're in London, we should visit one of Dr Johnson's favourite pubs. It's still going strong and only about 200 yds from the Globe theatre :) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 09:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Sounds wonderful. I'm sure whatever grant I receive to do research "over the pond" will cover this expense since it is related to the eighteenth century! It is "field work", right? :) Awadewit | talk 19:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Heads up

I've added a few more challenges to the Wikipedia Awards Center. Just thought you might like to know. --Sharkface217 21:25, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Literary Barnstar

		The Literary Barnstar
		In recognition of your excellent work and tireless contributions to the Hamlet article, I award you with this barnstar. Literary is the closest I could get to Shakespeare / Drama / Theatre, etc. Keep up the excellent work! :-) Lradrama 13:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

You're very welcome. Happy to be of assistance! :-) Lradrama 13:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou very much for wishing me well with my future plans. It is much appreciated. :-) Yes, I am always willing to award a barnstar when I see a user doing some great work - anything that makes editing Wikipedia a more enjoyable experience I am in support of. Lradrama 11:01, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Favor

Maria has just put up Emily Dickinson for peer review. I have already reviewed the article recently, so my comments wouldn't be much help. I was wondering if you would be willing to review it. It is a good article and worth investing time in reviewing. :) She is planning on taking it to FAC soon and she had a rough time there last time - I want this time to be better. As you know, the more reviews the better before FAC. Awadewit | talk 20:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

• Favor, part the second: Would you mind translating Joseph Johnson (publisher) into BE? I'm planning on taking it to FAC in the next few days and that is one of the last things Willow and I need to do with it. Awadewit | talk 20:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for the help on JJ! If you have time in the next week or two, could you be Britcise Analytical Review? I tried it myself this time, but after I read half of the article and found nothing, I figured I just couldn't see the words. I'm planning on taking the article to FAC after the Joseph Johnson (publisher) FAC is over. Thanks so much! Awadewit | talk 04:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

In thanks for your help

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		On behalf of a grateful Wikipedian, I give you this barnstar as a token of my undying gratitude for the effort you made to help me and all the others who volunteered in the MHA07 drive. Thanks again! Fléêťflämẽ U-T-C 01:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations!

Great to see your excellent article promoted. A long journey for the longest play.

And thanks for the star. I'll treasure it.

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 23:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you :) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 23:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

MHA07

Say, I've noticed people are still signing up for T&A. Do you monitor this, enforce the nobody-signs-up-in-2008 rule or just let it go? --Ouro (blah blah) 09:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Just let it go, dontcha think? There are only one or two of them, they mean well, and it gets more articles tagged. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 10:40, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I figured the same, more or less. Thanks. Cheers, Ouro (blah blah) 11:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the star. If I happen to reach 4k, that'd be nice, it's just that when I got to 3k this morning I thought, yeah, I'll take another list, because you always had something cool to do when you had nothing pressing, you know? :) --Ouro (blah blah) 11:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's official now - I got a text to translate for next Thursday, which means I don't get much time to assess until the 17th :) so, no 4k probably ;) Cheers, Ouro (blah blah) 15:05, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Never mind. You've done more than your fair share already and it's much appreciated. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 15:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks loads. Means more than a barnstar to me. Cheers, Ouro (blah blah) 17:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Ellipses

Hey there RD. When I saw the change in Chinua Achebe to the three-period ellipses, I was curious, so I checked the MOS for myself, and – of course – you were right. But then I wonder: Isn't there a danger of three periods being split up at the end of a line? Isn't that why we use the   before and after? Cheers. – Scartol • Tok 16:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I read "Use non-breaking spaces ( ) only as needed" as meaning only add hard spaces if it does wrap but, to be honest, WP:ELLIPSES is far from a model of clarity. One of the irritations with WP:MOS as a whole is that it too often advocates fixes—which in the real world, are added retrospectively by the proof-reader to resolve formatting problems that have occurred—just in case the problem might occur. It introduces massive clutter. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 18:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, yeah – Kudos on the Dane. Did you ever see the Simpsons version? – Scartol • Tok 16:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks :) No, I didn't but I wish I had. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 18:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Roger. As a serious editor at MOS, I just wanted to chip in with a couple of points. First, three-stop ellipses will not break between the stops. Second, the policy with ellipses at MOS is unsettled and has been contentious. This is a contained but complex problem in current punctuation practice (especially as applied to HTML), with wild disagreement among sources and even internal inconsistencies in their guidelines. I have amassed a good body of material on this, and when the time is right the topic should be revisited. For now my attention is focused on improving markup for our friend the hard space. I hope you will have a look at User:Noetica/ActionMOSVP, and perhaps have your say. I'll be bringing a measure of order and focus to the discussion in a few hours from now.

The whole suite of MOS pages needs reform and rationalising. A huge task, given the way Wikipedia works and doesn't work. Some of us are looking at that larger problem also. I hope you will join us in addressing it.

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 22:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I know ellipses won't break between the dots (what gave the impression I thought otherwise?) but I can imagine situations where footloose ellipses might look unsightly. Anyhow, my comments about pre-emptive formatting were mostly about the hard space so I look forward to learning your thoughts later. If I feel I can contribute, I'll chip in.--ROGER DAVIES ^talk 22:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Roger, Scartol wrote this, above:

But then I wonder: Isn't there a danger of three periods being split up at the end of a line?

Scartol's continuation addresses a different matter:

Isn't that why we use the   before and after?

The answer to that question is yes for before, no for after (with exceptions for each of these). But because the original question, as it stands, had definite content (accurately delivered or not) that was not addressed, I addressed it! I did not say that you knew something or that you did not know something.

Now at least the question has a definitive answer. I care about clarity and completeness; therefore I had my say. Sorry if you judge that improper, or could not see why I did it.

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 23:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I read Scartol's question altogether differently. I took it to mean they detached, with a line break, from the truncated chunk of the text and thus appeared to be part of the subsequent text. His next question appeared to reinforce this, which is why I responded as I did. I didn't imagine for a moment that Scartol, with his considerable copy editing experience and considerable acuity, meant the three dots would separate internally. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 00:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

All fixed. No problem! Thanks.

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 02:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry for that confusion. I did word my question oddly, and – brace yourself, Roger – I thought there was some danger that the three periods would break up. (I seem to recall seeing as much on a website somewhere once, which is why I memorized the windows code for the force ellipse.) Alas, I was wrong – that's twice this century already! – Scartol • Tok 18:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Good grief! Well just make sure it doesn't happen again :) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 19:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

:)

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 22:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Anyway Roger, that is indeed better, at Hamlet: "The play vividly charts the course of real and feigned madness—from overwhelming grief to seething rage—and explores themes of treachery, incest, and moral corruption." I had scare-quoted incest because, as the sentence had stood, it must have referred to his mother's "incest" with his father's brother. But not now. – Noetica^♬♩ Talk 09:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Contextualising Hamletian incest is difficult, simply because the degree of acceptable familial closeness varies wildly from culture to culture and from age to age. For instance, Henry VIII required papal dispensation to marry his brother's widow and obtained it on the grounds that the earlier marriage had not been consummated. A further complication is the Elizabethan concept of treason – namely, that intimacy with the king's wife was treason on the king's person – the best example of which is probably the trial and execution of Anne Boleyn, involving both treason and incest. Henry's marital shenigans were relatively current in Shakespeare's day, of course, and some scholars suggest that the thrust of Hamlet's incest and treachery charges is that Gertrude was intimate with Claudius prior to King Hamlet's death. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 10:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes. That makes sense to me, and accords with my scare-quoting a laden and mercurial term. But it's not needed with the more general and abstracted mention that you now give it.

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 19:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Does it? A wikilink would have done it equally well. Scare quotes are twee and bring too much POV to a word. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 15:30, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:RFR

HI Roger. You were my first victim. Enjoy the newfound speed. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

;)Thanks very much, --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 08:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

You're not an administrator?!?! Then I'm confident that an RFA nomination is impending. Woodyyy!! ;-) SoLando (Talk) 01:40, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of ellipses... ;)

Animation of planetary motion

Hi ROGER,

I've been thinking of improving the articles related to planetary motion, and I've been trying to teach myself Blender, a simply awesome open-source program for 3D graphics. To paraphrase Immanuel Kant, "Two things inspire me with awe: the starry heavens above and the Blender program within." It's that cool, although I'm but a lame neophyte.

After much labours, I've succeeded in producing the animation at the left. What should I do to improve it? For example, is it too dark? Different colours? Once this animation is settled, I'm going to replicate it for several others, so now would really be a good time to make suggestions. I would be really grateful for any aesthetic insights you might have. (Wait, should that be æsthetic in BE? ;) Hoping all's coming up roses for you and Happy New Year, a rarely elliptical Willow (talk) 09:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Ave Salix!

Excellent graphic, very compelling, rather like watching smallclothes tumbling in the drier or a dog racing around with ball :) My thoughts? The burnt umber colour might render too dark for the protanopic among us: perhaps a lighter tone to increase contrast. Also, perhaps adding a thin white outline around the planet might make it stand out a little more? (A friend, a graphic artist, switches his screen display to black and white to test this sort of thing. Squinting through half-closed eyes is another trick, I'm told.) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 11:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

How wonderful — you know Latin! :) I may have to conjure you to look over some of my Catulline opuscula once they're anywhere near decent; of course, with Catullus, I'm at a disadvantage, since they often start out indecent. ;)

Those are excellent suggestions and I'll try to amend the image right away. You're right, it does look like a clothes-dryer! :) Willow (talk) 14:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't really know much Latin as I spent more time being beaten than taught. Earlier, I agonised over whether it's Ave Salix or Ave Salice to the extent that I phoned a Classics blue stocking for advice. She was out. :)

Odd day, today. I decided some weeks back to vandal fight, to see what it was like. I prepared scrupulously: for instance, I renamed my computer Rocinante and found a Tupperware salad bowl to serve as a helm. For the uninitiated, the vandal-fighter is at the sharp end of reverting the edits of brats for whom the pinnacle of achievement is deleting half the long-laboured-over text of, say, Odysseus and replacing it with a strange device (typically, "poo" rather than "excelsior", but you never know what lies around the corner). One is expected to leave stuffy pro-forma homilies on the miscreant/perp's talk page in the forlorn hope that this will reform them in their destructive ways. A day is enough. I shall leave this behind soon, I think, and scuttle back to military history or Shakespeare.

--ROGER DAVIES ^talk 15:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Poor quixotic Mr. Knightly! :( I was thinking of vandalizing a page with the words "Donna Molina de Viento", just for you, but I couldn't bring myself to do it. I do find it strange how some people thrill at their own power to scrawl scatology, don't you? I've never fought vandals per se, but I try to revert vandals of pages on my watch-list with a friendly, witty note. I don't want to provoke conflict, and I secretly hope that they'll be charmed enough to abandon their dissolute ways and contribute meaningfully to Wikipedia. That might be grasping at straws, but I have an advanced degree in carphology. ;)

I've updated the animation as best I could. I couldn't get your rim lighting suggestion to work, but I made both bodies luminous, which might help. I also fixed up the track as you suggested — thanks again, ROGER! :) Willow (talk) 18:02, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for showing me the new version, which works better through slitted eyes (with pursed lips) ¦-| It might be warmer if the background were dark blue rather than black but it is a thing of wonder not matter what colour the sky.

It's probably a good thing you resisted temptation; some of the anti-vandal patrollers might not have appreciated it and most swoop so much faster than me. Anyway, that's me done with vandals I think. I have hung up my salad bowl.

--ROGER DAVIES ^talk 20:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Tooth

Thanks for removing my mistake. I wanted to remove the vandalism on the page. When I discovered, that the vandalism had been removed by a bot, I already had pressed the rollback button. You beat me, bringing the article to normal again. Thanks for taking care and happy editing.--Thw1309 (talk) 11:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I guessed that something like that had happened:) Rollback is neat, isn't it? Good luck, --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 11:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I still don't know about it. This was my first try and you saw the result. I think, for the moment I prefer the good old undo buttom, which shows the results before saving them.--Thw1309 (talk) 12:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Kingdom for a source

Yeah, like you didn't make this edit just so you could do that edit summary ;-) AndyJones (talk) 17:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Andy!!! How could you even suggest such a thing !!!! --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 20:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

BackLash 2006

you kept changing back something I corrected. What I said was infact correct, I own the event on DVD and she did choke her out with an armband/braclet she wore down to the ring, which fell off during the match Myselfimmortal (talk) 20:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough :) A citation and a reliable source is the usual solution. Thanks for mentioning it. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 20:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		For taking the challenge and warning more than 100 vandals, I, Sharkface217, hereby award you this barnstar. Good job! --Sharkface217 20:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much! --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 20:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The thing with feathers

Thank you, Roger, for my special sparkly and the encouragement that came with it. Emily is definitely going to FAC, even if I have to beat her into submission first. :) Again, I really appreciate your detailed thoughts and suggestions at the peer review, and you're absolutely correct that it looked a lot worse when I first saw the massive list! I have class tonight, but I aim to have some answers to your questions and a much better looking article by tomorrow. Take care, María (habla conmigo) 13:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I loved that quote. I especially liked it when he ordered the elaborately detailed dry martini and everyone at the table said, "Oo, me too!" "I want one!" Everyone except the bad guy, of course. Anyway, I'm taking a break from dear Em for the rest of today (and maybe tomorrow, as well; she really does drain a person like her friend Higginson said), so now is your chance to take another look. Exciting! :) Btw, any other Shakespeare article on the back burner? I just love the work you guys did on Hamlet. María (habla conmigo) 17:54, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that was one of the highlights for me too :) What I particularly enjoyed was the menace than Craig brought to the role. For the first time in ages, we had a Bond that Her Majesty's enemies would definitely not wish to meet in a side alley on a dark night.

For Emily, I've had a look at what you've done and am impressed by the way you've responded. Incidentally, your remark about her exaggeration and lying made me chuckle: excellent material to help bring her to life if you can work it into the article! I think the best way forward is for you to complete, in whatever time-scale best suits you, your comments/amends in response to my peer review. Once that's done, I'll go right through the whole article again in detail and look at the changes in the light of how they fit into the bigger picture. I think that's good use of both our time and, to be honest, is much more the process I'm (in real life) used to. One thing to consider while working on it is what can be done to reduce redundancy. Almost everything can be said in fewer words than its first draft (including the text of this rambling message!)

All the best, and keep up the good work, --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 15:26, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Menacing, but Craig could still play young(er) and inexperienced. The free running at the beginning of the film looked especially awesome painful for poor Bond.

I know exactly what you mean about redundancy; I have a tendency to ramble, myself. :) I'll take a week or so to go through the article at length, fix it up, make it shiny, and then I'll give you a shout. I really appreciate your guidance on this, Roger! Incidentally, you said this is your first exposure to her poetry; did you get a real sense of it reading the article? Do I need more "famous" examples? I wonder if American Studies majors are exposed to her; when I was studying in Hull I know there were several American lit/poetry courses offered, but as I took mostly Shakespeare and medieval lit while I was there, I wouldn't know what they were like. While in Rome... María (habla conmigo) 16:49, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Take your time. Mulling works better on intricate subjects than furious writing :) I formed an impression of her poetry, certainly. For a variety of reasons, I found myself thinking of her near-contemporary, Gerard Manley Hopkins. (It was the pre-occupation with nature and uunorthodox structures, I think.) But certainly, I'd like to learn more. Oh, and talking of Rome, I'm in Sicily next weekend ... :) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 17:28, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Lucky you! A vacation sounds wonderful. As Emily wrote, "Bring me the sunset in a cup..." María (habla conmigo) 15:30, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay. I think I've reached a stopping point. I'm going to be busy most of the weekend, so I decided to bang most of it out today. I addressed all of your points, but some of them are not completed, per se, for various reasons (waiting for comment, I'm a stubborn mule, etc. :) I'm starting to anticipate putting this up for FAC soon. It's just unbelievable how it looks ten million times better than it did a couple months ago! If you hadn't seen the article before I got my hands on it, btw, it's rather frightening. So whenever you're ready, I'm up for round two. :) Enjoy your weekend, María (habla conmigo) 01:48, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Sounds great, thanks! María (habla conmigo) 00:22, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Possible edit warring on project article

There seems to be some issues going on over on the article : Military history of African Americans, in particularly in the section Military history of African Americans#Confederate States Army. Could you take a look at the article's edit history as well as the discussion, Talk:Military history of African Americans, and possibly give some input? Thanks. Sf46 (talk) 23:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Long overdue

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		For your brilliant and excellent work at MILHIST Tag & Assess 2007 -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 17:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Peer Review Request

Person Centred Planning is up for peer review. As it is about an approach to confronting and reversing oppressive power structures, I think you in particular will be able to take a constructive approach to reviewing it. Max (talk) 17:55, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Chevrons

Hi Roger,

Happy new year to you and your family.

Just wanted to ask if the Tag and Assess is still open, coz I havent got the Chevrons for the 1100 pages I assessed. I hope its still open coz I'd love to increase my tally.

Cheers Sniperz11^talk|edits 11:43, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back! Did you have a good break? In the meantime, the drive is still open and will stay open until the end of January. I didn't give you your awards earlier because I assumed you'd want to continue :) I'll do them now as an interim award though! Nice to hear from you again, --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 11:52, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Break was good... it really took all effort to keep away from wikipedia. But it felt good to go cold turkey for a while. Anyway, thanks for the chevrons, but I'll take them all at the end of december... Dont worry, there is no way I'm going to stop assessing pages. Thanks for the help, and great work with the Tag and assess drive. Cheers. Sniperz11^talk|edits 13:23, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

dugong

Not sure that it was my example originally. I didn't see the point of changing it, and noted that the edit involving switching to US units as the main—unnecessary, I thought. Tony (talk) 12:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Fort Parker massacre

I was doing a tag and assess for WikiProject Texas and ran across Fort Parker massacre. Curiously untagged by any other project including Military History. take a look see, perhaps there are other articles covering this under y'all's tag with another name. At first glance it seems to be too good an article to not be claimed by more than TX. Jacksinterweb (talk) 18:19, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Appreciation

WikiThanks

Thanks for your help off-wiki. Please accept my efforts at Briticising Mary Wollstonecraft and her works as a token of my gratitude. Awadewit | talk 01:57, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

   * 

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		For taking the challenge and successfully combating vandalism that has resulted in at least 20 bans, I, Sharkface217, hereby award you this barnstar. Good job! --Sharkface217 04:28, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Can it be?

Someone has taken on the awesome project of William Godwin? Although I am currently swamped by Jane Austen and Mary Shelley, I can help you assemble a good list of books to read! I can review! I can copy edit! I can provide moral support! I can convert into AE (no wait...) :) Awadewit | talk 09:49, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Giggle! I've got a few books here already but he's quite far back on the back burner. I was going to chip away at him, and von Lossberg, and Jacky Fisher while working on my Shakespearean interests. And yes, it'd be great to do it in AE, with plenty of gotten's :) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 09:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Godwin is last on my my MW list. I was putting him off until the end. 2011, 2012? :) Unlike, MW or even MS, he lived for a long time - 80 years. He also wrote a lot. Seriously, just let me know whatever you need. If he's still on your back burner when he moves up to my front burner a few years from now, perhaps we can do the article together. (I still can't believe there is no Political Justice article. Oh yes. 2,00,000 articles and people are searching for things to write about.) Awadewit | talk 10:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Tel Aviv

Hi, I listed Tel Aviv for a peer review at Wikipedia:Peer review/Tel Aviv. I saw you are interested in cities and so have contacted you to see whether you might consider helping with this. I have contacted two other users as well. Many thanks in advance.--Flymeoutofhere (talk) 20:24, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Piece of the action

When you contacted me about it back in October, I said I would get back to you. Imagine how embarrassed I am that a quarter-year has gone by ... Regardless, can I still get a piece of the action? I have found a bit of "spare time" at work, and should be able to process a chunk or two before the end of the month. --Kralizec! (talk) 04:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: Operation Camargue PR

Thanks SGGH ^speak! 09:37, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much! I have never been sure how to cite two different works from the same author before, and it came up again with the inclusion of Windrows second work only recently. Thanks again SGGH ^speak! 09:42, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I have just this second cited that tag for you. Thanks for your help! SGGH ^speak! 11:07, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

My friend we are all volunteers, how can I say that you passed a deadline set by yourself on something we all do in our own free time? SGGH ^speak! 09:34, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: Boxer's Fracture

Thanks for the kind words. I picked one hell of a time to get clobbered though, getting struck before setting foot on campus for the new semester. Taking this in stride though I figure the rest of the school year should be better by comparison :) TomStar81 (Talk) 06:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: Something for you

Thank you very much! :-) Kirill 01:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Doh!

I'm beginning to hate the MOS; conformity of spaces, dashes, hard, n, m, etc, etc. Emily's turning over in her grave right now! Thanks for letting me know and sorry for stepping on your toes... I'll let you work your magic alone now. :) María (habla conmigo) 14:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

That would be wonderful, Roger! If you're able to spend such time on it and are willing to put up with my nuances, I would be relieved for the help, especially during the nomination process; I could understand why some may be territorial about such things, but I definitely believe that the improvement of the article should be the no. 1 priority and not my ego. My first FAC didn't go as smoothly as I would have hoped, so extra support would be great. Would you believe I even asked my boyfriend (the Wiki-clueless man that he is) to proofread the latest version of the article for me? His main comment was, "You have enough time to find 160 references, but not enough time to fold the laundry?" :)

We have four shelves of books dedicated to Dickinson in our library, and although I only glanced at the Gardens book, it did look interesting. If you feel more research is needed aside from that, I can take another stab at things; staff members get leeway in the amount of books they can check out as compared to students, so I can risk the wrath of circulation and empty out what remains of the PS1541.Z5 section -- most of it is in my living room at the moment. María (habla conmigo) 15:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Laundry is the bane of my existence, with bananas and cats at a close second and third, respectively. ;) I look forward to reading your comments, but I have class tonight so I won't be able to reply until tomorrow. Take care, María (habla conmigo) 17:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Hope you don't mind if I pop in here to mention that when I was at the MLA book fair in December, I saw a beautiful reproduction of Dickinson's herbarium and thought of you, Maria. :) Awadewit | talk 08:09, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Welsh VC recipients

Hey ther Roger, hows things? Anyway, as part of my whole VC list drive thing, I just revamped List of Welsh Victoria Cross recipients, when checking the what links here, I found your page. I was thinking about merging it into List of Victoria Cross recipients by nationality as I have with other lists which are quite short. You can see a previewed version here. Do you mind if I go ahead? I don't want to step on toes. Woody (talk) 16:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Funnily enough, I've just this minute left a message on Solando's talk page about this. Inspired, I must confess, by your string of triumphs, I was vaguely thinking that Something Ought To Be Done With It. That said, there's no good reason to treat it differently to the list you're doing :) So, in short, no, I don't mind at all. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 16:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Cool. By the way, I would be happy to over a co-nom if you want, I was thinking about asking you this week anyway. Woody (talk) 16:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much; I really appreciate the offer :) Is there anything you need to know? Oh, and I'm away this weekend (Fri-Mon) so any time after that I suppose.--ROGER DAVIES ^talk 16:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Well-intentioned ramblings. SoLando (Talk) 17:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Formalities

Have fun answering the questions, take your time. When you are ready to transclude, leave a note on my talk page. Woody (talk) 19:15, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Done. Good luck, though I am sure you won't need it. ;) Woody (talk) 15:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh and the exam has begun by the way. You have already got more questions than I did! Woody (talk) 15:50, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

It is my pleasure Roger. The tide of questions seems to have slowed down now anyway! Woody (talk) 12:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Free time?

If you have any spare time in the coming weeks, might you consider peer reviewing Fanny Imlay? I know it is not a very important article, but it is certainly a difficult article! If you want a challenge, this is one of those tricky little articles. :) I would appreciate the help. Imlay was surrounded by famous people and their drama: Godwin, Shelley, the other Shelley, Byron, etc. She ended up committing suicide. It is a difficult story to tell without sounding Wagnerian. It is also difficult because scholars disagree about all of the details. So, if you feel like taking a stab at a review, I would be most grateful. Awadewit | talk 08:13, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure. I'll take the article to Sicily with me. Taormina, and its Grand Tour associations, seems rather a good place to peer review it :) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 08:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

RfA thank-spam

Roger Davies/Archive 2008, I wish to tender my sincere thanks for your support in my successful request for adminship, which ended with 37 supports, 2 opposes, and 2 neutral. The results of the RfA are extremely bittersweet because of the recent departure of my nominator, Rudget. Hopefully I can live up to his and your expectations. I would especially like to thank Epbr123 and TomStar81 for mentioning that they were preparing to offer me a nomination. The past week has been one of the most stressful weeks in my life, and I appreciate your vote of confidence in me. If you ever need anything, just get in touch. -MBK₀₀₄ 21:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Vädersolstavlan

Hello,
You are a volunteered copyeditor listed at Wikipedia:Peer review/volunteers and I'd be glad if you could have a look at the article Vädersolstavlan I just nominated for peer reviewing. My shortcomings in English most likely makes copyediting both necessary and easy.
Thanks
/ Mats Halldin (talk) 05:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry to take so long to respond to you but I have been away for a few days. The article looks very interesting but I have quite a big backlog which I must reduce before I commit to anything else. If there's anything specific I can help with just ask but it might be some time before I get round to it. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 14:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Tel Aviv

Hi. I have carried out extensive work on the article based upon your feedback. If you could take a look at this and see if it meets your expectations, I would really appreciate it. Many thanks--Flymeoutofhere (talk) 19:26, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Heroes peer review

I noticed that your user name was on the Wikipedia:Peer review/volunteers list. I was wondering if you could take some time out of your schedule to head over to the Heroes (TV series) talkpage and give us an honest peer review. The page has gone through some major changes in the last few months, and it would be fantastic if a prominent editor/contributor like yourself, could head over and give us at the Heroes Wikiproject some sound opinion and ideas on improvements for the page. We have all worked very hard at improving the page, and we need great outside, reliable and trustworthy users to come over and help us improve. I you are interested in joining the peer review discussion with other prominent users/contributors, much like yourself, please follow the link. Thank you very much for your help and your continued effort to improve Wikipedia and its quality! Wikipedia:Peer review/Heroes (TV series)/archive2--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 05:38, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the invitation but I must decline as I have too much on my plate to give the article the time it deserves. If you are still stuck in a couple of weeks, things - hopefully - will be quieter. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 14:24, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Nancy Reagan

Hi. I am new to Wikipedia and am having some trouble with some of the editors on the Nancy Reagan article. As you identified here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Nancy_Reagan/archive2), many of the items are written in a Non NPOV. I.e.: you identified that the China Pattern replenishment colors were trivial, but Happyme22 insists that her violation of the Ethics in Gvmt Act of 1978 and her fashions-for-publicity trades with designers are not relevant to expound upon.

I have cited many sources and offered many solutions to minor details in the article to improve it's viewpoint (on the Nancy Reagan discussion page), but four editors in particular (Users: Happyme22, Wasted_Time_R, SandyGeorgia, and Tvoz) have consistently teamed together in support of each other's actions and edits in moving this article forward to FA status while giving little or no validity to any contrary opinions., despite multiple reasonable requests and many many reliable cited sources.

I have begun the appeal process but the same three editors acted in the same way, and I don't know how to move forward to make the changes necessary. Can you PLEASE PLEASE review my comments on the Nancy Reagan discussion page and PLEASE PLEASE help?

Thank you in advance so very much for your cooperation.

207.237.228.83 (talk) 21:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

This is a most interesting message that the IP has canvassed multiple editors with. I can't recall the last time I edited Nancy Reagan, and my last review of the talk page a few days ago revealed no problems. (Someone should tell IP that Tvoz is an Obama supporter has far more edits to Obama and other politician's articles than Reagan.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the invitation but I am no expert on American political figures and feel my contribution would be waste of other - better-informed - people's time. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 14:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Improving Article Pakistan Air Force Academy

Can you help me in improving the article PAFA. I want to know how i can make it more better. Like what more information i must add in it or what should be the structure of the article? And if you can give some examples of some model articles of Military Academies, I will be grateful to you! Regards --SMS ^Talk 11:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Waiting for your response! --SMS ^Talk 11:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The first things to concentrate on are getting some citations and building up the lead. I can give you a much more detailed list in a few days but I'm rather busy at the moment both here and in real life :) If you can wait, that would be great :) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 15:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeah! sure, i can wait. Well about citations thing is that i got all info from books........ so will discuss it later! i will wait until u ping me back! Thanks! --SMS ^Talk 19:08, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for appreciation! --SMS ^Talk 22:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok! i will take guidance from WP:LEAD. Thanks again for the help! --SMS ^Talk 22:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back!

Hey, hope you had a good time on your getaway. I've been busy with lit theory and such so I haven't gotten, er, anything done regarding Dickinson. I did, however, pull a few more books from the library which have joined the towering collection in my living room. If you get some time (and if you're not too exhausted from your trip), there are a few lingering questions and concerns on the talk page. María (habla conmigo) 14:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Aaand you had already replied there before I had posted here. Nevermind, nothing to see, move along... María (habla conmigo) 14:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the welcome! I read ED on the way out and the way back. I also took Farr's Collection of Critical Essays which I thumbed through. Progress will be a bit slow for the next couple of days but after that I hope to hit the ground running :) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 14:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Hallelujah! Thanks for the note; overkill is right. María (habla conmigo) 13:17, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Copyedit request

Hi Roger. I was wondering if you would mind giving All Blacks versus France at rugby union a copy-edit. I have an editor opposing it's FAC based on criteria 1a (see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/All Blacks versus France at rugby union), and he says an independent copy-edit is neccessary. I'm not 100% sure exactly what he wants, other then to make the article more engaging. Would you be able to help me out? Thanks. - Shudde ^talk 07:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd love to but it might be a day or two :) Is this okay? If so, I'll read it through properly in the meantime. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 15:15, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure, the FAC shouldn't close for at least a week I hope, so that's sweet as. Thanks a lot for your help. - Shudde ^talk 22:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry mate. They were a bit quick off the mark and I see the FAC has just been archived. It's a shame the article was not promoted first time round but we can fix the copy and re-submit quickly. I'm working on it today and have some questions for you (buried in the text), mostly aimed at fleshing it out in places. What I'm trying to do is give it more structure, which will make it look more accessible. The bit that needs most work is the intro, which we can leave til last. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 07:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah that was a bit quick off the mark! Thanks for your help. - Shudde ^talk 22:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

RE: JSTOR

In answer to your question, yes I do have access to JSTOR, but I see you have it sorted now :) SGGH ^speak! 10:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

RfA thanks from Happy-melon

I just wanted to say thanks for your support for my RfA, which closed (74/2/0) this morning. Your comment and support was very much appreciated. Happy‑melon 15:58, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you!

Hi, just dropping by to say thanks for supporting my RfA, I totally wasn't expecting to get so much support, it was a really pleasant surprise. Melesse (talk) 04:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Melesse (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

db-repost

Hi, I'm not very experienced in this, but could you look at wp:aiv? Users Pvsamrat and Ankur0412 are both active in creating and recreating these articles, which on the face of it don't show their notability. I thought there were rules about instantly recreating articles in the same form they were deleted? Mjroots (talk) 10:26, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

you say you added the {{db-repost}} tag? It seems to have gone again! Oh well, the admins can sort it out.Mjroots (talk) 10:31, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

If you have doubts re the notability then you should tag it as such and let the admins deal. Like I said, it has been deleted twice so far. I've tried to hold of an admin to look at this, and have now requested assistance in discovering whether the two accounts are sock-puppets. Mjroots (talk) 10:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I did a bit of searching and found some copyvios on a couple of articles. Have also managed to work out how to report as socks, which has been done. Mjroots (talk) 12:53, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Taking one for the team

If I didn't love the little guy so much, I would have given up hours ago and let the vandals have at it. The question is, however, do I care enough about Miss Emily to protect her article from the inevitably numerous and oh-so-witty plays on the name "Dickinson" that await? :) María (habla conmigo) 17:18, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Heavens! The punning possibilities had never even crossed my mind :) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 17:20, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure the disgruntled grade school students will have more than enough puns saved up to keep us busy whenever that glorious day arrives. Thank you for my pretty purple barnstar, I shall wear it with pride! María (habla conmigo) 17:26, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I dunno. We only had 753,000,000 hilarious jokes when Balzac was TFA. – Scartol • Tok 19:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

That wouldn't be one hilarious pun repeated 753 million times, would it? (This conversation is taking me places I'd never even contemplated... Incidentally do you have roger as a verb in the US?) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 19:10, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Roger that, Roger. Transitive verbs are fun, eh? María (habla conmigo) 19:54, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Alas, no .... There's also an intransitive verbal meaning in BE, which may not have tranversed the puddle. It means (and I'm trying desparately hard to be delicate here) to, um, hyphenate with someone. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 20:01, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Really, now? Lucky you! And I thought BBC America had taught me everything I needed to know... María (habla conmigo) 20:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

LOL, so am I! I'm looking forward to getting back to ED. :) María (habla conmigo) 19:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Street Children

Greetings, I recently embarked on a complete re-write of the Wikipedia article on street children: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Street_children
Before I did this I made a few contributions on the article's talk page (the three at the bottom of the page): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Street_children
However, I had a growing feeling that I had so many quibbles with the article that I should attempt a completely new version rather than trying to fix what was there. The new article is about 90% finished but I suspect there is a lot wrong with it. And while I worry away at what remains to be written I would appreciate any criticism that can help me to make this a better and more Wikipedian article.
My version of the article may be found on my user talk page.
Thanks. Almudo (talk) 20:39, 4 February 2008 (UTC)Almudo

Congratulations

A consensus has been reached by your peers that you should be an admin. I have made it so. Please review Wikipedia:Administrators' reading list and keep up the great work. Sincerely, Kingturtle (talk) 15:13, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Well done. Congratulations. Remember such fame is fleeting, however, and the real work is ever ahead. All the best! BusterD (talk) 16:12, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Warmest Congratualtions. Now get to work! Oh, and I can't even say "don't delete the main page" .....'cause we can't any more. Shame !! Pedro :  Chat  16:56, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

You're very welcome and congrats! That picture is just lovely. María (habla conmigo) 17:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Great! Congrats. - Rjd0060 (talk) 17:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations! May you not tire or rest, or get pissed with us :) --Ouro (blah blah) 17:29, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

No problem. You seemed like a faithful editor who would not abuse the tools. SexySeaShark 17:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Well done, always knew you would fly through it! Good job those skeletons stayed hidden! ;) Woody (talk) 17:52, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I love that patio Roger! Congrats. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 18:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Operation Camargue

Congrats on the RFA. Do you think the above is ready for FAC yet? I think it might be, but will await the co-collaborators opinion. SGGH ^speak! 17:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't bother me who does it. Feel free SGGH ^speak! 23:17, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

About your RfA

The admins' T-shirt. Acalamari 17:50, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations on your successful request for adminship. I am glad you passed, and you are welcome for the support. For information on using your new tools, see the school for new admins; you will find it very useful. Good luck! Acalamari 17:50, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome! Acalamari 17:03, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Congrats on RfA... now get to work

Congrats Roger... now, take thy broom and tools and say unto all vandals, "I am thy admin, who shall forgive thy trespasses and liberate you from wikipedia". And we editors will praise your name and say:

"Our admin, who art newly elected,
Roger be thy name,
thy chance will come,
thy will be done,
on vandals,
to send them to heaven,
give us today our daily block,
and clean up our messes
as we clean up other's vandalism,
lead us not into wikiholism,
but deliver us assistance.
[for thine is the adminship,
and the power, and the tools,
and the broom and the block
for ever and ever,
Amen."

Cheers ^T/_@ Sniperz11 _edits^sign18:13, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Whoa! Nice. --Ouro (blah blah) 18:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations is the operarative word. Awesome! You deserve a hydrogen-powered hoover! SoLando (Talk) 19:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations, Roger; well deserved! Normally I dislike "Thank you spam", but what a joy to find my favorite place on earth on my talk page! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:08, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Great to see you made an admin, Roger. Like Sandy I appreciate this particular spam. I was at the Alhambra myself a couple of years back (a long way from Australia), and it's good to have a random recuerdo.

All best wishes to you.

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 21:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I would like to congratualte you as well. You helped me out with the Nancy Reagan FAC, and your WP:BIO amendment. Congrats! The other page I've been working hard on - Ronald Reagan - is due to be featured on the main page in a couple of minutes. I can hardly wait to see how much vandalism that will generate.... Best, Happyme22 (talk) 23:53, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations! Kirill 02:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

My pleasure, and congratulations! Jayjg ^(talk) 02:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations, and a small, selfish plea: please don't let the pretty new buttons distract you overly much from your great article work! Maralia (talk) 05:41, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey! Congrads, if you need anything gimme a yell. Cheers! Dfrg_msc 08:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, congrats, I am thrilled to see that your rfa encountered such favorable conditions. Good luck with your new mop. TomStar81 (Talk) 18:36, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations! on your successful RfA. --SMS ^Talk 19:42, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Deletions guidelines

Try Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators, but the circumstance changes every-time. Ues your admin judgement! ;) Stay Frosty! Dfrg_msc 05:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: Welcome Back

Life is busy but good, which is perhaps the best that can be asked of it! Congratulations on your recent "promotion," although I can't claim to envy you! I see you've also been doing good work with MilHist - keep up the good work, etc.

And, if you have a minute, I wonder if I might get your thoughts on this as an alternative to this - just a small project that I'm trying to finally finish. Happy editing, etc. Carom (talk) 13:13, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Earthbendingmaster/Poll Basketball110 Clinton, Obama, McCain, Huckabee, Romney, or Paul? 00:11, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Eric B. Anderson

Hi. I just created a page for myself --- I'm a children's book author and a filmmaker and have been getting numerous press mentions, so I thought there should be a Wikipedia article where fans can find me. I'm not sure why my page was marked for speedy deletion and I'm very upset...

Eric Anderson www.alenabooks.com www.ebafilms.com www.redwhiteandbluedocumentary.com etc... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eanderso (talk • contribs) 17:06, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Eric B Anderson deleted page

Hello Roger, I'd like to add my viewpoint for your consideration. I don't know Mr. Anderson personally, but I'm the one who wrote him and asked him to add a page. I ordered his book through Amazon and wanted to find out more about the author as I was writing a review on his book. When I typed in his name, the Wikipedia list of Eric Anderson's came up, but he wasn't on it. I thought he should be on it for clarification purposes, and because if I was curious about him, chances are his other readers would be. His significance as a children's author, in my view, is twofold: first, he fills the father-daughter niche in children's books, an important one that has been overlooked by most writers. Second, he's gained notability for using the "Radiohead Model" of advertising. Most writers (as well as musicians and other artists) are loathe to make their products widely available without charge, for fear of losing their grasp on profits. Radiohead (making the break among musicians) and Eric Anderson (among authors) have broken the mould in this area. For more information, please see the independent review I wrote of his book at: http://familymatters.vision.org/public/item/195983 . —Preceding unsigned comment added by La Tavola Calda (talk • contribs) 19:12, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Re:A bit overdue ...

Thanks you very much for the medal and congrats on becoming an admin. Kyriakos (talk) 20:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, no!

Did I miss out on my chance to get an RD peer review of Fanny Imlay? I had heard rumors of a red pen and paper. :) Awadewit | talk 04:26, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

No, you didn't miss out. You made the mistake of mentioning that it wasn't particularly urgent :) I've done a lot of work on it (four-hours-flying-time worth) but haven't got round to typing it up. I will do so shortly, honest. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 05:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

PS: I'm glad to see that Thoughts on the Education of Daughters didn't get too rough a time.

Oh, it's not urgent. I have plenty of other projects to work on. Say, a dissertation. :) Awadewit | talk 05:35, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Natalie Kononenko

The appropriateness of the article Natalie Kononenko was written in the talk page, yet it was still deleted. Kononenko is cited in several wikipedia articles and is the only major scholar on the subject of tradition of blind musicians of Ukraine. UPA99 (talk) 05:35, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Andrew Keenan-Bolger

You removed the speedy tag without comment in the edit summary. Please state your reason. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 08:36, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Deaf Pedestrians

I undeleted this (was in the process of removing the tags when you deleted) given that the article asserts, with a source, that they are signed to major label Virgin Records. Hope this is OK with you. NawlinWiki (talk) 18:49, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator elections

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by February 14! Kirill 16:55, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the support vote, meant alot coming from an editor I respect, though unfortunatly/fortunatly it looks like I won't be co-ordinating :) Good luck in getting/avoiding lead co-ordinator status -.o Narson (talk) 09:43, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. If you get your profile up a bit (quality contributions in discussions, chipping in at peer reviews etc), I'm sure you'll do much better next time round. Circumstances this time are not really with you as there is an unusually strong field of candidates. Thanks for your support, too. Much appreciated, --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 09:52, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I only started taking a look at non-article non-article talk space pages in december or so. OH well, I didn't come in last so, I am more than happy :) Narson (talk) 08:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Somebody's got to. Brutal business elections :) Get stuck into the reviews: you'll hone your own editing skills no end by studying other people's work. Other thing to consider is copy-editing. There's a real shortage of copy-editors and, if you take the time to familiarise yourself with WP:MOS, you can make a big difference and perform a useful function. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 09:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

ED Stubs

Two stubs created, my liege. Also, question about layout for ED: would you approve of removing the "The Dickinsons of Amherst" section out of the "Childhood" header, much like it was before? It is really the prologue, in a way, and doesn't technically deal with Emily specifically. María (habla conmigo) 13:47, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Well done, fair and noble damsel :)

No, I don't mind but it contributes towards a sense of sprawl. If the remaining bit about published lifetime works gets moved into the "Poetry" sub-section it brings Childhood and Adulthood down to nine sub-sections, which isn't really too long to be merged back one section (called, say, "Life"). We could also easily make "The Dickinsons of Amherst" instantly more relevant by using it as back fill. (ie Emily Elizabeth Dickinson was born on 10 December 1830 into a prominent, but not opulent, Massachusetts family. The Dickinsons of Amherst first arrived in the New World from England in 1630, with the Great Migration led by John Winthrop. After farming in Wethersfield, Connecticut, the family settled in Amherst ...).

Thoughts?

--ROGER DAVIES ^talk 16:12, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I quite like the latter option; I hadn't even considered that. I wouldn't mind getting rid of the random Amherst picture, as well, as it seems somewhat random since it was taken in the 1880s and all. I'll give that a try. Oh, and I emailed the Emily Dickinson Museum asking for permission to use their image, but seeing as how it's one of those catch-all email addresses for "Information" regarding the place, a backup plan may be in order. I'm home sick from work today, so between drug induced naps I'll be able to get some more work done! María (habla conmigo) 16:27, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

It don't look too bad at all! Needs a bit of a CE for flow. I may do that next. Do you fancy extracting the last paragraph of Productivity and moving it to Publication History? Incidentally, Habegger reckons ten poems were published during her lifetime (and ALL the Bowles ones were without her permission). I've promised to help a friend finish his dissertation (due in on Thursday) so he's here for the duration. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 17:18, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Sure, we could move that paragraph, as well. Habegger does say ten, but every other scholar has another estimate, unfortunately; and I don't think Emily's level of permission, or lack thereof, will ever be fully known. Sewall says that a couple of the poems were most probably personal that she sent to either Bowles or his wife. Either way, she wasn't too satisfied with the outcome, obviously. María (habla conmigo) 17:30, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay. I'm thinking of semi-protecting ED. Vandalism is getting silly. I've just had two edit conflicts because the page was being mutilated. Thoughts? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 17:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Agh, boo on edit conflicts. Semi-protection may be a worthwhile experiment, but I hope not to have it protected when we're ready to nominate it for FAC. That kind of makes me nervous, thinking that others may think the article's not stable. María (habla conmigo) 18:31, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Great news:

Dear Ms. xxxxxxxx:

The Emily Dickinson Museum: The Homestead and The Evergreens owns the copyright to the image mentioned in your email letter and found at http://www.emilydickinsonmuseum.org/images/dh_oct2004.jpg

We grant permission to you to use the image in the Wikipedia Site article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emily_Dickinson <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/>.

Thank you for requesting permission, and thank you for your interest in Emily Dickinson and her homestead, it is greatly appreciated.

Spiffy pic now uploaded to the Commons with temporary template here. Yay! María (habla conmigo) 16:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Very well done! You are an example to use all! --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 06:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Muchas gracias! Pero, tengo una... er, I have a question regarding the much famed daguerreotype; the individual who emailed me about allowing use of the Homestead picture also said I needed to get permission from the Amherst College Special Collections to use the daguerreotype. I thought it would be in the public domain since it's 160 years old; that's how it's listed in the Commons, anyway. Is that correct?

Also, where do you think the Homestead pic should go? I was thinking the "Legacy" section... María (habla conmigo) 15:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

You're right. The daguerrotype itself will be long out of copyright but (certainly on this side of the pond) museums claim copyright in the photograph of the work rather than the work itself. Publish and be damned I say!

Good idea! Looks very similar to the evergreens, doesn't it?

--ROGER DAVIES ^talk 03:59, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello gentlepersons—Miss Busybody here, butting in as Roger knows I am wont to do :) I've taken a stab at cleaning up the daguerreotype. Dear Emily deserves better than a hole over one eye, a stain under the other, and great clawing scratches everywhere. I also tweaked contrast and brightness a bit; her dress was so dark it masked the detail, and her skin color was so blown out that she only had half a chin, poor thing. It's not an elaborate restoration by any means, but I think it's an improvement, and it certainly served my purpose ("oh look, here's something I can play with to avoid my real work!"). Here is Emily redux; do with her what you will! Maralia (talk) 06:21, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Maralia, I am lost for words. I've replaced the image and the lead looks much better for it! Thank you. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 11:37, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure. Maybe I'm a purist, but this seems somewhat disingenuous, don't you think? I mean it looks great, but is it common place to "clean-up" such historically popular images and pass them off as the real thing? Dozens of books have that shoddy image on the cover; why should Wikipedia be any different? I kind of put this alongside rotating portraits so the individual is facing the opposite way for "better readability" -- it takes away from the work itself. Again, I'm just not sure. I really want to keep the integrity intact. María (habla conmigo) 13:06, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Whoops, sorry! That'd not occurred to me. That said, the reproduction of this daguerreotype in the Gardens of Emily Dickinson is considerably less knocked about than ours and has certainly been retouched. It is credited to Amherst College Archives and Special Collections. Perhaps it is worth asking them if we can use theirs? in the meantime, feel free the retouched image if you wish to. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 14:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I get your concerns, Maria. It's quite common on wiki to retouch historical images to remove egregious damage, but either you like it, or you don't (personally, I'm on the fence). The Amherst College version would be the best solution: it's less damaged than the University of Illinois image, and doesn't suffer from the synthesis of my restoration :) Maralia (talk) 18:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Operation Camargue is a featured article

		The WikiChevrons
		For helping make Operation Camargue a featured article, I proudly award you these Military History Wikiproject stripes. I hope to collaborate with you again in the future, that was the most painless FAC I have ever experienced. SGGH speak! 10:04, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Request for peerreview: Nahuatl

Hello Roger, if you have the time I think the article on Nahuatl which I have nominated for a pre-FA peerreview might be right up your ballpark. I would certainly appreciate any comments and suggestions you have that might lead me to improve the content, style and grammar of the article. Thanks beforehand. ·Maunus· ·ƛ· 15:43, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah, sorry I didn't see your notice on top. Please disregard the previous message (unless of course It's sparked your interest)·Maunus· ·ƛ· 15:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I have promises to fulfill first. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 11:38, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Email

Hi Roger, could you please check your email? --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 19:37, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Deletion Review for Caitriona Reed

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Caitriona Reed. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Mind meal (talk) 08:08, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I speedily deleted it because it contains no assertion of notability and the subject is not obviously notable. I'll restore this to your user page if you want to fix this problem before reposting it. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 08:25, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi there. The problem is that you should have realized, with all of the references, that speedy delete was not an option for you to consider. If you wanted the article deleted, you should have instead taken it to WP:AFD. Furthermore, WP:Notability makes clear what notability is, and it isn't whatever you apparently think that it is. This notability guideline should help you in your further endeavors on this site in understanding what constitutes notability. Quote: "The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice". This concept is distinct from "fame", "importance", or "popularity", although these may positively correlate with notability."

Notability criteria:

• "Presumed" means objective evidence meets the criterion, without regard for the subjective personal judgments of editors.[1] Substantive coverage in reliable sources suggests that the subject is notable.[2]
• "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive.[3]
• "Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.[4]
• "Sources,"[5] defined on Wikipedia as secondary sources, provide the most objective evidence of notability. The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally preferred.[6]
• "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including (but not limited to): self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc.[7]

So, there you have it. I hope this helps you from here on. (Mind meal (talk) 08:33, 16 February 2008 (UTC))

Thank you for the pointers. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 08:36, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

No problem. One more relevant bit of information for the future here: Wikipedia:CSD#Non-criteria, i.e. Non-criteria: Notability. Articles that seem to have obviously non-notable subjects are not eligible for speedy deletion unless the article does not assert the importance or significance of its subject. So now that we have established how notability is established, and asserted, I think the speedy delete was improper. (Mind meal (talk) 08:40, 16 February 2008 (UTC))

Funnily enough, I'm familiar with that. Apart from being rather strangely written, the thrust is clear enough. What it means is that unless the subject is blatantly notable, the article must state why the subject is notable. The world is full of teachers, not all of them are notable. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 08:56, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah...you are right. There is no "statement" that would assert notability beyond her being a Zen teacher, as that is why she has been "noted" by multiple reliable sources. As for there being many teachers, you are right. It is the teachers who are covered by multiple sources that are the ones considered to be notable! ;) {Mind meal (talk) 09:15, 16 February 2008 (UTC))

I've restored the article and moved it here in your user space. The original has been deleted so you can simply move to Caitriona Reed when you've fixed it up. A bland sentence like "CR is notable because [reasons]" should keep it bullet-proof from other CSDs until it's bristling with refs etc :) Good luck, --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 09:29, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, i've restored the article with some more info. (Mind meal (talk) 10:15, 16 February 2008 (UTC))

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 23:11, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Peer review of Huldrych Zwingli

Hello Roger. I found your name on the list of volunteers and I also saw your banner mentioning that you are not available for a peer review until March. I just wanted to mention this one to try to get an early "reservation". It is a Religion-related article and unfortunately there are very few people interested in the topic so if you could help I would greatly appreciate it. Just to mention, I did leave a message for one other Religion-reviewer but got no response. Anyway, if you manage to fit in even a cursory review that would be fine with me. Thanks! --RelHistBuff (talk) 08:14, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello again. You had mentioned to me on my talk page to remind you about this. I know we are still in February, but I am bringing it up early because I will have to return my sources to the library next month. So I would like to make at least one attempt on FAC sometime in March before having to return and to retrieve the sources. Any help would be appreciated! --RelHistBuff (talk) 14:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I've done it (skimpier than I would have liked but I don't have a lot of time until mid-March). Good piece! --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 07:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Your comments are more than enough to help me move it forward. Will work on it and I assume there will be more comments during FAC. --RelHistBuff (talk) 07:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Success is counted sweetest

Ta da! Let the games begin... :) María (habla conmigo) 17:18, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

This is going entirely too well! When does Tony come in and rain on my parade? :) María (habla conmigo) 13:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey, User:Spangineer‎ is asking about the article's use of "for some reason" in the "Decline and death" section, which I believed you advocated. Could you give your opinion on the matter or suggest an alternative? Thank ye kindly. (p.s. it's still going remarkably well!) María (habla conmigo) 13:20, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Nousernamesleft

Hi, Roger Davies, thanks for voting in my RfA, which passed with 47 supports (I hoped for a perfect square, but two away is close enough!), 3 opposes (the first odd prime), and 0 neutrals. I'm glad the community has decided to trust me with the mop and bucket (the flamethrower isn't supported). Of course, special thanks goes to my nominators Auawise and that one guy who buried stuff (not that the thanks I give to the you isn't special!). If you ever need a hand with something, or just want to say hello, tough feel free to drop a line! Best wishes, Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 23:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC) This doesn't even vaguely resemble a mop, but I couldn't find a picture of one.

GA Review?

Roger, I know you to be a careful reviewer and someone who is interested in military history. Thus, I wonder if you'd be willing to do a GA review of an article I've written over the past couple of weeks, Indonesian occupation of East Timor (1975-1999)? I'd be ever so grateful. Without trying to be immodest, I think you'll agree that it meets most of the GA requirements right away; and I think even the NPOV mandate has been carefully maintained. (Of course, I'm biased.) Cheers. – Scartol • Tok 01:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Passed it. I think you should take it to Milhist Class-A review immediately. You'll hopefully get good input on the military side of the occupation (not my period). Oh, and join Milhist. You get a free monthly newsletter and userbox. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 09:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Fantastic. Thanks so much! I will indeed take it to Milhist Class-A review. But I can't sign on to any more projects or forces or teams or gangs. Don't want to spread myself too thin. Cheers! – Scartol • Tok 12:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: Wotcha! :)

Hey, I'm here on and off but as I said on my user page - a lotta stuff on my mind recently so I'm limiting my activities to the Reference Desks. But, yeah, I'm always here. And my desk is a permanent mess, but also my kingdom :) Cheers, Ouro (blah blah) 10:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I can has thankspam?

Quick, let's delete the front page!

No seriously, thanks for contributing at my RfA which ended 68/0/0. I'm amazed and humbled by the result, and the warm and supportive comments that went with it. I've put the pic of Tiger here because although I know not everyone appreciates lolcats, to me it illustrates the possibility of taking things seriously with a light heart. I will try to do so, and remain open to the being slapped down if I do start being impossibly pompous. Thanks Pedro :  Chat  for your generous nomination, and also to Master of Puppets for ripping off his thankspam without so much as a by-your-leave. To all who contributed - especially the eventually withdrawn (but very interesting) neutral and oppose - thank you! Now it's off to new admin school for me, before I dare do anything for real... Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 12:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your response

To the questions I asked for your bid for leadership. They were the most thought out of the answers I've gotten so far. And the detail shows that you have actually thought about this question before, not just something that I asked and you came up with. Thank you again. You got my vote! Leobold1 (talk) 22:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

OhanaUnited's RFA

.: Thank you! :.

Thank you for participating in my 2nd RfA and supporting me! My RfA passed unanimously at 79 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral. I would like to take this opportunity to thank AndonicO and Rudget for nominating me. I also want to thank LaraLove for persuading me to keep going after I failed my first RfA. To be really honest, I am surprised that my RfA passed without any oppose or neutral. Being an administrator means more responsibilities, especially when I'm now an administrator on both English Wikipedia as well as WikiSpecies. I promise everyone that I will use the tools effectively to serve the community. If you need help on anything, don't hesitate to leave me a message on my talk page and I will get back to you as soon as possible. Last but not least, remember the motto for Ohana: "When it comes to family, nobody gets left behind." Once again, thanks for placing your trust in me to help the community. OhanaUnitedTalk page 18:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Emily Dickinson

Hey, Roger, I was expecting that question (also on Woody's FAC, which has strong support right out of the gate). I know Raul sometimes promoted in four days, but after some complaints about U2's deficiencies from reviewers who didn't get there in time (promoted on ten supports in four days) and some other concerns I've read here and there about the process "speeding up", I've decided to give promotions more time. I realize that may slow down some of our strongest writers and articles with Support from some of our strongest reviewers, but hopefully the one extra day that I allow will help prevent weaker articles from slipping through on strong support. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

"Glee – The great storm is over –" (and you didn't have to resort to protecting the FAC page!)

The "Myth", the Nun of Amherst, dear Emilie, E. Dickinson, "Your Scholar", "Your Gnome" is now featured!

		The Original Barnstar
		In offering your kindness, hard work and good humor while being instrumental to Emily Dickinson's promotion to FA, you have proven yourself an indispensable asset to Wikipedia. You deserve more than a rusty barnstar, but nonetheless I offer you this modest gift of appreciation. María (habla conmigo) 03:02, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations on the FA!

		The Barnstar of High Culture
		Thank you for your eloquent and well-researched contributions to Emily Dickinson, for:   A precious, mouldering pleasure 't is To meet an antique book, In just the dress his century wore; A privilege, I think, His venerable hand to take, And warming in our own, A passage back, or two, to make To times when he was young. His quaint opinions to inspect, His knowledge to unfold On what concerns our mutual mind The literature of old... Awadewit | talk 02:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

And Jackie moves up the list!

Congrats on the promotion of Miss Emily. As I just posted to Maria, it was a treat to review an article that didn't still need heaps of copyediting at FAC; thanks for making my job easier! Maralia (talk) 04:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Videos

No I hadn't, that made me laugh for about 10 mins!!! Where did you find that gem? I try and avoid youtube because it still hurts to see this... Woody (talk) 12:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Halfway back

Roger, I'm still knee-deep in my dissertation and haven't removed my Wikibreak tag. But I'm more active than I was during the post-holiday season. If there's any way I can help out (copy editing, etc.), don't hesitate to let me know. Thanks, again, for your feedback on Jimmy McAleer. Cheers, -- twelsht (talk) 18:26, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! It's good to be back. By the way, I'm amenable to history articles of any kind. If you know of a specific piece that would benefit from my brand of copy editing, just let me know. I'm partial to biographies, but don't let this preference restrict your choices. Sadly, there's no great mystery behind my username. If the meaning of "T" were a secret, it would be a damned prosaic one. It stands for "Tom." The final "T" has no significance at all, beyond the fact that it enabled me to construct a username that hadn't been taken a thousand times over. (I also liked the symmetry of "Twelsht," of course.) I may be away from the computer for a couple days because of an unexpected development. After Monday, however, I'll be in a position to respond to any requests. Cheers, -- twelsht (talk) 05:03, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Rimbaud

Yup, I have access to JSTOR Arts & Sciences I and II. I can make a copy of all that is available in my library concerning Rimbaud and send it to you, if that would be helpful. The Floridian rainy season has seemingly just begun so unfortunately I'm stuck at home today. I'm looking forward to getting started! María (habla conmigo) 16:34, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

World War I categories

Roger, I just came across Category:Military history of Canada during World War I, which triggered something in the back of my mind - didn't we deprecate those categories last year in favor of Canada and World War I, etc? Thoughts on best approach, etc. welcome. Carom (talk) 03:13, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we did and Category:Canada and World War I - the correct one - still exists. They should all really just be in Category:Canada and World War I so we should empty the Military history of Canada one I think. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 05:31, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah, good - I see you've taken care of that. As it's empty, I've tagged it for speedy deletion (although, as an administrator, you could probably just delete it yourself). Thanks! Carom (talk) 16:29, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Help?

The East Timor article you reviewed has already been sent to GA Reassessment, since Gnangarra believes the discussion of foreign powers' support for Indonesia is POV. Any advice? Care to comment? (I've also tried to find a solution on usertalk.) Thanks in advance. – Scartol • Tok 14:15, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Difficult. I saw no POV but I'm not an expert on this. The tack to take is that stating facts isn't POV per se. I'd start by asking what balancing material needs to be incorporated to redress the perceived bias. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 14:53, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I've made some changes to alleviate the concerns raised. Thanks for your feedback. – Scartol • Tok 15:25, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Having had a chance to look at the landscape as it were, the best way forward is probably:

• Heavily cut the entire International involvement section. Perhaps best to hive off to a separate hatnoted article. (This responds to both Nick Dowling and TomStar81's comments in A-Class review and addresses some of Gnangarra's concerns.)
• Then change the section header International involvement to International dimension. Gnangarra's has suggested "response" which i think is an excellent idea.
• Rename US involvement and Australian involvement to XXX response
• The Other governments to Responses of other governments.
• Have one or two paragraphs of the heavily cut stuff under each.
• Try to identify areas where specific reporting of the Indonesian position is needed. Majoreditor will probably help you here. Ask Gnangarra again to identify specific concerns.
• Add that material, addressing those concerns.
• Give the copy a further copy-edit to neutralise further the text.

All the best, --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 15:17, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I really appreciate your help on this. It's been very jarring for me to have worked so hard to stay NPOV (you should have seen the article I wanted to write!) and still get attacked. Watching my work get chopped up and whittled away has been really frustrating.

That said, I will definitely follow the plan of action you've outlined here. I feel very strongly that this subject deserves an FA article, and I'm aware that I may need help staying NPOV. I feel (and I believe the literature affirms) that the US and Australian role goes beyond a "response", but I will put my personal feelings aside for the sake of process. (Like I haven't done that on Wikipedia before, heh. Just a little frustrating because it feels like I do that sort of giving all the time and don't feel like I get to take much.)

Sorry to ramble on your talk page. Thanks again for your guidance and support. Cheers. – Scartol • Tok 02:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I've made the first set of changes recommended above. I wonder if you'd care to comment on the question of the lead image? Thanks again and again for your guidance; I know you could easily step back and stay out of all of this, and I appreciate your involvement. – Scartol • Tok 18:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

First, I must stress that you do not have my support. Any observations I have made have been made impartially. Second, it would have been better to have declared your interest in East Timor before you asked me to asssess this article: I would certainly have declined. Third, I do not ever wish to get entangled in content disputes. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 08:37, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Oof. I never meant to imply that you were supporting me, but rather suggestions for an impartial procedure and providing third perspective. I apologize if I appeared to withhold relevant information before the review. And I certainly appreciate your desire not to get involved in content disputes; I feel the same way. I suppose it's best to leave it there for now. Cheers. – Scartol • Tok 12:43, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Request for admin help

Could you remove the extraneous "the" from the first sentence of the teaser for the TFA for Wikipedia:Today's featured article/February 27, 2008? Thanks! Awadewit | talk 09:47, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Done! --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 10:04, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Awadewit | talk 17:36, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

One other thing - would you mind terribly doing a BE check on Sir Gawain and the Green Knight? I tried, but I know I always miss things. Thanks! Awadewit | talk 17:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

No problems. Tomorrow morning suit you? :) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 00:27, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Time is irrelevant in my universe. :) I see only endless piles of student drafts. Awadewit | talk 00:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion

As it seems that you are set to be elected the new lead coordinator I would (humbly) suggest putting togather a few sentences for the upcoming news letter, like a "Hi, I;m the new guy, I taking over for the old guy; no major changes though, same project, same mission, just new leadship" kind of thing. It may help calm the nerves of our members who may or may not still be shaken at Kirill's depature, and would help make a clean break between then and now. Just a thought :) TomStar81 (Talk) 22:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

A good thought, Tom, and if things continue in the direction as they are presently heading, I shall certainly follow your advice :) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 00:27, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:The Great Powers, 1900-1914

Category:The Great Powers, 1900-1914, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. – Cgingold (talk) 04:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Your recent deletion of Nithyasree Mahadevan

Do you actually bother looking at the edits that have been made to the article before deleting? This article was NOT copied from the URL. I myself created this article from scratch using the sources cited, and the URL has directly copied this article (word-for-word) from Wikipedia. I am willing to take this to the courts if necessary in showing that the website has violated Wikipedia's copyright over this content. However, you have NO basis for deleting this article based on the word of an editor who continually fails to assume bad faith against articles that I have contributed to. An ANI has already been listed against this editor for inciviliy and failure to assume good faith. Please undo this deletion. Thanks! FA/GA reviewer, and main member of the WikiProject India Assessment Team - Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

P.S. would appreciate it if you indicate on my talk page when you have replied here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ncmvocalist (talk • contribs) 15:12, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey Roger, I have had a look into it and it would seem that this website is an fork/mirror of wikipedia as of this diff (admin only). That diff is from December 2006, the website says copyright 2007 so it would seem the Wikipedia version came first. Would you mind if I restore the content? Woody (talk) 15:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey Roger, I have restored the content now. Feel free to drop me a line if you have any questions. Hope all is well! Regards. Woody (talk) 15:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) :Hi: I'm sorry if I annoyed you by deleting the article. I did look at the article's edit history and noticed that despite the length of time it's been around the article is completely unsourced, which is consistent with copy-vio. I went to the site and saw that the site has been around since 2005 so that was another factor. Anyhow, it's all been sorted now and Woody has undeleted it. I do suggest you add some sources though. All the best, --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 16:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

It's ok now, and thanks for your understanding and advice. The editor who placed the tag is still on the rampage, now starting to have a go at images having failed with his attempts at deleting articles that I created. Anyway, I will find more sources for Nithyasree Mahadevan asap. Cheers again - Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Milhist copy editing

Hi Roger, I didn't feel as though I could contribute much to the conversation you initiated on the milhist page. I would, however, be willing to volunteer my services as a copy editor for milhist articles. Cheers, -- twelsht (talk) 16:41, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Tom. Appreciated :) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 18:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

MILHIST coordinator election

It's my profound pleasure to inform you that you are now the new Lead Coordinator of the Military history WikiProject. Congratulations!

I won't bore you with any technical details—no doubt you know them as well as I do, by this point—but I will point out a bit of advice that I've written which may be of some use to you, if you haven't seen it already. Aside from that, I'll leave matters in your capable hands; I have no doubts that you'll make a great leader.

If there's anything at all I can help you with, please don't hesitate to ask. Again, congratulations, and good luck! Kirill 00:01, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Congrats!

Lead Coordinator of the Military history Wikiproject,
February 2008 — August 2008

Limited edition election gift. Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 04:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Congrats on your election as Lead Coordinator of the Military history Wikiproject. In honor of your achievement, I present you with these stars. I wish you luck in the coming term. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:40, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations, Roger Davies! This is very well deserved, and I expect to see great things from you! (no pressure! :-P) Nishkid64 (talk) 03:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Well done Roger and thanks again on the Tag and Assess work, which was a great success. Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 04:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I wish you another six months of happy military mopping, more good times reading articles at WP:MHR and success with your own article writing. And hopefully another big period of growth for WP:MILHIST. Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 04:04, 29 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by YellowAssessmentMonkey (talk • contribs)

Thank you very much ) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 13:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I just wanted to add my congratulations on your elevation, which I read about in the Signpost. Even if it's not my cup of tea, I think they're wonderfully lucky to have you as their Coordinator, and I wish you every success and happiness. :) Perhaps someday I'll stretch myself to write about one topic in military history and bring it to FA. Maybe Mules in the military? ;) Willow (talk) 10:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Willow. I was thinking about that when you gracefully declined the copy-editing suggestion :) There are plenty of pacifist-friendly articles within Milhist. As you say, the role of animals, or medical staff (there was an amazing field hospital set up by a bunch of North Americans and paid for entirely by public subscription during the Spanish Civil war, for example) might merit further pacifist exploration. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 13:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Congrats on your election to lead coordinator, Roger. I know you will do us proud. Kyriakos (talk) 12:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Very much appreciated, mate. I have every confidence in you, in your own special quiet way, too :) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 13:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Congratuiations from me as well. Remember to always have fun whilst doing what you should! --Ouro (blah blah) 14:03, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, and people like you help keep it that way :) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 18:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations! and best of luck for your future lead coordinator role! --SMS ^Talk 14:46, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Shukria dost! --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 18:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Congrats Roger. Been quite a good couple of months for you hasn't it? Lots of beautiful backlogs to deal with! Good luck with everything. Woody (talk) 16:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but it can't last :) With all the plaudits pouring, I need one of those blokes that used to stand on the chariot behind the Roman general during triumphs, whispering in his ear :)

Anyhow, Woody, it's great have you aboard! --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 18:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Signpost article on MILHIST elections

Can you check this article out, and let me know if there are any inaccuracies? It'll run in Monday's issue. Ral315 (talk) 06:10, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Awesome; I was looking for the number, but couldn't find it. Let me know if you find anything else. Ral315 (talk) 06:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Better? Ral315 (talk) 09:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

I hope the castle is not a reflection on how you feel about the elected position ;o). I know you will have a time to settle in and get to grips with the various parts and processes of the project. When you get around to it, I'd be interested in finding out what you though about the re-categorisation attempt that was made a few weeks ago. Cheers--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 13:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Bagh, cynic! I was thinking of K's plight in Das Schloß actually, but couldn't find a sufficiently brooding picture of Prague Castle.

Yes, categories needs attending to but it'll be a few weeks, I expect, before I can get round to it. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 14:04, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your support

Roger Davies/Archive 2008: I wish to thank you for your support in my unsuccessful bid at becoming an Assistant Coordinator for the Military history WikiProject. Rest assured that I will still be around, probably even more than before, and I have the utmost confidence in the abilities of the current and new coordinators. I might also mention that I am already planning on running again in August. As always, if you need anything, just get in touch. -MBK₀₀₄ 21:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you and congratulations

Thank you for the barnstar and congratulations on election to chief coordinator. I look forward to the next six months. Cla68 (talk) 21:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot and congratulations Roger. I missed it. I trust you will lead the project toward further achievements. Good luck. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 03:47, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Ditto. Being elected Kirill's successor is a challenge that would daunt many but you're endowned with all the qualities needed. Be warned: I'll probably still expect direct benevolence when an article of mine yearns for a thorough copyediting ;-). Congratulations, Roger. SoLando (Talk) 07:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Adoption?

Hey! There isn't any chance of you wanted to adopt me is there? It's just that i would love some help from someone as experienced and as versatile as you. Gaia Octavia Agrippa (talk) 17:30, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd love to but I really don't have the time right now, I'm afraid. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 06:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Centuries and millennia

Is this more the kind of commentary commentary you were looking for regarding your proposal?

Oh, and congratulations on your MILHIST election! I know you'll do a fine job. Askari Mark (Talk) 23:38, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. Nightmare, huh? I haven't yet decided what to do at MoS: I'll clear some of my backlog first :) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 06:34, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: A personal thank you

Thanks again! :-) Kirill 05:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of The Romance Of Helen Trent

An article that you have been involved in editing, The Romance Of Helen Trent, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Romance Of Helen Trent. Thank you.

declining a speedy tag with no notice to the tagger is rude. Corvus cornix_talk 05:56, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you think it's rude but I have never sent notices to taggers and I know no admin that does. For the record, I declined this because it clearly has content and context, and CSD notability doesn't apply to products. It's not really spam either. AfD or {{PROD}} (see WP:PROD for info) is the best route for albums. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 06:21, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Good grief

First admin, then Emily, and now Lead. What in Hades are you going to come up with for me to congratulate you for next week?!

The Logistics idea is excellent. Really, though, it's as if you peeked inside my brain and compiled a list of compelling distractions expressly designed to prevent me from ever writing any damn articles. Devious! Maralia (talk) 16:02, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Logistics department instructions

You might want to consider whether it'd be better to use transcluded instructions (as in the review department) versus on-page instructions; the former is a bit more complex to set up, but reduces the chance that people will overwrite them by accident. :-) Kirill 18:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

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 :) TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell 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)

• Thanks so much! - BFF - :) - Awadewit | talk 17:42, 6 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}} or {{Tb}} 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/_@Sniperz11_edits^sign 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/_@Sniperz11_edits^sign 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/_@Sniperz11_edits^sign 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

 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). OhanaUnited^{Talk 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!

A Beautiful Cherry Tree in Spring Bloom

Theres nothing like seeing a field full of spring flowers.

Just wishing you a wonderful First Day of Spring {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}! ~~~~

If you live in the Southern Hemisphere and are entering the season of Autumn not Spring then I wish you a happy First Day of Autumn {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}!
To spread this message to others, add {{subst:First Day Of Spring}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

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

		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)

 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 2005

Archive 2006

Archive 2007

Archive 2008

Archive 2009

Archive 2010

→

Archive 2015

Ping!

I've emailed you a couple times recently, but I fear my little missives may have gone astray. Awadewit (talk) 01:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Found them! And it wasn't just you! --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 04:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

RE:Milhist newsletter

As well as the admin stuff, the contest stuff needs to be added. I will tally that up later today and then add it in. I don't mind sorting out despatch for you. Warm regards. Woody (talk) 08:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

The newsletter has been forwarded to Cbrown; he should deliver it soon enough. I will sort out chevrons for the contest tommorrow. I think there is a consensus for them to be awarded, I will work it out and list it at the coordinators page tommorrow. Regards. Woody (talk) 19:11, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't award any quite yet. I'm sure there's consensus for awards but not yet for the basis on which they're awarded :) Perhaps the "who" and "why" help will clarify that. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 20:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't going to award anything, I was going to list the shortlist at the coordinators page. :) Woody (talk) 21:58, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

My mistake :) Perfect. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 22:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

BCAD Alexandru Şerbănescu

Hi, as assessed by you, I was wondering why this article does not meet the B-Class criteria 1 & 2 (especially 1)? Cheers, --Eurocopter (talk) 15:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Citations, references and reliability of sources basically for B1. And, if the references aren't top notch, we can't judge B2. I'll ask User:Woody to look at it and see what he thinks. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 16:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with Roger on this one. Those sources are of dubious reliability. The two english ones are basically personal webpages and not official sources. They simply aren't that verifiable with one sourcing itself off a different book. The third Romanian one is a blog. It needs solid, verifiable sources for it to meet the B-class criteria.

On another note, there is a thread open on the coordinator page that could do with some eyes please. Woody (talk) 17:08, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, understood and thanks for your quick response. Even if those sources are not reliable and verifiable enough to meet wiki standards, they're the best I could find. Anyway, thanks again! Cheers, --Eurocopter (talk) 19:07, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I understand the problem. I bump into it all the time with French stuff I'd like to develop. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk

As an aside, there is discussion of this at WT:MHCOORD#B-class criteria revisited. Please do chip in there. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 17:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Interesting current project

This is just a note to let you know about a a project you may be interested in. The main project page is at WP:MMM; it's a class project for a Canadian university. The class is studying Latin American literature, and part of their grade is going to depend on how close they can get their articles to FA status. There are twelve articles, with two or three students working on each.

A completely separate project, the FA team, got involved early on, and we're now in the last couple of weeks of the semester. The students are trying to get the articles in shape to nominate at FAC by 10 April. There's a status section showing who's working on what at the FA team talk page. The tasks that need doing now include copyediting, GA reviews, MOS verification, and any preparation needed for FAC. The professor, jbmurray, is taking responsibility (prior to FAC, at least) of checking that the coverage is broad and that the right academic sources are consulted. If you'd like to get involved, please take a look around and jump in, or ask questions at the FA team talk page.

If you don't have time, no problem -- I'm leaving this note with four or five of the best editors I know, just in case it happens to interest you. The FA team is really enjoying it, and it's a great project that is likely to get us twelve high-quality articles as well as several new Wikipedians. Thanks -- Mike Christie (talk) 21:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I really don't think I have the time. On top of various commitments here, I have the builders in at home (and, frankly, it's a nightmare). --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 20:17, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Admin Favor

Hiya, I had a free moment (I'm waiting for my professor to get back to me) so I logged on here, and while cruising through some long forgetten artciles I created I spotted a problem: a new page titled GDI characters of Command has been created, but that page is an exact copy of the page GDI characters of Command & Conquer. The former page needs to be deleted, as the latter page was the original page (although both pages need help). Can you help? TomStar81 (Talk) 02:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Done. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 07:07, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I apreciate it :) TomStar81 (Talk) 07:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Baha ad-Din ibn Shaddad

I will read a bit on the topic and suggest to nominate it on a different day except you really intended it as a joke. Wandalstouring (talk) 14:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd much appreciate any help you can provide expanding it. He's an interesting guy and the area is underrepresented. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 20:15, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Aw, thanks!

It was a particularly nice surprise since I've been doing lots of copy editing and reviewing lately for the Murder, Madness and Mayhem project - my "other" kind of writing. :) Awadewit (talk) 15:05, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Good :) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 20:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Stress!

Okay, so, end of semester with two final papers and one presentation due? Check. Pending packing up and moving to the other side of town? Check. Annoyingly persistent letters from Interlibrary Loan letting me know that their books are due soon (Friday)? Eek, check. User who is rushing my somewhat-on-hold work over at Stephen Crane? Ugh, check. In short, Rimbaud must take one of two backburners. I was starting to become entangled with his mean, bad self, but at least this will give you some time to look over what's already there and build upon it when you get a chance. :) María (habla conmigo) 17:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Iye. Well, I have an indescribably battered copy of Nichols all marked up with highlighter ready to transcribe so you're right it will give me a chance to catch up! Thanks for all your hard work thus far :) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 20:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Re:BCAD

Hello! Well I am having my Mid term exams of the semester from April 7, and currently I am preparing for that. But whenever you think that I have occupied a range for too long and you need to finish the drive, please go ahead and remove my name from there without even asking me. I may be able to finish the Worklist A range in 1 or 2 days. But it is impossible for me to finish the Worklist B range before April 11. And if you have time till April 12 I will finish the range from Worklist B too. --SMS ^Talk 05:04, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! --SMS ^Talk 06:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure, thanks for letting me know. I'll add my name to the applicable space. -MBK₀₀₄ 05:39, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I am really sorry! I can't finish the range currently occupied by me in Worklist A. Don't have much time. --SMS ^Talk 22:13, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay, I got back from the wilderness (Devon) 30 mins ago, yes I will take it on, thanks for alerting me. :) Harland1 (^t/_c)18:03, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm extremely sorry about that Roger. I've been too busy last month - lot of things on mind - work, other stuff, etc. Anyway, I've done half of the worklist. I have no problem with you assign another editor to do the list. However, is it ok if i do what i can if i get the time? I'll try and finish the worklist today, so it may be good if you could hold up a bit. I'm sure that should be within your 24 hour line. Thanks. Sniperz11_@^CS 00:24, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Tag & Assess 2008

Hi. Are you planning a Tag & Assess 2008 at all? If you are and I just cannot find the relevant page, please just give me the link. Thanks, Jhfireboy Talk 10:01, 3 April 2008 (UTC).

DYK

On 4 April, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Baha ad-Din ibn Shaddad, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Bobet 13:29, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow, can't believe there was no article on him before. Great job; I'm glad there's people making sure important articles related to the Middle East are written! --Al Ameer son (talk) 15:22, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Image question

Hey Roger. Don't know if you recognize me, but I'm around the military project once in awhile. My main project at the moment is Landing at Kip's Bay. I just finished a rough draft of the background section and am starting on the actual battle section. Feel free to comment. However, what I'm contacting you about is potential images for the page - I don't really understand a lot of the image policy (even after reading several times; it's very intricate). I did a quick preliminary search for images and discussed on the Talk:Landing at Kip's Bay.

I feel like I'm rambling, and that's probably a result of not even really knowing what my question is. Where does one start to find images for historical events? Can you point out some resources that you've found useful? Thanks for any comments or help you can give. Tan | 39 17:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi! You could try asking in the American Revolutionary War task force. alternatively, you could look in similar articles and see if there's any material that overlaps. On a more general point, this article does need much referencing. Without this, it is unlikely to get very far up the promotion ladder. Good luck! --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 05:18, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, for sure. Every single thing in the current article (and I mean, every single sentence) is fully verifiable from the four "general" references below. As I keep changing it right now, in-line citations would be hard to deal with and keep accurate. It's next on the to-do list, tho. As far as the images go, that's a good idea, I'll ask at the task force. Thanks for your time! Tan | 39 15:29, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Maximian FAC

I've responded to your comments. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 07:00, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Is there anything else I can do? Geuiwogbil (Talk) 07:18, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Respond here, on the FAC, on the talkpage, wherever. Where should I go from here? Would you be willing to look over the article again if I give the article a full copyedit tomorrow? What do you mean by "style and content"? None of the issues you've raised seem to be concerned with "content". Much thanks for your rapid response to the FAC listing, by the way. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 07:22, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Have you departed, or are you still there? Geuiwogbil (Talk) 07:25, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Just giving the dog (and myself) some breakfast :) To clarify: style is the way it's written and content is what is written about. Diocletian's age, for instance, was content. Of course, I'll go through it again :) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 07:41, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, alright. "Opposes" set my adrenaline flowing, and I get somewhat anxious to have them resolved. I'll give the article a full run-through tomorrow, and submit it to you for re-review. Thanks! Geuiwogbil (Talk) 07:43, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know whether you do this but printing it out and editing on paper is very helpful. You see it all differently somehow which makes it much easier to edit radically. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 09:16, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Factotem has been so kind as to give the article a full copy-edit. Is the article to your satisfaction now? Geuiwogbil (Talk) 20:03, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 09:21, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Roger, when you removed the "countryman" (previously "rustic") line, you removed the lead-in to the statement that follows "The panegyrist of 289..." Do you think you could fit back in some sort of "uneducated" line in there? "Rustic" and "countryman" aren't really important as designators, but I think the "uneducated" bit is. Thank you very much for beginning the copyedit, by the way. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 15:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Not much in the way of formal education, certainly. Diocletian came from a poor family, not the senatorial aristocracy, and thus didn't enter into the academy or receive tutoring. "At most, he would have acquired the practical skills of a servant and perhaps, if his father was indeed a scribe, an elementary literacy of the type appropriate to his station." (Williams, Diocletian and the Roman Recovery, 22) But Diocletian had a different temperament than his imperial colleague. That's where the whole Jovian/Herculian motif comes into play: Diocletian is the decider, he's the one who manages knotty policy and reigns over affairs, like the celestial Jove. "But he [Diocletian] was also, most importantly, a thinking man, ceaselessly observing and questioning the appearance of things. Though his education was confined to the practical requirements of military organisation, he had a real intellectual need to understand the dangerous, confused world he was grappling with, sparing no pains to analyse the problems in front of him and organise it all into a coherent picture to his own satisfaction." (Williams, Diocletian, 27) Those sort of traits just aren't found in Maximian, as the ignominious end of his career suggests: [4] "One question crossed this author's mind while compiling this essay about Maximianus. Why did Herculius put himself through all of this at the end of his career when it was obvious to everyone that he was not wanted? The best answer was provided by Harold Mattingly and B.H. Warmington who have noted that Maximian was '...[U]neducated and rather stupid.'(OCD,² s.v. "Maximian," 657)." Geuiwogbil (Talk) 20:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Maximian's been promoted, thanks to your much-appreciated copy-edit. (I only hope that, by reading the diffs, I've improved my own skills enough to avoid the rigmarole next time around.) It looks much tighter now. Thanks! Geuiwogbil (Talk) 05:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad it's promoted. I'm not entirely convinced that rigmarole is the best way to describe an intensive ten-hour copy-edit but I know what you mean :)

To hone your copy-editing and reviewing skills, you might think about joining WikiProject Military history. In addition to having a Classical task force, we also have a Logistics dept for help with sourcing (JSTOR etc), copy-editing, graphics and so forth. We also need informed editors to sign up and help.

--ROGER DAVIES ^talk 22:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Ooh! That looks wonderful. How do I request sources from these guys? Do I just ping them? Cool. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 15:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but if you're going to do it regularly or ask for more than a couple, I suggest lubricating the wheels with the odd barnstar to the editors helping out. It's not compulsory but it makes them feel loved and appreciated :)

You may want to join the Classical task force (nag, nag) and push any future articles through the Milhist review system. The A-class review is usually pretty stringent and will make FAC much easier. You can also request specific-purpose copy-edits in the Logistics/Copy-edit, for instance, for help with MoS stuff. You also get a free monthly newsletter and user-box :) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 04:57, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow! You're making the whole thing sound so appealing. ;) I'm a pretty poor peer-reviewer, myself. I usually only notice trivial things when I'm reading through other people's articles, like MOS bugs and weak citations. Article structure, prose malfunctions, topic coverage, language use-related commentary is usually beyond me.

I should only push articles through the system if a high proportion of the content is mil-hist related, right? So Maximian would have been a good fit, but Diocletian a poor one, if I'm seeing things correctly. Would Augustus, with its current balance of political and military content, have been a good candidate for a MH peer review? I'm just wondering if I should put Constantine I up for review once I've completed work on it, when it will probably end up with less military content than even Diocletian's article has. I suppose there's no harm in listing the article on both the project-specific and the general peer review (unless I can't do that with the complex templating introduced in the recent PR reform).

You've given me much to think about, Roger. I might very well sign up. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 07:14, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

To reply in order:

1. There is no requirement to be a comprehensive reviewer. To give FAC as a parallel, some people focus entirely on their "specialities" Tony on prose; Ealdgyth on refs/cites; Indopug on prose, refs etc. In any case, most of these skills are acquired, not inate :)
2. If the article is within Milhist's scope, which is pretty broad, it's suitable. Augustus would be fine.
3. Good. Please do so :))

--ROGER DAVIES ^talk 06:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

There. Done. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 06:59, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

{od} By the way, where did you get the username from? I've puzzled over that (in a very minor way) for over a week now.--ROGER DAVIES ^talk 06:49, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Umm, I feel kind of embarrassed to say. Back in 2000 I decided to get a Hotmail account, and (being 10) couldn't think of anything suitably clever. So I rolled my knuckles across the keyboard, and came up with something that I suppose looked like Guiwgbl. I didn't want something unpronounceable as a user name, so I added some vowels to come up with Geuiwogbil. I've kept it ever since, partly because I've wanted to keep consistency between my accounts, and partly because I'm just too lazy to do otherwise. It's ugly, but it's functional. If I changed my signature to GWB, would that violate our username policy? Just a thought. ;) Geuiwogbil (Talk) 06:59, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Outstanding! It's certainly distinctive, I'll grant you that. I wouldn't change it now, not after all it's been through :)

Incidentally, this article would really benefit from a peer review. It's your period-ish; would you mind looking at it for me ?--ROGER DAVIES ^talk 20:04, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I've given the article a partial look-over, but haven't yet finished. Thankfully, I have three of the secondary sources listed in the bibliography, so I can probably give the content as good a review as the article's MOS-compliance, wording, and organization. Thanks for directing me to somewhere I can be helpful. :) Geuiwogbil (Talk) 19:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Re:Chief of Staff graphic request

It's great! If you have the time, could you remove the white background? Only if you have time, of course! But, ya, it's really well done! ~ Cheers! Dreamy ^§ 02:41, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your help in this matter. ~ Cheers! Dreamy ^§ 21:22, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Question

If a link in an articles is cited in the references section should it also appear in the external links section? The last link in the external link section for Montana class battleship was cited several times as a source in the article and appears in the references section, so I am inclined to think that the link in the external links section is redundent. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Ping!

I received an email that said some server hasn't been able to send my latest email to you and that it will keep trying for a week. (I know you said you were having issues.) Curious if you have gotten it - it makes a reference to Pierre Bayle. Thanks! Awadewit (talk) 05:16, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I replied to Part II (did you get that?) but have not seen one referring to Pierre Bayle. I've looked in my spam traps. Try again? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 05:56, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I received the writing interview response, but I wasn't sure if you had received my response to your "Update". I have resent it. Awadewit (talk) 06:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Got it, and replied :) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 07:45, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

uncontactable image owners

What happens if the owner of the image can not be contacted, but it is available online?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 09:51, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know I'm afraid. Images are not my forte. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 10:20, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

StormBot

Seeing that you run one of the biggest WikiProjects, I thought the use of StormBot would be easier for you to deliver messages and notifications to all of the project members easily. Drop me a line on my talk page if you would like to use it. STORMTRACKER 94 ^{Go Irish!} 20:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

BCAD Schedule question.

Roger, Do we have a specific end date for the BCAD Drive? We've got a bunch of ranges that are completed, but we've got a whole bunch of other ones that are sort of half-done, or partially done, and such. Do we have an "official" end date for the drive, or do we just continue until we've assessed everything? Cheers! Cam (Chat) 04:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, sort of ... It's when the A-list is completed. That one is currently the priority. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 04:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeah. I just checked the "articles without the B-class assessment" and saw the "200 of 55,000 articles" sign and thought "We're PROBABLY not going to try and assess all 50,000 of these in THIS drive" Thanks! Cam (Chat) 06:07, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[Chuckle!] --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 06:10, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Oooh, thanks for the "somethings". They are a welcome edition to the awards-wall. Thanks. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 05:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Haha. Sweet. Incidentally, I just noticed that you've given me every single award I've ever received (just find that kind of odd). Cheers! Cam (Chat) 04:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC) Oh yeah, and do we have a start-date for Tag & Assess 2008 yet?

BCAD

Just noticed you finished off my set of articles! Apologies for not being able to do it myself, on a wikibreak and with family troubles and all. You didn't need to add them to my tally though, you could have claimed them for yourself. You're crediting me with work I didn't do... --SGGH ^speak! 15:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Is that worklist in the A range still available for adoption. If it is, I'll snap it up and get through it quickly. -MBK₀₀₄ 03:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is. Range 1601–1800. Thanks very much, --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 04:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm on it. Thanks. -MBK₀₀₄ 04:12, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

There are only two ranges on the A worklist still incomplete. Perhaps it is the time to poke those two editors? -MBK₀₀₄ 05:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Request help with my user page

Hi Roger,

Sorry for bothering. My User page seems to have a problem with displaying on Internet explorer - all the text seems to go inside the Userbox menu (which is a separate template User:Sniperz11/Userboxes I transclude into the page). I've been unable to find the problem. Could you see if you can find the problem... I think one of the tables isn't closed, which is why the text is such. I commented out the Userbox menu, and that fixed the problem, so I'm sure its a problem on that template. This seems to be a problem only on Internet Explorer.

Thanks a lot, and sorry for the trouble.

Cheers Sniperz11_@^CS 12:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the problem is one of the userboxes in your Groups userset. It may not be working properly.

I hope you don't mind but I've commented it out. After doing this, the userbox sets below it ("Stupid stuff which doesn't matter" etc) and the rest of page display perfectly. I suggest you un-comment "Groups" and then comment out each of the userboxes in it one by one to see which one is breaking it. You will be able to tell because the other group sets will appear/disappear. I hope this helps :)

All the best, --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 13:23, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I followed my own advice and tried commenting out user boxes in the Groups userset one by one. The problem is with {{User wikihi}}: once this is commented out the problem goes away. If you want to follow this up, you can ask on the template's talk page. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 13:34, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a ton for that... really was a great help, above and beyond the call of duty. Its amazing that you can spare time for small things like this inspite of all the other work you do over here and in RL. I'll see how we can fix the Template:wikihi. I tried, but it only seemed to make it worse... I'll try fiddling around with it a bit more.

Again, thanks a ton. Cheers. Sniperz11_@^CS 16:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Operation Energize Task Forces

I'll take the third slot for Maritime-warfare, National-militaries, and Military-aviation, if you'll accept a non-coordinator (with 22 support votes in the last election), which it sounds like. -MBK₀₀₄ 01:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

My primary objective is to get the coordinators signed up first but you're very welcome to raise it on the page :) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 01:55, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm waiting for the school year to end so I can see my updated GPA, if it is at least 2.5 then I will take on a few more task force positions. I do not want to commit my name to TF responisbilities and then bow out do to school, that wouldn't be fair to the contributers or the other corrdinators. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Now that almost all of the coordinators have signed up, and I've posted a query which was unanswered, is it alright for me to sign up for a few TFs? -MBK₀₀₄ 06:22, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Withdrawn by nom

Hey, Roger; long day, realize I can use more help, in case you're interested. :-) I don't want everyone doing this, in case they get the steps wrong or walk into a delicate situation, but in clearcut cases where a nominator requests withdrawal, here are the instructions. A situation like today's Rongorongo re-nom is different and involves more steps; the steps in these instructions are only for an active FAC where the nominator clearly requests withdrawal and there are no other reverts/restores needed, as was the case for Rongorongo. If some people get experience with these steps, then it will be easy to move on to the Rongorongos, which involve more of the botification steps. Best regards, and thanks for your kind words today. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, Sandy, will do when the need arises :) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 09:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

By the way, yesterday was so busy that I missed your first Tel Aviv comment on my talk page, and didn't see it until your second edit. By all means, please hijack my talk page anytime; responding to what is becoming Village Pump Central is becoming hard, and I appreciate others who help respond to FAC queries there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

FA-class nomination for 11th New York Volunteer Infantry Regiment now open!

An FA-class nomination for 11th New York Volunteer Infantry Regiment is now open and can be found here if you wish to comment! Thanks! --Daysleeper47 (talk) 19:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Portal:British Army

Hi, I was wondering if you could give this portal I've created a look over because the portal peer review is not very effective as I try to gear towards Featured Portal status? I understand it is no where near ready for featured status but if you can give me a few pointers, I'd be grateful. Thanks, Jhfireboy Talk 21:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC).

First, well done on your efforts so far and your determination to succeed. As an initial step, you may want to look at existing Milhist featured portals and see what extra functionality they have. These are currently:

• American Civil War
• Italian Wars
• Military of Australia
• Military of Greece
• Military of the United States
• United States Navy
• War
• World War I

It may be worthwhile requesting another peer review: this time at Milhist (we'll transclude it for a simultaneous portals peer review). For this peer review, you can ask the main contributors to the Milhist featured portals for their input. In the meantime, I've put messages on the Milhist National Militaries and British task forces pages asking for comment.

--ROGER DAVIES ^talk 05:03, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the help - I had no idea where to go from here. I'll put in for another portal peer review and depending on the result from there, I will put it up for Featured Portal nomination. I have worked on this portal almost solely (Carom has helped a little). Thanks again, Jhfireboy Talk 22:41, 13 April 2008 (UTC).

Let me know when you do and I'll make sure it is transcluded here. I'm sure we can get you a more constructive review than last time. I'd prefer too to comment in the context of a review as I have no experience of portals and don't want to wrong-foot you. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 22:49, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

The portal peer review can be found here. Thanks, Jhfireboy Talk 17:31, 14 April 2008 (UTC).

(od) Thanks for the link. Two of the coordinators, Woody and Kirill Lokshin, have devised a way of bringing it under the Milhist umbrella as well so hopefully it will get Milhist AND Portal reviewers. All we need do know is drum up some business for it! One thought might be for you to invite the main contributors to the existing Milhist Featured portals to peer review. A personal request can be difficult to resist :) Good luck and all the best, --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 18:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The discussion arranging the details for this and similar cases is here. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 18:52, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

List of Medal of Honor recipients

I wanted to let you know that I have submitted List of Medal of Honor recipients to be a Featured List. If you want to take a look and leave a comment please do.--Kumioko (talk) 17:11, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. You've got no shortage of reviewers, I see, and my time is limited so I'll give this one a miss if you don't mind :) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 06:41, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

BCAD finish

Sorry about that, I will finish them now, I've had a very busy week, 6 exams and 3 pieces of coursework done last week, but I should have more time now. Harland1 (^t/_c)09:18, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to be so slow. :( Harland1 (^t/_c)09:21, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

During the gap between this drive and the new one, should I go one assessing the worklist B article or should I leave them? Harland1 (^t/_c)09:23, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Think I might take a break then, cool. :) Harland1 (^t/_c)09:42, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I have finished my A-list range. :)

Of course :) But if you feel that it was to quick I'll go back and check them, there were only 30 left. Harland1 (^t/_c)10:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I thought so :)) Harland1 (^t/_c)10:58, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the awards :) Harland1 (^t/_c)11:36, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Tel Aviv - "the way forward"

Roger, that sounds great - we have a deal. I think perhaps we should contine the converstation here (although this comment is also on SandyGeorgia's talk page.) There isnt any rush - I think its better to take time to get it right. I'll get onto that comments page and do the charm offensive (is it to all reviewers? and what is the best one to give?) and I might also be very busy over the next few weeks (but I should still be around most days). Sounds great. Thanks. Flymeoutofhere (talk) 10:40, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

It had to be done - you deserve it more than anyone.

		The Israeli Barnstar of National Merit
		Thanks for your continual committment and assistence to improving articles on Wikipedia and recently to Tel Aviv Flymeoutofhere (talk) 11:50, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
		this WikiAward was given to Roger Davies by Flymeoutofhere (talk) on 11:50, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Re:Thanks

Not so invisible then...! Thanks for the barnstar Roger, always appreciated. As a sidenote, could you review James Joseph Magennis per the B-Class criteria please? I want to avoid the obvious charges of nepotism. Thanks again. Woody (talk) 12:16, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Pleasure. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 12:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Much appreciated once more. Just a wee note: you missed a bit ;) Thanks again. Woody (talk) 12:28, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

And that is precisely the reason I gave you the barnstar :) Mind you, the new template will adjust that automatically. Have you played with it yet? If not, you ought; it's a major overhaul and reason says there are bound to be glitches. Though knowing Kirill, I expect it will be impeccably bug-free :) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 12:37, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Diplomacy skills

All yours: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Anastasius Sinaita SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:49, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Refer to instructions above, depending on your abilities :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:08, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Green light on the FAC; I'll wait for you to do it, so you can get the practice, Mr. Secretary of State :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:36, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

PS, In case you notice it while you're there, don't withdraw Navenby. It may just need a cooling-off period. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:37, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you can use your diplomacy skills to give a pep talk here? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:53, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I had to do a bit of cleanup, Roger; we have to leave the next FAC prepped for a submission, like this: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Anastasius Sinaita. Check my contribs for the other steps I did. Thanks :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:02, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

ah, you put it in your own userspace, so maybe you didn't notice when I added a diff to a complete example in my userspace, at User:SandyGeorgia/sandbox#Withdrawn by nominator FACs. I'm reluctant to have these instructions spread around, because of the risk that changes aren't noticed (I keep up with Gimmetrow as far as the GimmeBot steps, so I had added that change). I'm worried if these instructions are dispersed and not kept in one place, anyone will start withdrawing noms, and perhaps not doing it correctly. I'd rather it stay in only one place (my userspace); you're welcome to edit there to clarify the instructions. By the way, TonytheTiger just requested one be withdrawn so he could start another, that one needs to be archived with opposes; a bit concerned that FAC not be used as peer review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I can do that (after I finish my taxes, ack!!), but it's likely to make me regret I ever typed them up, because other people may start withdrawing FACs without using the necessary discretion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I must finish my taxes (don't know if you know about April 15 in the USA :-) Will focus on this later. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a busy day; I must go do my taxes !! Did I mention the TonytheTiger nom that needs to be archived? Also, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2007-2008 world food price crisis. Good practice for you; three in one day. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Talk page at the food crisis still needs attention :-) There's a strange "withdrawn" at the top of the page, and the archived fac link should be added to a talk page section for future ref. OK, now that you've got that part down ... the next step (in case you're looking for more work :-) is to regularly check Category:Wikipedia featured article candidates to make sure it's synced with the FAC page. You'll often find old, straggling FAC pages that were never correctly submitted, that need to be either moved to archive or maintenance deleted, depending on the circumstances. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not panicing; I'm watching closely with great pleasure and a huge sigh of relief that I have a trained helper :-) This trivial, time-consuming stuff is a killer. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

And the Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Evolution of mammals looks a little off too. And now, I must not only call the accountant about MY taxes, I gotta go talk with the builders about where exactly to put the foundation on the house, where to put the well, and how NOT to put all those things into the horse pastures! Ealdgyth - Talk 16:19, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, here's a transcludable page, incorporating your clarifications:

User:SandyGeorgia/Withdrawn FAC SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:50, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Secretary of State:

This is an ongoing issue at FAC and FAR; at least three that I can remember. May I leave it in your capable hands? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:35, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Heads up: I left a note at User talk:Ceoil re Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Third of May 1808. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:42, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Resolved. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:15, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Falls under dipolomacy: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Apollo 9. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:16, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

On Stress (physics), if I had gotten there before Mojska, I would have just deleted the malformed FAC commentary from the FAC page, and left a note for the nominator. But Mojska created the FAC page, so now the extra work of notifying, moving to archive ... etc. Should be treated as a withdraw, not a fail ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:12, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I am new and not sure how to handle this

Thank you for the welcome! I do have a question, and hope I am doing the right thing asking you. I have mainly been working on Operation Storm, but became involved with an entry about an artifact related to WWII in Croatia because it was threatened with deletion. I have run into something I do really do not know how to handle, now that I have finally figured out what is going on. I hope you can guide me.

One editor has repeatedly edited this entry to include very inappropriate humour (such as making fun of the victims of one of the most notorious WWII death camps). This same editor has also deleted reputable sources from the entry and then immediately placed it on the RFChist claiming "external links are very serb ultranationalist POV – The issue is in fact whether the content of the article is not just a rumour spread by nationalists." I have patiently tried to participate in a constructive dialogue, but I see no point in continuing if such disruption is allowed to carry on. Civilaffairs (talk) 17:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)Civilaffairs

I sympathise: we have all had to deal with dicks at some time and it's never pleasant. First, it's best you stick strictly to policy and avoid becoming involved in any edit wars. Second, you can always invite other editors to comment, with a message say on the talk pages of any appropriate task forces. Third, and as a last resort, you can request administrator intervention at WP:AN/I, which can result in user blocks or page protection. Finally, and while this might seem like cowardice, it isn't, you can simply walk away from it and find something more enjoyable to invest your energies in. These things have a habit of blowing themselves out after a while and it's the nature of a wiki that sooner or later other editors will come along to fix the problem. I hope this helps, --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 22:35, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your wise advice. It does help. This entry does not seem to be part of any Wikiproject, so I am not sure how to go about asking other editors to comment. This editor seems tireless in reverting or snipping my edits to Operation Storm, but I let it be. I may take your advice about walking away, even though it seems a shame to allow one POV to take over a whole cluster of entries. Again, my gratitude for your kind help. Civilaffairs (talk) 00:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)Civilaffairs

hi

oh oops! sorry, didn't know i couldn't do that! Samian

Portal:British Army

Hey

that not a problem. Will get to it as soon as possible. Hossen27 (talk) 01:40, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

My difficulty this week is with a spotty internet connection. That being said, I'm always willing to help another project portal peer review. Put me on the "doesn't consider such contact from a project member as canvassing" list. Frankly, he's pretty optimistic if he thinks we have time to put in his portal edits for him, but I'm very glad to talk about the things FP review was demanding. User:Cirt had me run virtual circles around the portal backwards, but his demands made my work much stronger. If I'd had a more engaging PoPR, my FPprocess would have been much easier. BusterD public (talk) 20:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: A big favour and Portal: British Army

It's no problem. I have changed the name on two of the sigs. As for the review, I'll have a look at the Portal and leave some comments. Kyriakos (talk) 07:03, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The Bhoys from Seville

Yes ill withdraw but i dont know how?? Bobo6balde66 (talk) 16:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Roger, note [5] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:39, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

MHA-BCAD

Thanks for the award. :)   jj137 (talk) 23:36, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Deleted page

Hello! I was checking the page (Talal el Khoury) to add more information and i saw that it is on deleting process. Could you please tell me why is it on deleting process? the discussions was not pretty much convincing. You were right there was no sources YET but i guess this does not put it into deleting especially that it would be a role model for so many professionals to participate in wikipedia and i was intending to expand the page and post a lot of information regarding Architecture and Urban planning. I request reconsidering your decision. Should you need any more information, i'll be glad to answer all your questions. This page is important to a lot of people and we wish to keep it published. P.S. kindly activate my account (tekhoury) again to be able to follow and participate to the discussions. 19 April 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.96.227.70 (talk • contribs) 08:59, 19 April 2008

I've no idea which page you're asking about as Talal el Khoury doesn't exist as an article and has never been deleted. What's more, there is no account for User:tekhoury. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 08:52, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou

Just logged on to do some more Navenby tweaking - to find your note! Great start to the weekend.... and it is finally sunny too! Thankyou so much for the well-timed message which persuaded me to keep going at FAC. I didn't realise it would be such hard work, so many views - and so many changes - in such a short time. Actually, quite fun in the end as well, as learned a lot too. Think it will be a while before trying FAC again, I need to do some of my proper work first!--seahamlass 07:29, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Adminship

Hello Roger Davies, this is Surfer-boy94 and you being an administrator, what chance would you say that I would have of becoming an administrator if i requested for adminship? I have made lots of constructive edits to wikipedia recently and can you please tell me if I have any chance of becoming one, because I don't want to request and be dissapointed with the results. Thanks, Surfer-boy94. Surfer-Boy94 (talk) 19 April 2008 15:06 (UTC)

Thanks for the enquiry. Areas which are likely to be problematic at WP:RfA are:

• Too few edits (just under a thousand). To be safe, you need 4000 or more.
• Many RfA regulars like to see evidence of quality editing. (Participication in A-class or FA articles.)
• Many RfA regulars like to see evidence of vandal-fighting.
• Many RfA editors like to see a few barnstars; it's sort of proof of being able to collaborate.
• Very patchy edit summaries (about 50%). Edit summaries are useful for others to see what you've been up to. (Turn on "Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" in the "Editing" tab of "My preferences". It will remind you to leave one every time you save.)

When you can put ticks in more of these boxes, consider editor review. Other editors will trawl through your contributions and tell you where scope of improvement lies.

Then, you might consider getting an admin coach to help you with all the technical stuff.

All the best, --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 15:50, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the information, I will look through it in the morning, as it is midnight in Australia at the moment, so I will do it in the morning. Thanks for helping me out. :P Surfer-boy94 (talk) 15:56, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I did actually archive my talk page, however an editor reverted it saying that it was not allowed. Surfer-boy94 (talk) 15:58, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course it's allowed but not to hide current warnings and block templates :) Re-do it. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 15:59, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Ping!

I sent you a fascinating email. :) Awadewit (talk) 16:06, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Late night musings have been sent your way. Awadewit (talk) 05:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Pied-noir

Thanks so much for the detailed review. Also, I appreciate the offer to examine the article before its second nomination -- be careful...I just may take you up on that! Talk to you soon. Lazulilasher (talk) 17:21, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Theatre

I would appriciate it if you would draft a foraml guideline counter-proposal that you would like to see passed.Broadweighbabe (talk) 06:01, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Roger you didn't finish your last message. Did you know?Broadweighbabe (talk) 07:28, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Done so now :) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 07:32, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

The Third of May 1808

Hi Rodger, if you get a chance can you revisit this FAC. There has been a lot of work since you commented. Thanks. Ceoil (talk) 11:16, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I'd love too but I'll leave it 24 hours or so to see what further changes Noetica comes up with. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 20:27, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello again Rodger. Its emabrrasing to say this again, but I promise the article has been fully copty edited this time. Regardless of what I think, here it is again; and if you want give it both barrels on FAC, fine; we want it main page by The Third of May 2008, and any indignity in between; phewf. Ceoil (talk) 23:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

1995 Japanese Grand Prix

Hi Roger. Thanks for your comment at WT:FAC about WikiProject's at FAC's. I appreciate it. I'll give you a knock when the article gets back to FAC. Thanks, D.M.N. (talk) 12:53, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Apollo 9

Hi Rodger. I am very new to this site and I'm intrigued by the story of the Apollo Program. I thought that anyone could just shine a spotlight on articles, but it looks you really are after the cream of the crop. My mistake in doing a "Drive By". Thank you though for respectfully adressing your concern rather than forcefully attacking. I am interested though in working with the article to bring it to standards. Hugs and Heart pounds Bender razz (talk) 19:07, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

T&A '08 worklists

The worklists are now ready; we have ~31,000 articles in 176 lists. Please let me know when I should start uploading them. Kirill 00:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Yep, that sounds fine. Thanks! Kirill 01:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

It's been renamed to "new section", apparently. That threw me off for a time as well. :-) Kirill 01:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

There's a way to change it back under Preferences/Gadgets, incidentally. Kirill 01:55, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the worklists will have a transclusion spot for instructions at the top. I should have the first set uploaded this evening, assuming nothing else comes up. Kirill 13:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

It looks fine to me. As far as short forms versus long forms goes, I have no problem with either; my only question would be whether the "Bn" forms might be excessively cryptic to someone seeing them in edit mode for the first time. Kirill 04:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I've uploaded the first 50 worklists. Glancing through them, there are a fair number of redirects present; it may be worth adding an explicit note to the instructions to the effect that redirects should not be tagged or assessed. Kirill 04:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll look into adding a link to the instructions somewhere in the template. I'm not sure what a good position for it might be; there isn't all that much free visual space at the moment.

As far as list B is concerned, I can upload them anytime you want, as the lists are all generated anyways. Kirill 05:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, how about that? Kirill 05:25, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

You can go ahead and create the table whenever you're ready then; I'll try to upload the worklists within a day or so of that.

Protecting the banner is probably overkill in practical terms, but I suppose it couldn't really hurt. Kirill 05:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, will do. As far as the destination of my travel goes, I did leave a helpful link in my message. ;-) Kirill 07:30, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is fairly nice (although I'm spending most of my time indoors working). Cheers! :-) Kirill 08:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

The B worklists are now uploaded. :-) Kirill 07:50, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. I'd say that some careful encouragement to follow the instructions fully is probably a good idea; but we shouldn't come down too hard on him, I think. We need all the contributors we can get, at this point. Kirill 17:08, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Some Fix needed?

Whats wrong with this banner, I added B-class checklist and filled it but its not appearing at this talk page. Can you please look at it and do some fix if needed. Thanks! --SMS ^Talk 07:25, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Nothing's wrong with it :) The template now only shows the checklist for Start and B-class articles. As this is a Stub, the checklist doesn't appear. (If you change the class from Stub to Start and "preview", you'll see how it works.) It's a bit strange at first but you'll soon get used to it. See WT:MILHIST#New WPMILHIST template code for more information on this.
• Second, outstanding work at Frontier Force Regiment. You've improved it immensely. Well done!

--ROGER DAVIES ^talk 09:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for updating about the talk page template template. And can I propose the article Frontier Force Regiment for an upper rating, I mean is it worth to be proposed for GA or even more. --SMS ^Talk 19:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Top 10 Milhist articles

Hi Roger, the discussion over improving most-viewed articles seems to have petered out on the main talk page. Would you mind, if necessary after doing the appropriate consultations with the coordinators, to update us there what the 'decided policy' will be? Buckshot06 (talk) 21:02, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

List of African American Medal of Honor recipients

I have been working on getting the Medal of Honor lists up to Featured article status and I was hoping you might glance at this page and give me a few comments about what you think we need to do to get this up to featured status. It seems very close and I wanted to ask you before I submitted it. I am also close to getting several others ready. They are the Philippine-American War, World War I, the Korean War and World War II. They aren't ready yet but now that my RFA has died a glorious death in battle I have more free time and I am going to start tackling these. My goal is to get all of the Medal of Honor lists to FA in the next few months and any assistance would be greatly appreciated.--Kumioko (talk) 21:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Too much on at the moment, I'm afraid, and featured lists aren't really my thing? Peer review? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 05:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Tag and Assess '08

Thanks for the message. What happens to the unfinished lists on the old BCAD page? Will these be included in this drive or will they be dropped? :) Harland1 (^t/_c)12:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Good :) Harland1 (^t/_c)12:50, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Am I being thick (or a total newbie)? Are we meant to add the B class checklist to B and start class articles which do not have it? Because I randomly looked through some done ones on another list to check I was doing it right and they weren't added. Eh? Harland1 (^t/_c)05:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

B-class articles should have the B-class checklist completed, as otherwise the template will not recognise them B-class. For, start-class only do them if it looks like the articles fails on one or two points. I hope this helps, --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 05:42, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

So if a start-class article fails on 3/4 points I don't fill out the list. I've been wasting my time :(.( Thanks, (sorry for being a pest) :) Harland1 (^t/_c)05:49, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Nah, it's not a complete waste of time cos you're saving someone the work later :) And no you're not being a pest :) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 05:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Your input is requested....

So, I have been speaking with my collaborator User:Frania_Wisniewska about the Pied-Noir article. There were two points upon which I was hoping you could provide input. First, he and I both think the article should be moved to Pied-Noir rather than Pied-noir and second, because all origins of the term "Pied-Noir" appear to be anecdotal and murky at best, we were considering removing that entire section. What do you think? Lazulilasher (talk) 13:36, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I just noticed your warning about not taking on any more reviews above. SO, no worries if you are needed elsewhere. Lazulilasher (talk) 13:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

You could try Le Robert historique for the etymology - I think it's online somewhere - and base the article name on how it's listed there? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 05:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

RE: MILHIST T&A 08

Sorry mate, I can't. I have exams all through May. I'd love to if I can, but I can't. Thanks for the invitation anyway. Regards, weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 20:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

This one runs until 4 July so I hope you can squeeze some in. The more the merrier as they say. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 07:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

May the slaughter commence???

It's still only the 24th, but if I go ahead and start T&A 2008, will it count?--Bedford 06:25, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Whoops! I'll edit that to the 24th.

Yes. But only if you sign up as an available admin in WP:MHL#Administrators :))))))

Incidentally, please let me if the instructions are less than crystal clear. They're no longer geared at total newbies.

--ROGER DAVIES ^talk 06:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, I added myself. However, I wish my User name was Zzyxx, not something so early in the alphabet. I'll be getting all the requests.--Bedford 07:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

<Old flannel mode on>I can't think of a better person to deal with them :)) </Old flannel mode> --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 07:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

BCAD

Has the primate being disqualified? Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:09, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

No offense taken at all. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

173rd

I think that only there are only about 20% of the footnotes from Army websites. Isn't ok to simply get the awards list from the army? Since the army POV is the relevant one for deciding who gets awards.... For the VN stuff, I might just cull some of the self-reffed stuff because those battles seem pretty obscure anyway. If Ed doesn't mind. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Is the prose ok? I was the attempted copyeditor....Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll have another look, --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 05:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

User's Thanks

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		For your diligent & continual work in organizing two Assessment Drives in the months of March & April alone. It is greatly appreciated! Cheers! Cam (Chat) 06:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the barnstar. They are always very welcome, and very encouraging. It was much appreciated, --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 07:29, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Saving the universe?

Hi ROGER,

I had two favors to ask? The universe article, on which I've worked a fair amount, got moved to The Theory of The Universe (most unwelcomely) a little while ago; could you please roll back that move? It was done by someone new, Anubad95, whose other edits seem suspect as well. I'm sorry to trouble you with it, but most of my other administrator friends are already asleep, I think.

The second favor might be more taxing to you, however, and I'll totally understand if you can't spare the time. I've been trying to save the action potential article, and it might be approaching the point where I'm not embarrassed to show it to my friends and those I respect. Would you be so kind as to give me your honest opinion? It's rather technical, but I'm hoping that it will be relatively clear if you read the article in order. Many, many thanks if you can, Willow (talk) 06:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

T&A08

Sorry Roger, wont be able to make it this time. Too busy with work here. Maybe next time. Thanks for informing. Sniperz11_@^CS 14:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

ED: The Return

Hi, Roger, how goes it with you? If I can pull you away from shiny swords and stratagems for just a moment, someone brought an old, neglected Dickinson-related article up on the talk page: Identification of Emily Dickinson poems. I also see there's a page linked from that article called List of Emily Dickinson poems. I had no idea they even existed! Are they necessary? It seems fairly repetitive to me since ED is now FA and there's WikiSource, etc. Any thoughts on the matter would be welcome -- best to put them at the article's talk page, I would think. Take care, María (habla conmigo) 18:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the congrats and well wishes and sundry, dear Rodge. I am still suffering from Dickinson fatigue, so I'm not rushing to delete/merge anything, either. As the articles in question haven't really been touched in a few years, I doubt it's urgent. Rimbaud is on my backest of backburners at the moment, as well; in preparation for Big Move 2008, I've had to return all of my library books -- all twenty-seven of them. I have a sofa! Who knew? Soon I'll be living in Floridian suburbia, so no chance of Victorian anything, let alone decay. Instead I get palmettos (both the trees and the bugs) and houses the color of after dinner mints. Ahh, home. :) María (habla conmigo) 14:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for saving the universe!

Apparently there is no barnstar for this. How strange. I just wanted you to know that your efforts are appreciated, anyway :-) SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:34, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Pity! That'd make a once-in-a-lifetime citation :))) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 21:44, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

!!!

Did you see User:WillowW? Awadewit (talk) 06:59, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 07:20, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

It's been a bad wiki-day for me. That and this. Awadewit (talk) 07:23, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I read some of that earlier. Strange business. Now don't go overdoing it. We don't want you hors de combat as well. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 07:26, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Might take a little break myself after the FAC. It's finals right now. I could do with a little down time, I think. Just light editing. :) Awadewit (talk) 07:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Pagh! I know you and also that your notion of, um, light-editing would kill most mortals :) Better to just curl up in a corner with Tristam Shandy and Don Quixote. (Have you tried Proust? Very relaxing, especially with lime leaf tea and sweet madeleines.) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 07:36, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Frontier Force Regiment

Hello! Can you guide me what further improvements can be done to this article or can I propose it for any higher rating? Thanks! --SMS ^Talk 19:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for guiding me, it wasn't late as I know you have many other important responsibilities to accomplish and I keep on disturbing you now and then(:P). I will approach these reviewers as soon as possible and will wait till one or more of them are free. Thanks again! --SMS ^Talk 11:20, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Forgot to ask one thing, that should I go for a formal review this time at WP:MHR, and ask one of these reviewers to review it there or should it be again an informal review? --SMS ^Talk 11:31, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok! Thanks! --SMS ^Talk 11:34, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Tag and assess

Hmmm, we don't want to isolate him, his contributions are really appreciated. Perhaps just keep an eye on him and make sure he is doing it correctly. I will go through the worklists and cut some of the redundant stuff out. Incidentally there is a question on the talkpage about whether we should be adding the B-Class tags. I presume it isn't clear from the instructions that we should be, we are meant to be I presume? Regards. Woody (talk) 17:44, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps a gentle nudge asking him to revisit all the old ones paying particular attention to task forces? At the rate he is assessing them I doubt he is checking the article, just the talkpage. That is why they are missing some task forces. As an indication, the first batch I checked, I could add task forces to half of them. Woody (talk) 17:55, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

FAC miscellany

Sorry I didn't know. You are right though; I wouldn't be familiar with the sources and able to answer most questions well. Although I have actualy worked on the article. It's just that I have a dynamic IP (it keeps changing), so it appears as though I haven't. 86.29.141.77 (talk) 19:40, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the swift response :) If I can trouble you to confirm withdrawal on the nomination page, I can do the necessary admin stuff. Thanks for your time, --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 19:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't suppose you know when/if the semi-protecton will expire for London? 86.29.141.77 (talk) 19:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

It's permanent I'm afraid. It looks like there have been high levels of vandalism whenever it's unprotected for long. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 20:08, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

A note: [6] I'll explain some day when I have more time :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Whoops, forgot to move the FAC to /archive1. Thanks for that. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not love)} 19:42, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Roger, a new trick, see here. When there was already a previous FAC, you only have to revert, don't have to go through all the other rigamarol. Experienced nominators can run more than one at a time, I removed this because Lime hasn't yet gotten one through and has another one up. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:20, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

All Blacks versus France at rugby union

I will have a look over it. Thanks a lot for your help. I'll let you know when it goes to FAC. - Shudde ^talk 12:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Feedback

No problem. ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ ^{Drop me a line}§ 18:05, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I will inform you on when I'm all caught up. :) Cheers, ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ ^{Drop me a line}§ 03:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Caught up with all of them in Worklist A. ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ ^{Drop me a line}§ 03:47, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't think so. Detailed remarks to follow :) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 04:43, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I've gone through just a few of the ranges at random in Worklist A and I'm still finding problems. The problem is mostly missing task forces, including many with none at all. The basic rule is that every article needs at least one task force.

Re: 7201–7400

• Carroccio - No TFs
• Casemate de Rountzenheim Nord No TFs
• Casey Sheehan Missing TFs. Bio?
• Cassin Young Missing TFs. Bio?

Re: 8401–8600

• Chunk of castle-related articles are without TFs. (Fortifications=y and [country]=y, plus what ever period is appropriate).
• Castilian Civil War wasn't tagged for the Spanish TF. I fixed it.
• Castel Nuovo wasn't tagged for TFs at all (Fortifications=y|Italian=y|Middle-Ages=y) - I fixed it.

Re: 9601–9800

• Large number of articles about people called Eric ... Erich ... Ernest ... and Ernst .... mostly not tagged for biography=y

No one doubts your commitment and enthusiasm but you need to take this more carefully and more slowly. Our best, most experienced, assessors take about 90-100 minutes to work methodically through a 200-article range. All the best, --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 17:26, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

page link & move trouble

hello Roger. I'm having a few troubles with archiving the "old peer review" for Battle of Verrieres Ridge, as I'm wanting to request a new peer review. I've done the traditional "move the page" bit for archiving the older peer reviews, except it hasn't worked. Could you figure out how to permanently archive the page so that the "new peer review" doesn't simply redirect to the archive? Thanks. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 23:45, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, nevermind. I figured out how to fix it. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 23:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Battle of Marion

Hey Roger. I noticed you closed the A-class review on this article a while ago, and since then, I've brought it up to speed, and I've nominated it for GA, and I was wondering if you would look it over for me. Cheers, ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ ^{Drop me a line}§ 02:44, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

HMS Cardiff Featured Article Candidate

Hello, this is a generic message, as a contributor to a previous review of HMS Cardiff, you may be interested to know that I plan to submit her for an FA review. Would you mind taking a quick look at the article and letting me know if you think it's ok, would be muchly appricated, cheers. Ryan4314 (talk) 13:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

T & A

Sure thing! I had noticed we are running low on active coords at the moment, that and the rising number of admins burning out at the moment. Yep, sign me up. Can I ask, are we explicitly asking for the B-Class assessment to be added? Woody (talk) 17:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Task force coordinators

Out of curiosity, is the naming of the national task forces' coordinators being held back for some particular reason, or is it just something that you haven't gotten around to yet? Cheers! Kirill ^(prof) 00:58, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I've taken care of listing the coordinators on the pages, but will leave formally announcing the new setup to you. ;-) Kirill ^(prof) 18:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your work at FAC during April

		The Content Review Medal of Merit
		To Roger Davies, For your exceptionally thorough reviews of Featured article candidates during the month of April, the FAC community and I thank you for being one of the top reviewers this month and for your dedication to helping assure that only Wiki's finest work is recognized on the Main Page. [7] And a special note of appreciation for all the extra "process" help :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:46, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Archive vs. withdraw

The issue is that we have to avoid furthering the drive-by problem by allowing noms to say, OK, I've had enough, can you please withdraw now? That's an archive :-) A withdraw is over non-content related issues or non-WP:WIAFA issues. More or less. Judgment :-) Don't want to start a trend of, OK, that's all I can do, now withdraw, thanks for all the valuable review time. Not saying that was the case here; just something to not get started. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:52, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I completely understand that.--ROGER DAVIES ^talk 05:16, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

France, hmmm ... well, that's definitely not Seville, but try to have fun anyway :-)) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:54, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Especially not Lille, which I where I'm headed. It has a lovely (small) old quarter but the rest, the bit I'm going to, is dominated by industrial parks :))) The good news though is that I'm going to Cannes for the last week of the film festival end of May (my fifth time). Now that should be excellent :) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 05:16, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Fun ! Enjoy; you deserve it :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:20, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Naming of Soviet operations

You may have been watching the sometimes-ugly discussion of this matter on the main talk page. As Skinny87's just said, there does not seem to be a compromise easily reachable, and I am getting a little fed up of raising discussion points only to be insulted. How do we take this formally to dispute resolution/arbitration whatever? Buckshot06 (talk) 09:58, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd also support this going to some form of formal arbitration. The naming of articles can be a controversial issue, but that's no excuse for personal attacks and deliberate dismissal of key policies such as WP:NAME. I don't know much about the dispute resolution procedure, but it seems that we're up to either a Wikiquette alert or starting a request for comment on the editor - I would favour the latter given that the issues are more complex than just incivility. --Nick Dowling (talk) 10:22, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I think there are two separate issues here. The renaming one is probably best dealt with as an informal request for comment on a sub-page here or at WP:NAME, with links to all interested parties. The second is civility and possible disruption, which could be dealt with either at WP:AN/I or as a separate Request for comment. In the meantime, I will warn the user concerned. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 10:29, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Roger, Nick. For the naming issue, please direct me to the right forum and I will lay out my arguments (seemingly shared at various times by Philip Shearer, AskariMark, and Skinny87) for a properly supervised process to take place. For the civility issue, I was hoping it would just disappear once the issue was being discussed in a properly supervised forum - I'd hope nothing more than an informal chat, like you've mentioned, is required. Regards Buckshot06 (talk) 11:21, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Three Things

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

Also, who is going to go over the Contest department entries? ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ ^{Drop me a line}§ 13:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Milhist newsletter

Anything to add about the task force energisation to the current newsletter. By the way, I have done all the tallying for the contest stuff. Other than task force comments, seems pretty much good to go. Hope all is well. Woody (talk) 16:43, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I've just updated it (and it therefore probably needs a copy-edit) but otherwise let's rock 'n' roll :) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 19:22, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

1995 Japanese Grand Prix

Hi Roger. You noted in this discussion several weeks back that you would like me to contact you when I renominated the 1995 Japanese Grand Prix article for FAC. Well, I've today decided to renominate it for FAC. The discussion, should you wish to participate, is located here. Thanks! D.M.N. (talk) 16:45, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: your awards-related move

Thanks! BusterD (talk) 18:57, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I should have read those guides better, because now I've accidentally encouraged others to participate in this discusion unduly, even copying over a second from the tf page. Please excuse any unintended rudeness, and repair any comment or instruction I've inserted in good faith. Hal is one of the more beloved members of our community precisely because he HAS the chops to do plumbing, and he chooses not to enter that arena. BusterD (talk) 19:06, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry about it :) It's happened often enough before (see prev nominations). --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 19:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Contest

Hey Roger, I just wanted to clarify, when you nominate an article for the contest do you add the class that it had at the start of the month or the class it had when i was nominated. Thanks. Kyriakos (talk) 22:40, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Kyriakos: I've never been involved with this at all myself but my reading of the rules is that you put the class at the start of the month and the tallying coordinator sees where it has got to by the end of the month. There may be a good case for explicitly putting the before and after status in (ie, Stub > GA, or whatever) for clarity. Perhaps Woody has some thoughts on this; he's more closely involved that I am. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 03:24, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Authoritarian tone

Without comment on the other user, I am concerned about the tone of your message here. "I expect" sounds disrespectful, almost authoritarian, when said to a content editor, especially by an admin. It reminds the tone of speeches given by capricious judges from the bench who instead of talking law talk about their tastes and their own rules in their courts. Civility enforcement is important but is only effective when those who choose to do it act with the humility of a person who does not need to use certain tone when s/he needs to be heard. Happy edits, --Irpen 00:23, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

That's an interesting but rather unexpected take ... In this instance, the dismay is caused by an unmet expectation and I can't think of a synonym for "expect" that expresses that notion so exactly. As the sentence closely paraphases policy, I'm not clear how it reflects my own tastes or my own rules or is capricious. However, everything is capable of improvement and I shall bear in mind what you say when a similar occasion arises in the future. Thanks for your time, --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 03:35, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the gracious response. My concern was not about "expect" but more about the "I"-part. I've seen a judge in traffic court talk that way long time ago and after that read that this is not an uncommon tone some judges take pontificating from the bench about stuff.

I agree that talk page discussions should be civil. I just want to make sure the efforts to enforce civility are actually effective. A humble and respectful message (especially since this is a massive creator of quality content) takes much longer way.

Also, it is important to keep in mind the outflow of the academic editors who are forced to argue at the same footing with teens who got themselves some keyboard and some google. Yes, WP policies do make them equal but we should have some understanding if we want to retain them. In no way I endorse anything said by Mrg. I am simply relaying my concerns that grew ever higher since the know-it-alls "won" over 172 causing the latter's effective departure to the loss of the Wikipedia. Regards, --Irpen 03:46, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I know this editor well enough for any tone other than "I" to be impossibly pompous. Other than that, I don't really do humble no matter how hard I try so think of it as good-natured self-confidence :) And yes, I am well aware of the travails of academics defending their work against know-alls and I sympathise much more than you might imagine. That said, Milhist is a mostly very good-natured wikiproject and, as lead coordinator, it is my duty to try to keep it that way. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 04:13, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't ask for support, however, when I find that recommendations in education institutions are made expressly against use of Wikipedia as a reference work I edit, it makes me shudder at the waste of time by thousands who contribute to it under the false belief that they are providing something for the "general reader", the argument editors who try to introduce some quality into the process are continuously "beaten over their heads" with!--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 04:02, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I suspect Wikipedia will always be a balancing act between the needs of the general reader and the requirements of the specialist encyclopedia. I do not believe quality is incompatible with a general readership. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 04:15, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Well Roger, here we differ because I have no respect for mediocrity. However, when you are able to provide to me some I idea of who you think the "general readers" of my articles on the Eastern Front are, I may be willing to listen. Given I speak to not a few of them already, it seems to me I have a good idea already, but I am prepared to be proven wrong, but not "cowed into submission" by being prodded by policies, guidelines and Wikispeak like civility and good faith. I am neither a "good citizen" of Wikipedia having sworn allegiance to Australia, nor do I profess its "faith", given I answer to a God already. Here, I am just an editing historian. You may want to add this you your collection of my quotes when you apply to block me from editing--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 04:27, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Where we differ is that I don't dismiss things as mediocre. Exploring a complex subject in coherent language and basing it all on impeccable sources is far from easy. Such an exploration also, I venture, does the world a favour by making the inaccessible accessible. As for your strange suggestion that I am building a case to block you, nothing could be further from the truth. I welcome your participation here though my experience has been that more is achieved on Wikipedia by discussion than argument. Your mileage may vary. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 15:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Something for you

		The WikiChevrons
		In recognition of your outstanding leadership of the Military history WikiProject, I hereby award you the WikiChevrons. Kirill (prof) 17:04, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Adminship

As you've run across me one or two times ;). What would be your views on me nominating my self (shock horror) for adminship. Should I wait a year? Six months? Or should I go for it now? Harland1 (^t/_c)09:59, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I've been more than happy with what I've seen but I've just had a quick look at your contributions and they may be a bit too one-dimensional to get you through RfA just yet:) RfA regulars are profoundly suspicious of editors who seem too wedded to wikiproject tasks. They prefer rounded contributors. So I'd probably work on (ie rack up edit counts): recent changes/vandalism, new page patrol, articles (and miscellany) for deletion. You also need to know the CSD stuff inside out, which is bizarre considering many admins (including me) hardly ever go near it. Other expectations include a track record in helping produce quality articles and demonstration of the ability to communicate civilly. You could tackle all this lot over the course of a month or so. When the time's right, I'll be happy to nominate you. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 13:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for looking through my contribs and the feedback, greatly appreciated. I will follow your advice. So you think I might be ready after writing a GA or two, doing some more anti-vandalism/A/MFD and newpage patrol work. I will try to focus more on this. When you said 'one-dimensional' I assume that you meant other aspects of Wikipedia (anti-vandal, CSD) and not other types of articles (not milhist). Thanks Harland1 (^t/_c)13:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I meant multi-faceted, being familiar with many aspects of Wikipedia and its processes. Here, I think, quality contributions, getting it right a high proportion of the time, are much more important than quantity. On the article writing front, I was thinking more of A-class or even FA than GA, I'm afraid. Three Milhist editors who consistently produce high quality work in slightly specialist areas are Woody, Blnguyen and Kyriakos. Oh, and the "month or so" I mentioned above is likelier to mean, in reality, three or four months. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 15:36, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

It's going to be a year and 5 FAs next :) You forgot yourself on the list above. Yes I get your point, thanks once again for the advice. Harland1 (^t/_c)17:28, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: A-class review proposal

Thanks. Should I propose this on WT:MILHIST? Kyriakos (talk) 12:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok. Will do. Kyriakos (talk) 12:19, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok. No problems. I'll use the your skeleton. :) Kyriakos (talk) 12:58, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser

I have to wonder, but why did you place comment here, and what are your views on it? ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ ^{Drop me a line}§ 21:29, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Mostly because of its staleness. I see that CD-MD also voted for me in the same election. If you don't think I have a COI, I'll deal with the report myself. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 05:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it still is quite suspicious. Did you see how he voted for you? "A cool guy", or something like that. You have to admit, it is quite odd. Did you read all of the case, though? ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ ^{Drop me a line}§ 05:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I read it all. No, I see nothing strange in people describing me as a "cool guy" :))) Now, to repeat, would you like me to deal with this or would you prefer it dealt with by someone else? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 05:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, what are your plans of dealing with it? There is no doubt that it was actually him, from the contribs. of welcoming someone in his family, and answering questions on his talk page. Since it was nothing too serious, just a warning of sorts, but still, trying to get advantage by using a sock puppet in votes is quite serious. ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ ^{Drop me a line}§ 05:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Is that a yes or no? I'm not going to tell you in advance :))) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 05:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

LOL. I have a slight feeling that you are just going to let it pass. I'm just going to let it go at suspected sock puppets and see what happens. If you have any comments, post them there. I'm sure many other users will agree with you, whereas I have no clue what to do in this situation, so all I can do is learn. Cheers, ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ ^{Drop me a line}§ 05:45, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, you'd be wrong in your slight feeling :) More seriously, if you're unsure what to do in a given situation ask for informal advice from a more experienced editor. That, for example, is what the list of admins in the Logistics dept is for. I will, though, take up your invitation to post comments. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 06:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

On a side note, would you mind commenting on either of my articles on A-class review? Cheers, ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ ^{Drop me a line}§ 05:52, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The half-a-dozen milhist FA candidates and the Milhist A-class reviews are high on my to do list. Incidentally, when are you going to finish off your T&A08 ranges? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 06:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm working on it. I still have 2 more sections to totally catch up on, and one more to finish. ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ ^{Drop me a line}§ 06:12, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

It's him or his house anyway. I think his enthusiastic and bubbly style of talking is also evident in the second account! Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but he's already admitted that anyway. The similarities of style don't entirely persuade me (brothers, for instance, especially of a similar age, are often joined at the hip speech-wise). My take is to AGF and give Dreamafter the benefit of the doubt on this one occasion but warn him for not disclosing the COI and warn him of the dire consequences of future helpful interventions by members of his household. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 06:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't intending to whack him anyway, as I already explained to RMV. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I've just read it. I concur. I'll deliver an appropriate bollocking.

Separately, can you please opine at WT:MHCOORD# A-class review proposal?

--ROGER DAVIES ^talk 07:03, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:11, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Le Quang Tung

Fixed, I think. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:11, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Task Force for Military of Pakistan

What do you say about having a task force for Military of Pakistan(7th largest) in WP:MILHIST? And Wikipedia has about 546 articles related to Military of Pakistan. --SMS ^Talk 11:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd support the idea of a Pakistan task force. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 11:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

So do I need to find some members to be part of it or all coordinators need to support this idea. I mean what next can be done. --SMS ^Talk 11:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm writing something for the main talk page now. Comment there. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 11:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

See this note as to why the uptake might be high for this task force. Also, I have responded to the contest dept note. Woody (talk) 13:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

As do SMS's contribs for 6 May :)) It's meant innocently enough but naughty nevertheless. An interesting way of turning this to Milhist's advantage has just occurred to me. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 13:50, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

An FAC discussion that you commented on was restarted

The FAC discussion Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Getting It: The psychology of est, which you had previously commented on, has since been restarted. Would you care to carry your !vote/comment forward from the FAC before it was restarted? Cirt (talk) 21:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Re:Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Dreamafter

I would just like it known to you, that it is:

1. Not my sockpuppet, I can't prove that without you seeing my house, and I want some privacy
2. I would like it changed from {{SockpuppetProven|1=Dreamafter|evidence=[[Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Dreamafter]]}} to something else, like {{sockpuppet|Dreamafter|blocked}} that, if possible

Dreamafter (talk) 00:13, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the tag on User:CD-MD's user page because it is factually incorrect. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 05:17, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Dreamafter (talk) 00:20, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Pseudo-proposal of interest

Here. Personally, I think we should make sure things like this get nipped in the bud. Kirill ^(prof) 13:10, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, wonderful. I just wanted to make sure I wasn't advocating against your vision of how the project should be structured. :-) Kirill ^(prof) 13:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I think we've pretty much hit the limits of the "natural" task forces the current editor base can sustain; the bulk of the proposals are for broad groups to try and cover the gaps, but the reason that there are gaps in the first place is because there aren't enough editors interested in those topics to sustain a task force.

I don't think that we need to be overly concerned about topics without a relevant task force, at least in the short term; as the editor community grows, I suspect things will work themselves out. Kirill ^(prof) 13:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

More Time

If you would be able to give me more time for the A-class reviews, that would be great. Your reviews on the Battle of Marion didn't come in until the last minute, and I didn't see either review until after they were closed. Cheers, --ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ ^{Drop me a line}_{Review Me!} 15:06, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

WikiChevrons

Thank you for the generous compliment along with the award. Hal Jespersen (talk) 16:33, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

FYI

I was doing something completely unrelated to this project and happened to have found User:Pageview bot, which "Records the number of times a page has been viewed in the past month, to enable editors and WikiProjects to identify the most important pages (and satisfy curiosity!)". If we are going ahead with the a new department to keep tabs on the top ten most viewed pages we may want to keep this bot in mind. Thought you might like to know. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:07, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the thought, Tom. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 03:59, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Template Problem!

Are you aware of the template problems showing up now on the main talk page? (Oh, and Viva Nuckshot!! :-) No offense taken!) Buckshot06 (talk) 00:06, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I am now. Thanks for the tip :)--ROGER DAVIES ^talk 04:01, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: Template parameters

Nope; the auto-assessment only moves up articles tagged as Start-Class. Otherwise, the checklist would effectively be operational for stubs, which is something that (as far as I recall) was thought undesirable. Kirill ^(prof) 16:40, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

The COOKIE MONSTER ate the cow

Fattyjwoods ^{Push my button} has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Hi, just to make sure you’re not too hungry, I gave you a cookie! I would’ve given you milk – but the cow just died and I tried to milk the bull but it kicked me in the face. *sob*. Anyway, enjoy the cookie!! Fattyjwoods ^{Push my button} 05:15, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Apologies

For not giving you this earlier. I honestly thought I'd given you a barnstar after your great copy-edit of Wales national rugby union team. I hadn't though, and do apologise, as I should have done this a long time ago. - Shudde ^talk 09:52, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

		The Copyeditor's Barnstar
		Especially for your work on Wales national rugby union team and All Blacks versus France at rugby union. Shudde talk 09:52, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Battle of Waterloo for featured article

Hi there. We recently went through an FA nomination process for the Battle of Waterloo, but the nomination was archived due to a plethora of minor concerns that needed to be addressed. One comment was that the article, and especially the lead, needed a copy edit, and one of the reviewers specifically suggested/requested that you copy edit the article in person.

I know you aren't accepting new requests at the moment, but this is a fairly important article within Military History, and even a bit of work on the lead would help. Thanks. -Kieran (talk) 20:34, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for taking this on - it's great to have you on board! I'll put a notice on the talk page. The editors with the greatest knowledge about the article (and the subject) are Urselius, Tirronan and Phillip Baird Shearer, so I'll ask them to keep an eye to ensure nothing gets lost. -Kieran (talk) 21:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks :) One thing I forgot to mention was that I'm away next week from the 21-25 May. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 03:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Reviews

I hope you don't mind but I have changed the wording in the Tatsuguchi review to Review extended until 01:19, 16 May 2008 (UTC) to garner further comments. I think this wording is a bit fairer. On another note, I am in a reviewing mood so I should get round to Dewar in a bit. Woody (talk) 14:48, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I have replied there, a reply to my reply would be useful ;) I thought it was a Freudian slip, though it is a great article. ;) Woody (talk) 19:59, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar!

I appreciate the barnstar! Are you interested in translating Mary Shelley into French when she is done? I know a barnstar with your name on it. :) Awadewit (talk) 17:58, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Waah! I can do the biographical sections without too much trouble but the literary material may well prove exceedingly tricky to translate. You know, I expect, there's already an article? I've just updated it slightly. Easiest might be to extensively weave material from the English article into the French one. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 03:55, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

That article looks like it could use a biography section. :) Awadewit (talk) 04:36, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps :) But I have too many fish to fry at the moment. Tel Aviv, Battle of Waterloo etc etc :))) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 04:43, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

It won't be ready for a few months, anyway. Just thought it might be a good candidate. Awadewit (talk) 04:47, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Remind me nearer the time and – for you, madame – I'll see what I can do :) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 05:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Airco DH.4

You tagged Airco DH.4 as start class under WP:MILHIST, failing it under coverage and citations - I have expanded the article - would it be possible to review the aticle to see if your concerns have been met?Nigel Ish (talk) 19:25, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

ThanksNigel Ish (talk) 19:49, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec) B-class. Nice work :) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 19:58, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

My RfA

Hi Roger Davies, I wanted to say thank you for supporting my request for adminship, which passed with 100 supports, 0 opposes and 1 neutral. I wanted to get round everybody individually, even though it's considered by some to be spam (which... I suppose it is! but anyway. :)). It means a lot to me that the community has placed its trust in my ability to use the extra buttons, and I only hope I can live up to its expectations. If you need anything, or notice something that bothers you, don't hesitate to let me know. Thanks again, PeterSymonds | talk 23:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Deva Victrix

Thanks for your comments at the FAC discussion, sadly it was closed before I could took steps to address your concerns, but I think it was right not to promote it. I completely agree that it's difficult to copy edit something you've written since you read what you think is there rather than what actually is there; however, it was a while since I'd written some parts so I thought there was nothing to lose by having a go myself. I'll do as you suggest and take it to the MiltHist project, and I will resubmit it at FAC once it's undergone a thorough copy edit, hopefully by the end of the month. Thanks too for the chevrons, it's always nice to have contributions recognised. Nev1 (talk) 23:38, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: Special Projects Dept

Yep, that looks fine to me. As far as mechanics go, I expect the first order of business would be to put together the list of prominent articles. Once that's done, we can probably play things by ear for a while; maybe let people sign up for teams to work on particular articles, and let the teams figure out what they want to do? Kirill ^(prof) 13:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure thing, I'll keep an eye on it. Kirill ^(prof) 01:09, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

		What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar
		For coming up with the best name for our new department I herby award you the What a Brilliant Idea! barnstar. Congrats (you've eraned it ;) TomStar81 (Talk) 16:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

That's probably Baron van Nuckshot's Flying Circus, as I'm likely to have more of a Dutch than a German connection :-). Seriously, I'll find the relevant talkpage and contribute. Buckshot06(prof) 21:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Reviews and FACs

Hey there, writing here to you in your capacity as Military History coordinator.

I'm here from WP:VG (we don't have a coordinator), and recently there has been a bit of a discussion over at WT:FAC on video games featured article candidates. (See here) To save you the effort of reading all that if you haven't already, the basic issue is that many video game articles are only seen by other video game editors before passing FAC, reason for possible bias, because you miss things in articles you've seen often, and tend to be forgiving to people you know.

Going to places like WP:PR usually doesn't achieve much, so I was wondering if we could set up some cooperation here. My (pre-practical phase) idea was to have some kind of reciprocal peer review page where milhist editors review video games pages, and the other way around. I thought milhist and video games is a good pair, because both projects are among the most active, WikiProjects (it wouldn't surprise me if it was #1 and #2). There's little overlap in terms of userbase, too.

What about it? User:Krator (t c) 16:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I personally think this is an outstanding idea. It will inject some variety here too. I'll put it up to the other coordinators: feel free to contribute to the discussion. 16:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I've notified WT:VG, let's see if we can make this thing work. User:Krator (t c) 17:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Tag & Assess 2008

Hello sir I have adopted a series(14001 to 14200).I wanted to ask that After reading a article what exactly I have to do. Please guide me. --Suyogaerospace^{talk to me!} 08:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

1. Thank you sir for your help. Still I have more dout but my engineering exam is from 20 may upto 21 june so i will be away from wikipedia. So I will clear my dout when I will return .I am on a wikibreak :-(--Suyogaerospace^{talk to me!} 11:59, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you sir I am very much require Luck (to be frank sir I have not studied because I use to be on wikipedia. I request you will you block my account up to 16 june So I can stay away from wikipedia?)--Suyogaerospace^{talk to me!} 12:21, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

You can use this script to lock you out. It's written specially for situations like this. And there's really no need at all to call me "sir" :) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 12:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much sir (I don't know your Age and By seeing your Banestes I think you are one of the top administrator so to give my respect towards me I will call you as "SIR")--Suyogaerospace^{talk to me!} 16:25, 16 May 2008 (UTC) Thank you sir for the script Now I will concentrate on studies ( LOL :-) I am Suyogaerospace) see you on 16 june --123.236.2.9 (talk) 16:44, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thank you for the WikiChevrons! It's nice to know that someone actually looks at my meager contributions.Ndunruh (talk) 14:57, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Editing on Siege of Leningrad

Please look in on this. I think it has gone long enough despite User:Whiskey's efforts--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 02:57, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be useful if somebody totally from the outside comes and mediates in this dispute. So far I have been able to get only twice proper responses in talk page. Once about the splitting and balancing the article, and another time about the source for the first paragraph. (And even that is confusing, as I have another translation (in Finnish) about this book and it doesn't have anything even resembling that. I would understand if it were something controversal or important in Finland, but in this case it is totally irrelevant, so there would be no reason for translator to change the original. I've issued a query to the German Wikipedia about the original text...) --Whiskey (talk) 07:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely. I have no intention at all of mediating. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 07:17, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

So, do you suggest I fill formal mediation request? (Damn, you could have been good one...) --Whiskey (talk) 08:09, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Yep. That's the best bet :) If it flares up again, I'll re-protect but I'm away most of next week so it's best for someone else to handle this. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 08:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Done. Asked third opinion. --Whiskey (talk) 10:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Roger, I'm volunteering to help with this through 3O. I'm wondering if semi protection wouldn't be better than full protection. Thanks! --Kevin Murray (talk) 11:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Excellent news. I fully protected it so as not to disadvantage the anon IP user as this would have shut them out but not registered users. Your views? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 12:09, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

There are some oddities here. Whiskey has been at WP for 4 years and editing this article for about 3 years with 142 edits; somewhere around 12% of his contributions have been to this article. The IP uses a university owned IP address, is virtually single purpose with 73 edits in three months, but has an excellent grasp of the WP nuances of footnotes etc. They are respectively the number 2 and 3 most frequent editors. The number 1 contributor stopped editing the article 2 months ago -- he had contributed 216 edits in 7 months. He continued to edit elsewhere on WP until last month. This appears to be a detail oriented dispute down to the format of foototes and left or right positioning of graphics. I think that we have a bit of ownership, potential puppetry and some serious POV regarding the Finnish alliance with the Germans in the siege. It seems that Whiskey (boy I love that name) has made good faith efforts at communication and been ignored. I'm not happy with an IP SPU who is non communicative and bit disruptive, but he might be bringing good well referenced information to the article. Thoughts? --Kevin Murray (talk) 13:23, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

You make a good case :) I've reduced it to semi-protection, for 24 hours from now. Good luck, --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 15:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Roger. Thanks! So far no response from the IP, but I noticed a trend of substantial editing for a few days and then a couple days off, so we may be in his dark days. We'll see what happens. I'd like to get some feedback from both participants before suggesting an opinion. Talk to you soon. --Kevin Murray (talk) 21:57, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Spelling at Waterloo

Acutally the article doesn't seem to be very standardised on the -is- v -iz- issue at the moment, the one I just changed was going back to mobilised (and there are several other instances of this, or equivalent), but I see there's at least one organization. David Underdown (talk) 11:15, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

New page for MILHIST copy-editors

The coordinators have decided to make it easier for copy-editors to watch the new requests by creating an own page for this purpose. On Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Logistics/Copy-editing/Requests all new and old requests are listed. Please add this page to your watchlist. Wandalstouring (talk) 11:42, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

"My" battles

Is it within your capacity as the MilHist coordinator to intervene in the current disputes regarding Second Battle of Kharkov and Belgrade Offensive?

The issue with the first is use of a title derived from a single source, the author of which had been discredited as a military historian. The title had gained a moderate use in English which is claimed to be "common".

In the case of the second article, there have been a large number of edits made by a new editor which are unreferenced and substantially pushing a national POV. The only use of the data comes from a site who's owner has requested that his site not be used as a reference (see below).

Please avoid Please avoid starting new articles on wikipedia based solely on my website Vojska.net, it benefits nobody, Wikipedia gets article which won't be updated anytime soon and I get pushed from number one spot at Google since wikipedia is using nofollow tags (example) and even worse Google declares me copy of wikipedia if text is too similar and remove my website completely from search results! Thank you. P.S. Current articles which are simple copy of my own with fixed English grammar might even be considered copyright violation. --Ivan Bajlo (talk) 21:45, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Regards --mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 23:45, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

In a nutshell, no. The coordinators have only a highly informal (to which I mentally add "highly discretionary") role in dispute resolution so I'm certainly not going to parachute in on these ones. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 11:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:MILHIST

Where do I request a new rating for an article? And can I ask you to rate this for me. Dreamafter (talk) 00:54, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

At WP:MHA#REQ (assessment requests) and I've rated it B-Class. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 17:49, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, thank you good sir. Dreamafter (talk) 21:54, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: User rights

Well, perhaps; but I don't think it introduces any real vulnerabilities, since it's meant for creating accounts for other people, not for oneself. Kirill ^(prof) 02:58, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

RE:T&A Issues

I think that in cases where it is clearly evident that the user hasn't looked through his ranges to anywhere near an appropriate standard, then hold back on the gongs until the end of the drive, or until an allocated time. Then, I (or you) will do an survey of ten or 20 articles within the range and work out the percentage of bad reviews. Then deduct it by that amount at the end. If the user really wants his gongs then we can bring forward the review process. I see it as quality control. Before we do that, I would ask the user to again check their ranges to save the embarassment. Woody (talk) 12:49, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Yep, I will keep an eye out and will have a gander through some of the ranges, do a bit of quantitative sampling as well. I have currently become embroiled in one of Mrg3105's campaigns which is a bit of a time-sink.

Yes, I think it best to go to the membership for that, after all, they voted us in. Frankly, I think it is down to however long Kirill wants to put up with it all. I would give him a loose role so that he can do as much or as little as he wants. Woody (talk) 11:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

copyedit

Hey, thanks for the copyedit of Battle of Verrières Ridge. Extremely helpful. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 17:54, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

Please do not vandalize. It's not helpful to Wikipedia. Thanks. Cheers, Kodster ^{(heLLo) (Me did that)} 01:23, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

You'll have to explain that one in a bit more detail :) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 01:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

LOL, really sorry. Used Huggle to revert vandalism, and sent a quick message to the person who was on the screen (supposed to be Frizzle95 but happened to be you). Again, really sorry, you haven't vandalized. Sorry for the misunderstanding. Really. I'm sorry. :) Cheers, Kodster ^{(heLLo) (Me did that)} 01:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Hahaha, thanks!

This totally made my day. Truth is, I saw you give this to somebody else and I thought -- I am going to do anything to earn that Barnstar. I figured it was going to take something epic. I was prepared to do a World War II featured topic or something. Thank goodness I got it so easy :) Saved me a fortune on books! --JayHenry (talk) 03:51, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Very nice :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Nobody says "very tasteful", I notice :) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 07:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Bagh! Missed opportunity there. Can I tempt you with this one - {{Ceci n'est pas un poisson}} - instead? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 07:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, but surely just doing Magritte would qualify me for that. No need to do all the articles in {{World War II}} like I had planned. --JayHenry (talk) 00:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Doing an article on a totally unrelated subject is what makes it so deliciously surreal. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 06:02, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Questia

I'm wondering if you have access to it? Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:35, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 05:45, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

FAC for Civil Air Patrol

Your oppose at the FAC for Civil Air Patrol has been addressed. Please evaluate the article to see if it now meets your standards. —  scetoaux (T|C) 23:10, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 05:45, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Aircraft of the Indian Navy - Needs to come off "Help Needed" List

Hi

I'm a new member of the Indian military history task force. I noticed that the article on the Aircraft of the Indian Navy showed up as needing attention to grammar. The article has gone from this to this. I think it's in good enough shape. So how do I take it off the endangered species list? Just delete it off the list? :)

Thanks! Marathi_Mulgaa (talk) 08:15, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Seems to have been done already. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 05:54, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Fortress

Hi, you left remarks during particular review, could you investigate this progress and state your opinion if your initial concerns are address or there are any additional issues, which should be addressed. Please, if you can, state your opinion on particular sand box talk. All the best, M.K. (talk) 16:57, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

It's better but Ninth Fort should still be merged into it and it needs a copy-edit. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 06:00, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi, actually the article undergone copy editing procedure, if you found some parts not clear or not grammatically correct, please indicate them. Cheers, M.K. (talk) 10:01, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

In case you're interested...

Care to weigh in on a national English variation debate? – Scartol • Tok 19:36, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

my RfA - Ta!

Gwen gleans, wending keen by the wikirindle.

Thanks for strongly supporting my RfA, which went through 93/12/5. I'll be steadfast in this trust the en.Wikipedia community has given me. Cheers! Gwen Gale (talk) 01:11, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Military History disagrees with Good Article

I am the editor who annotated the first half of the Albigensian Crusade article, which Middle Ages assesses as High Importance. In order to verify I wasn't wasting my time and making a mess for everyone, given the status of the article, I then checked with the Good Article ajudicator who was gratuitously rude, despite the congratulations from others in that team. I then asked for ajudication without result, and therefore withdrew from editing. It now transpires that Military History supports my annotations: can you therefore please intervene with Good Article to get them to correct themselves, as they are not specialists in the subject area. Jeremy Main, jelmain arubase skynet.be

The editor in question can sometimes be abrupt but is very knowledgeable. Rather than giving up on this, why not join the new Crusades task force and enlist the help of other editors to work with you? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 04:18, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Battle of Arras

Hi Roger. Noticed your reversion of my changes to the above article. The reason for my (minor) change is that political pressure was not only being applied in London and Paris, but also in Ottawa, Canberra, Pretoria, etc. So, If you'd rather be "specific" rather than "general", you'd have to list all of those locations. Not only the British and French were involved, and I thought "Allied" was the best way to denote that. Cheers, and all comments welcome. Esseh (talk) 01:07, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Interesting points. As the risk of appearing dismissive of dominion contributions, the article's focus is on Anglo-French military and political difficulties and examples of these follow. While there may have been rumblings elsewhere, they were nothing like on the scale or the importance of the Anglo-French problems. The only major players in grand strategy were GB and France and it was their governments that were in crisis. In writing about WWI, the danger of presentism is, erm, ever-present. It was in the nature of empire that, for example, GB declared war on behalf of all her dominions and possessions without asking the dominions what they thought. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 04:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Roger, thanks for the "ping". True, England and France were the major players, but as a Canadian, I am well aware of, for example, the conscription crisis in Canada happening at about the same time. It was massive in scale, and threatened to tear the nation apart. (This, of course would have robbed the Empire of its "shock troops"!) Furthermore, the pressure in Ottawa (and other Dominion capitals) would have been used by the Dominion governments to put pressure on London. In this way, I still feel public pressure on all Allied governments would be more correct, as well as more inclusive. Cheers. Esseh (talk) 16:22, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

No one is trying to airbrush the dominions out of the picture. However, the context is that the Battle of Arras was planned at a conference between the British and French heads of state and their chiefs of staff specifically in response to home pressures. This is what the sources say. Broadening this to include political pressures elsewhere is not a matter of inclusiveness but of inaccuracy. The Canadian conscription crisis, for instance, happened six months after the battle was conceived and timetabled. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 07:10, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Need Help - How to change the title of an article

Hi Roger

Sorry to bother you with trivialities again, but how does one change the title of an article and have all links to the old name redirect to the new one?

A few of us plan to [expand] the scope of Aircraft of the Indian Navy to encompass the entire Indian Naval Air Arm. But we don't want to break any existing links to this article. Any pointers on how this can be done?

Thanks much!

Marathi_Mulgaa (talk) 09:34, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

What do you want to change it to? Air arm of the Indian Navy? If so, you can just use the [Move] tab, (see Help:Moving a page for info). This will automatically redirect the links to the new article. If you get stuck, just ask! --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 04:14, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Will do - Thanks much!!! Marathi_Mulgaa (talk) 04:39, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

		The Editor's Barnstar
		For copyeditting the article Montana class battleship I herby present you with The Editor's Barnstar. Given that my sp&g suck, I can only imagine what you found in that twilight zone. TomStar81 (Talk) 10:09, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Tom, but it really isn't as bad as you insist :) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 11:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Help with grammar

Could you please check and proofread the article from my sandbox User:Whiskey/Sandbox. I'm trying to put it in Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Essays. --Whiskey (talk) 10:49, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about the belated reply to your message. I haven't got time to help re-write it though at the moment but as an essay it looks fine to me :) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 07:34, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Project coordinator role

Hi Roger. Could you please direct me to the page that describes the role of a project coordinator in Wikipedia.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 22:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, there is no set guideline discussed by the community at large, so there is no "Wikipedia:..." page. We do however, have Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators and the attempted deletion of the page. As such, each project creates their own definitions and remits relevant to their project. Woody (talk) 22:11, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, there is: Wikipedia: Coordinators. I created that page some time ago when the coordinator concept seemed to be catching on with some of the other projects associated with ours, but it hasn't seen much use. Its basically a rehash of the finer milhist coordinator points, with a some advice on how one goes about becoming and a coordinator and some community reaction to the whole idea of coordinators. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:39, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I have read both. Essentially the Wikipedia Project, as far as coordinator roles are concerned, is a misnomer. What coordinators do perform are operational management, administration and customer service roles. This is quite different to project management roles which is concerned with temporary, goal/objective oriented activities.

Currently the broad range of responsibilities of the Project coordinators are:

• Project operational management - ensuring Project activities are conducted within the policies, guidelines and conventions applicable to it within the scope of Wikipedia
• Project administration - ongoing maintenance of article processing as the Project's products, including their authoring, editing, assessment and completion
• Project editor services - providing assistance to the editors in technical issues of using Wikipedia effectively and efficiently

I'm going to put together an essay on the difference between the two, and on aspects of project and Project management, and how it concerns the administration of categories within the Military History scope of editing.

Much of the source of Woody's and others unhappiness with my behaviour is based on our differing frames of reference where the production of articles are concerned. To be effective and efficient in article production, one has to have a system, or systems that facilitate the process. I have largely stayed away from this process, but my ultimate realisation is that lack of it will impact on my own productivity. Therefore I would like to make some personal statements that you may or may not agree with

I am used to working in an effective and efficient manner.

I think that a logical, well tried, structured and consistent approach is required in anything to achieve any given objective.

I was under the misconception that what I understand to be a project also applied to the WikiProjects - it does not.

I value my contribution to the Wikipedia sufficiently to have it treated in a professional manner. Professional manner to me means a professional who can be either a person in a profession performing certain types of skilled work requiring formal training or education, for payment. Given the nature of Wikipedia, payment is removed, but this does not remove the need for performing certain types of skilled work requiring formal training or education.

I do not know anything about any of the coordinators other then their Wikipedia contributions, and their election-stated goals, so I have no idea of the level of your professionalism despite your good intentions. This is not said as a judgement of anyone personally, or their abilities, but I think that once a person volunteers to accept responsibility on behalf of a group, they should state clearly what their ability for the role that encompasses the responsibility is.

I will put some thoughts together as an essay on Wikipedia "Project" coordination, and post in the essays space of the project--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 02:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Roger? I'm starting to think that MedCab or ArbCom might be a good idea here, rather than letting all the sides constantly go round and round in circles like rabid dogs. It is not doing any good for the project and mrg is obviously not going to change his mind (as he gives the impression that all project members are inferior) and the others have all been so brushed the wrong way, they are never going to back down now. Narson (talk) 10:06, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I for one do not like to be referred to as a "rabid dog".

So far I have encountered two issues: 1)inadequate citation, and 2) inadequate categorisation. You want to take that to ArbCom, be my guest. --mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 12:16, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Mrg, you miss the point, Arbcom aren't involved in content, they discuss the behaviour of contributors: i.e. your behaviour, civility and attitude to editors; something which I agree needs to be addressed. Woody (talk) 12:19, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, fine. You tell me where I was uncivil?

DIREKTOR? I had asked him repeatedly (5-6 times) to provide a relevant reference, and he still didn't. I did not see anyone stepping in to say, well gee, you know, we do require references that are related to content in a more then passing fashion.

Buckshot06? How would you like your articles to be continuously edited within minutes by someone who thinks its his personal duty to teach you English?

Seems to me that application of the concept incivility is used rather selectively. However, Take me to ArbCom. I'm sure the opportunity to block someone is far more welcome there then actually doing something to improve Wikipedia output. I think my problem is that I'm used to working with professionals and not PC adherents. In any case, I have a low opinion of any process that deals with disputes by getting rid of the messenger to ignore the message--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 12:59, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

First of all, apologies to Roger for continuing this on his talk page. As for ArbCom, Blocking is not the only outcome. Arbcom is just a formal mediation process (MedCab being the informal voluntary one). It seems pretty clear from the outside of this that neither side is going to compromise without an outside intervention, this is just going to drag out into a war of attrition where whoever stops caring last wins, and the project loses. The old unstoppable force and immovable object fun. Narson (talk) 13:05, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

(od) I'm sorry, I have to take exception to Mrg's description of my behaviour. The case I'm thinking of was when he raised a WP:RM for renaming the Second Battle of Kharkov, was voted down, and then moved 'Battle of Kharkov' to 'First Battle of Kharkov.' I then enquired whether I might link the battle articles to the listing of Red Army operations he'd created: (original copy is at Talk:Strategic operations of the Red Army in World War II#Kharkov operations). My question and his response was as follows:

Want to be sure I understand your intent here Mrg. You've change all the battles of Kharkov to their numeric numbering. Here you have a number of redlinks with different names, but referring to the same operations. You've been the primary editor on this page, so I wanted to ask you what you'd think of me inserting links to those operations - since all four of them do have articles. Buckshot06(prof) 10:55, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

How about this. YOU go and buy Keitel's fucking book in Irving's fucking translation and then YOU write the fucking articles based on that and see how same they look ok. You are so big on talk, but will not spend the money on the books, but the books have nothing. They are written for a perspective of a very senior officer in Berlin. SO, the articles you refer to are NOT same as those on this list. They are the German POV base on a single source, and I will tag them as such when I find the template. Then they will sit there for another year as stubs until someone tries to improve them using Glantz's Kharkov 1942 book. THIS entire sorry issue with these three articles is the sort of bullshit that drives people away from Wikipedia. Enjoy. I have taken all three off my watch list. All yours now, or whoever.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 11:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I continue to feel insulted by this kind of language and attitude, which refuses to consider other points of view on content questions such as article naming and translation - the response, as one can see, is vituperative insults. Buckshot06(prof) 23:20, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Project scope

Is Eisenhower National Historic Site within the interest of the Military History WikiProject? WHat about Little White House? It's been nagging me.--Bedford ^Pray 03:28, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't have thought so in either case. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 03:35, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I didn't think so, but with the Little White House being where Roosevelt did some war planning, and the Eisenhower place being the leading WWII general on the biggest battle on North American soil, I wasn't completely sure. Thanks.--Bedford ^Pray 03:41, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Time management

A while back you and MBK discussed the possibility of another rfa for me, however I got wrapped up in school and could not spend the time here to properly adress questions and comments up on the rfa. I did some checking, and it appears that I will have the needed time from now until early August, as the fall semester doesn;t resume until "the first or second week in August" (accordint to the student services people). I have registered for summer school, but the classes are much less demanding on the time, and some don't require any external assigments (like homework or project presentations), they stick strictly to in class work.

Since time is no longer the defining factor the new X-factor is out-of-project work. I have recently gotten a little more involved with xfd (admittedly still within the project, but at a different branch) and have taken to doing some RC patrolling as well (not much, I admit, but every little bit helps). Do you and MBK think its time to go ahead with another rfa, or whould I wait a little more and work on other out of project stuff? TomStar81 (Talk) 06:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

It rather depends what you want to do. At an RFA, you'll get questions about xfd etc whether you intend to participate in them or not and many people will judge you purely by your responses to the standard questions. Therefore, it's only prudent to familiarise yourself with the processes. However, with the mop you'll probably concentrate on milhist/ships related stuff and there's no reason why you shouldn't since admins have complete freedom about what they do. The community test is trust rather than anything else. And, even if you do concentrate just on project stuff, there's plenty there for an admin to do. In short, get up to speed on the CSD and let's go for it, --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 07:00, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

What he said... -MBK₀₀₄ 14:13, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Alright then, thanks for the feedback; I will working on getting up to speed with CSD as fast as is humanly possible. Then, we ride! TomStar81 (Talk) 22:04, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Conflict

Could you mediate a conflict on the 20th Engineer Brigade (United States) article? I am having a disagreement with an IP claiming to be public affairs for the unit, but I fear we're just getting locked into an edit war. -Ed!^(talk)_{(Hall of Fame)} 16:17, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure :) But before that, perhaps you could clarify why you reverted this editor's first set of edits. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 07:58, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you'll see the IP's revision and the Previous revision, you'll see that the editor appears to be just copying information from another site and pasting it on wikipedia without sources, links, or anything else. He claims to be civil affairs for the unit, but the article just looks copied from the unit's website. The article is, in its cureent form, a GA, and the revisions reduce its quality drastically. I feel that the editor is clearly in the wrong and have explained this on the article's talk page, but he's presisting in reverting the edits. -Ed!^(talk)_{(Hall of Fame)} 01:17, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

That was very helpful, thank you. I see that Narson and Blnguyen have already intervened very speedily and very effectively so good order is now restored. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 07:39, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Tag and Assess

Hi, I am taking part in the drive, and am curious as to which means of granting awards is easiest for you guys. (As Earned or Lump Sum) Geoff Plourde (talk) 20:34, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for asking and for joining in :) To be honest, it's much easier if to do them as a lump at the end as the as-you-go system needs regular time-consuming monitoring. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 07:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Understandable, didn't want to cause more work. Geoff Plourde (talk) 20:15, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Military Music

Here is a case in point about planning ahead in categories. I remember there was a discussion over Military Music, and eventually consensus merged it into Military Band with a redirect. Of course I argued against it :)

Now we have this, The Airborne Symphony. It is a military symphony not played by a Military Band, but by an orchestra. Should it be categorised under World War II in the way the 1812 Overture is categorised under Category:Napoleonic Wars?

Then there is the issue of Category:Marches. It includes both the music, and the troop movement type articles. Etc--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 07:35, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd say it was probably a case in point myself :) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 07:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

From the article, Airborne Symphony is really film music, albeit music written for a film with a military theme. It's no more military music than Haydn's Military Symphony. Mind you the military band article seems very American, the term is virtually synonmous with concert band today, which is barely mentioned in the article. David Underdown (talk) 08:03, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. The applicable scope guideline explicitly includes only music "with long military associations—for example, It's a long way to Tipperary and Lili Marleen". I'd be very interested in any suggestions you have for improving the scope wording for greater clarity. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 08:18, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll try to have a think about it, though my banding days are long over, and I have only very slight acquaintance with the current British military band set up. I do wonder if Gustav Holst's First and Second suites should be included, as they were explicitly written for miltary bands rather tahn general concert bands (I'm not sure there really were any other in the UK at the time, the brass bandbeing the closest civilian equivalent). David Underdown (talk) 09:34, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry for being disruptive, but the above example of the 1812 Overture has a longer military association then either It's a long way to Tipperary or Lili Marleen, and it too is a symphonic work, albeit with the simulated gun firing. Airborne Symphony is not really a film music, having been written during the war, by a serviceman, to commemorate the airmen, as the article says, and is no less a monument to the service personnel then other military memorial then those in Category:Military memorials and cemeteries. this is another that comes to mind as being within Military History Project. There is after all Category:Military art, and music too is an art.

I would suggest that the scope of music covered by the Project be expanded to include any and all music either written for the armed forces, about events in military history, or adopted by the armed forces for their own purposes, usually rescored as a march, such as the Waltzing Matilda

I would suggest rewording the last part of scope

• 8. Artistic expressions during military history in all media, such as video games, painting, sculpture, music, film, poetry, and prose. (remove "long military associations")

Probably the enumeration of media can be historically ordered painting, sculpture, prose, poetry, music, film, digital design--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 10:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Personally I wouldn't realy call the 1812 particularly military either, certainly wouldn't think it particularly falls within the scope of the project. On the other hand Shostakovich's Leningrad Symphony possibly does, due to the propaganda that surrounded it and it's various premieres during WWII. David Underdown (talk) 10:57, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

1812, that's the one dedicated to the Battle of Borodino! You wouldn't say that "particularly falls within the scope of the project"? Hmmmm--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 12:22, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I know perfectly well what it's programme is thank you very much, though many who hear the work proabbly do not, but I don't see why that should fall under the project when for example A Bridge Too Far (film) has not been "claimed", or perhaps closer to 1812, War and Peace is also not included. Unless the artwork was specifically commissioned for the military, or has in some way itself impacted on military history, I wouldn't see that as falling scope. The examples currently mentioned are interesting as iconic tunes of WWI and II respectively (for both sides in the case of Lili Marlene). David Underdown (talk) 12:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah, so we are back to the failure of the Project scope to be clearly defined, and this is connected to the issue of categorisation that is used to structure/map the articles' range. I am actually surprised that War and Peace are not within the scope of Military History Project, and neither is A Bridge Too Far (film). Surely more people have become aware of military history through these works, never mind the 1812 overture, which in Australia is played on every occasion possible for the Australian Army, then through very many other articles in the current scope. This is because these works reflect the relationship between social consciousness of different societies and war/military, and its popular expression that is art. So, both Mobile Army Surgical Hospital and M*A*S*H (TV series) are within the scope of the Project, but although the Battle of Borodino is, the artistic work that pays it tribute, is not? Seems rather strange to me.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 13:28, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

(od) Thanks for all the input, gentlemen. I don't entirely agree with either of you but you've provided plenty of food for thought :) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 00:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Special Projects

I'm waiting on the two people who volunteered to talk to their profs about structuring World Wars I & II; except it's taking a loooong time. I want to have a good solid structure agreed before we proceed. I'll wait for another week or so and then nudge them again. Hope your wikiemail inbox isn't too overflowing with mundane articles concerns. Cheers Buckshot06(prof) 22:20, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Worklist C

Is up. :-) Kirill ^(prof) 23:42, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Jarama

My interest in the song is obscure. I first saw it in a used Sing Out! that I bought about 1966. I'm actually trying to trace the origin of the tune. I know it is "Red River Valley" Reasonable explanations for the song are "Bright Sherman Valley", probably Shermansdale, Pennsylvania, settled by "Scots-Irish", or a Canadian version, attributed to "Ulster Scots" (actually the same ethnic group) fighting on the Canadian prairies. Then comes Jarama, written by a Scot. Maybe the Canadian and US versions have a common ancestor. The line "as you sit in your home by the ocean" does not apply very well to Canada or to Pennsylvania west of Harrisburg, but might apply very well to Scottish border clearances, where people were cleared out of the valleys and settled along the ocean to collect kelp. Anyway, do you know of any Scots Gaelic versions with the same tune? Pustelnik (talk) 01:50, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm afraid I don't. The people to ask perhaps are the English Folk Song and Dance Society. They are very helpful and I'm sure they'll be able to give you details of the equivalent Scottish organisation if you get in touch with them. They may even have information on it themselves. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 18:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

VNQDD

I've read the notice, but could you take a quick ce look at this? Tony's dropped a w/o. Thanks again. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I think you don't have to worry about this anymore. It's already been copyedited. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:39, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Image

Hi, can you please help in uploading an image. I want to upload this image. But facing problem while uploading. Can you please what is the problem in [8]. I am receiving a message upload error. I will use the image as non-free historic image for the article Anti-tobacco movement in Nazi Germany. I filled the below form:

But this is not working. I filled the source filename 707014.jpeg and destination filename as Reine Luft.jpg. But after clicking the upload button, receiving a message "upload error". I cannot understand exactly where the technical problem is. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 17:29, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Battle of Verrieres Ridge

Hi Roger, Battle of Verrières Ridge is going for FA-Class, & any comments are highly appreciated. Just to let you know. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 03:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Believe me, the fingers are about to break off from being crossed so much. Incidentally, this is my first time through the FA-Process, how exactly do they establish that "consensus" has been reached (I know the basic process from observing previous FAs, but not how they determine whether consensus has been reached). Cheers! Cam (Chat) 03:17, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Broadly, it's at least three supports and no actionable opposes. You've just got a truck load of work in on this from KnightLago. I'll try to deal with the copy issues if you can deal with the factual stuff (hundreds of guns, for instance). --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 03:23, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed (I didn't think this article could go through that many copyedits and still have that many issues). I've already gotten to work on both facts & copystuff as I'm able. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 03:32, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I was sort of thinking that as I was making some of the changes. You should probably go over it to see how much damage I've caused MoS–wise. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 04:06, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Yep. I caught that & reverted it. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 04:12, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Aye Caramba, this is becoming significantly more stressful by the edit. Cam (Chat) 04:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I hope so. Cam (Chat) 04:49, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the copyediting. Hopefully the prose has improved. Cam (Chat) 21:14, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Ooooh. Those will do nicely. I've asked Carom to take a look on Deutsch Wikipedia to see if he can find a statistic there (seeing as he's done quite a bit of work on German Wiki). At the least, this gives us a guesstimate. Cam (Chat) 05:18, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for adding that. Cam (Chat) 06:15, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

		The Copyeditor's Barnstar
		For your article-saving copyediting during the FAC for Battle of Verrieres Ridge. Cam (Chat) 17:05, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I'll take the "&" into account. Cam (Chat) 17:27, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: India Drive

I'm running so behind schedule lol - only yesterday I noticed the first paragraph identified it as Milhist Drive!! Yeah, putting the roundel would be good...I see you've uploaded quite a few of the images for the awards...perhaps I could ask you for a little favour in relation to those 3? :D I've fixed the project award for 2000. Importance and taskforces I'm still thinking about - but will fix that up soon. Cheers for the note :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:16, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:23, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

WOW!! I was thinking that the emblem would be good on it somewhere...but you've gone so much further. They are AWESOME!!!! And you made them so quickly too!!! Thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you.... They are the bestest!!! Cheers! 15:29, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: Awesomeness

Thank you very much! :-) Kirill ^(prof) 13:05, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you!

Wow - unexpected! I really appreciate that, thanks :D EyeSerene^talk 13:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Gibraltar

Hi Roger. Sorry to bother you but unsure of what to do with this. We have a user (MEGV) who brought up some valid concerns which, after being dealt, were expanded and expanded again. Now he is pushing for an earlier compromise (where sovereignty should be avoided in the lead) to mean that the fringe theory he prefers (That Britain never gained sovereignty, a view not even spain puts forward) should receive equal footing to the generally accepted view that Britain controls the sovereignty of the rock. There was a second user with incredibly similar name and a similar writing style whose IP originates in Spain as well. The second user (JCRB) went quiet and then when MEGV ran into a wall, JCRB comes out of the woodwork again to back him up with similar styles and language. The suspicion is that this is sockpuppeting to try and create an artificial disruption, though we are trying to address MEGV's concerns, though it is all a bit tl;dr ATM. If you have time, could you please take a look on Talk:Gibraltar and point us in the right direction? I'm fast running out of ideas on how to keep it productive and also on how to handle the concerns. Narson (talk) 23:05, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. It goes on a bit, don't it? It hasn't erupted into an edit war, and it doesn't look as if it will, so there's little that needs doing. You've voiced your objections and there's clearly no consensus for change, so I'd just leave it be as none of you have to reply point for point. If you think there's sockpuppetry going on, you can file a request for checkuser here but you will need some evidence to support your request. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 20:05, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, judging by the IPs used there was an attempt to disguise, but, there isn't the evidence there for RfCU and the disruption of the article isn't there for WP:SSP. I think that leaves making it very clear we won't play this game of 'push the fringe theory' and hope he takes that. Narson (talk) 20:20, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

May reviewer award

		The Reviewers Award
		To Roger Davies, For your excellent work at Featured article candidates during May, thank you for the solid reviews of articles this month and for your thorough work towards helping promote Wiki's finest work. And an extra thanks for your help with withdrawals and in keeping the FAC page on track! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:19, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

"Around the World Competition"

You were highly recommended to me. As an especially wiki-capable individual.

I'll be co-coordinating a major collaboration, the "Around the World Competition", at the WP:AWC July 15th.

The problem is, I don't have any co-coordinators yet, and time is rapidly running out. I'm looking for a couple skilled and dedicated Wikipedians.

It will entail 1) preparing for the event, and 2) overseeing the actual event.

The competition may run for several months, or even longer. There's no need for you to commit to the whole thing, I can find others later after it's started if you should get pulled away or burnt out.

But I need some help getting this up and running, through mid-August at least.

The competition, a fun way to frame a collaboration, will focus on the development of a set of 200+ pages to be transferred to article space when they are completed (some of them are complete enough that they are in article space already, and those are included in this project too). It would take a single individual years working full time to complete these by himself, so it is necessary to seek the community's help. And we might as well make it fun, to attract as many people as possible.

Each contestant will be using advanced tools like AWB and Linky to improve a single information item at a time across the entire set.

That will allow the building of skill with respect to tracking down and presenting each data type, which should improve the overall efficiency and quality of the project. And it's a novel approach which presents the World itself as a sort of race track for the contestants to compete on.

This is going to be a blast.

When completed, each page will be a profile/outline/(web)site-map of a country of the World. The set will be a valuable reference aid and a showpiece of Wikipedia.

Once it begins, co-coordinators will need to be on hand to help answer participants' questions on the talk page, and to dole out the assignments. Also, I'll be dividing the responsibility of presenting the awards, amongst the co-coordinators. One per award type.

This project is the largest wiki-collaboration I've ever attempted. Bigger than the main page redesign, bigger than the Tip of the day project, and even bigger than the help system overhaul.

I'm in the process of writing up the instructions for the contest, and I've been working with graphics designers to create the awards that will be given away. And I've been working on the pages themselves, because there needs to be enough quality content there for participants to easily envision what they will be working to complete. The AWC's newsletter is being used to promote the event, but the event also needs to be promoted far and wide on Wikipedia itself (on relevant pages) when the time comes (after the awards are ready). I've contacted the editor-in-chief of The Signpost, but have not received a reply, so I'll probably have to start visiting their newsroom on a regular basis.

As you can see, I have my hands full, and I could sure use some help.

Please think it over.

I look forward to your reply.

The Transhumanist 22:13, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

This looks like a tempting, wonderful project and I'd love to contribute. The main problem is that it now seems certain that I will be travelling for at least two weeks in August: this has been on the cards for some time but only crystallised yesterday. Additionally, we have builders in at the house and things are not going to schedule so that's proving a time sink. I will try to help out some but it may not be for a week or so and there will be gaps. If that's any use to you, please let me know. I'm sorry to take so long to respond but things only really started sorting clarifying themselves out yesterday afternoon. in the meantime, all the best, --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 05:10, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

GA reviewer suggestions?

Indiana in the American Civil War is almost a GA, but needs someone to give it a good copyedit. Do you know anyone I might inquire to help me on this? Thanks.--Bedford ^Pray 11:25, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

In theory, I can :) Two problems with this: (i) I'm very busy at the moment (the house is being extended, we've got builders everywhere, and things are going wrong) and (ii) it uses cite templates (which make copy-editing difficult). On the latter point, it might be a good idea to split it into notes and refs (see Operation Camargue): it looks neater for FAC, which presumably is your ultimate destination. I'll try to take a look in a day or two, --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 05:17, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I knew you were busy, which is why I asked if you knew who would be the best person to ask, and did not ask if you personally would. (trust me, I am very sympathetic about having to deal with construction on one's property). Thanks.--Bedford ^Pray 05:26, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I understood that :) I should have stressed the "I" to make it clearer. The problem is that I enjoy copy-editing very much and hate to see tasty morsels slipping away :) I don't know a good ACW copy-editor though Hlj has a great track record and can certainly tell you which bits need work (known, strangely, as "copy-tasting" rather than "copy-editing"). Qp10qp is an academic and a fine copy-editor (with a background in late medieval European history) but he can turn his hand to nearly anything and has done a fair amount of Milhist stuff. Otherwise, Ruhrfisch or Finetooth are both extremely competent. Finally, you could try Scartol or Yllosubmarine: they both concentrate on literature but are excellent as providing a copy-edit combined with copy-tasting (ie questions and suggestions as they go). --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 05:46, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Anyways, as an update, it just made GA.--Bedford ^Pray 04:48, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations! A-Class next stop, I assume? All the best, --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 05:12, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Unit names

Hi Roger - just a quick one for you (I hope; you look in-demand!). Is there any preference for writing numerical unit names? Specifically, I've recently reviewed 102d Intelligence Wing, and recommended a renaming to "102nd Intelligence Wing", per our usual house style. However, this has apparently been resisted by some editors in the past, and although WP:MILMOS#UNITNAME, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (numbers and dates), and WP:MOSNUM all imply a preference for the latter, it's not clear, and neither can I find any precedents. Any thoughts? EyeSerene^talk 23:14, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Looks like the nominator has moved the page again, but I'd still be interested to hear what you think... EyeSerene^talk 23:18, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, it seems to be "102nd" for the moment :) This reflects my personally preference as (1) "102d" is jargon and unlikely to be instantly understood in much of the world and (2) "102nd" is symmetrical with "101st" and "103rd". Easiest in the longterm may be to get MOS clarified (this isn't always as horrendous as it might seem) though this won't provide a short-term solution. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 05:33, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's why I came here first. I thought it may be easier to clarify the MilHist style guide rather than the MoS itself, but I confess I'm wary of instruction creep, and it's not really my battle, although from what he said the article nominator has fought it a few times. Would you consider it pertinent at MilHist A-Class review? (I failed the GAN btw, not on this issue but other concerns - the name just came up as an aside, and it got me wondering...) EyeSerene^talk 23:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's a sound first step. Want to draft some text and I'll put it up for discussion? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 03:24, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

In Your Professional Opinion...

Hiya Roger. I know you are not taking on any copyedits at the moment, but I have a question for you regarding copyeditting. Laser brain (talk · contribs) has suggested that Montana class battleship get another copyedit, this after two editers from SHIPS and one from MILHIST copyeditted the article, and Ebpr123 fine tuned the current version. This particular version is also supported by Wackymacs (a LoC copyediter) and copyeditting was not an issue raised by SandyGeorgia on the FAC page. As a result, I am understandably a little wary of any demand that the article get another copyedit, but before writing this off as uneeded I wanted to get your opinion on the matter. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:16, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I did some work on this yesterday (including writing a perfunctory stub on the Second Vinson Act. What may be an interesting project for someone (hint, hint!) is a series of articles on the various US naval acts of the 1930s and 1940s. However, I do think we need to focus much more closely on copy in ACR. We're running into copy issues on almost every FAC now and copy-edits during FAC are always difficult. That said, congratulations on this article's promotion. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk

Thank you. And yes, I do believe that we need to retool our ACR's to better address this. I didn't fully appreciate how much FAC has changed, and it almost caught me off guard. And thanks for the Chevrons; although its hard to believe, this is in fact the first chevron award I've gotten. Its the perfect ending to this perfect day :) TomStar81 (Talk) 02:54, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll raise something on this. I'd like our stuff to sail through FAC and it's getting mauled instead.

I was surprised you didn't have the Chevrons, too :))

--ROGER DAVIES ^talk 03:20, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

		The Copyeditor's Barnstar
		Awarded to Roger Davies for long-term copyediting on Vietnamese military history FAs. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:57, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Mary Shelley

I know your banner says "no peer reviews until further notice" and I can guess why, but Qp and I have finally worked up Mary Shelley. Perhaps you could read it and jot down a few comments over coffee and a croissant or something? If not, I understand. I hope all is well with you! Awadewit (talk) 11:57, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, oright :) Does the world smile at you? Email me for a catch-up when you're feeling ruminative :) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 18:39, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

BoVR

Heh, it looks like we both had the same idea at the same time on Cam's article, and we've been copyediting each others copyedits. Apologies if I've mucked up anything you've just improved - it was unintentional, and feel free to revert ;) EyeSerene^talk 20:34, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Oops, ec'd again. I'll leave it alone... EyeSerene^talk 11:23, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Ooh. Didn't catch that in Jarymowycz before. That is a good one, I'll see if I can find a second source that agrees (you begin to wonder why the Canadians even bothered; they had one good - yet very depleted - infantry division, one rookie infantry division, & 1 armoured brigade, while the Germans had the best SS Panzer Division in Germany, the 12th & 9th SS, Tiger Tanks, & enough guns to take on an army. Even I wouldn't bet on those odds). Cam (Chat) 18:00, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: Historiography. Stacey (I think) makes the point that Montgomery wouldn't have tolerated the casualty rates from British commanders. (He was a WWI vet and exceedingly careful with his men as a consequence. Which is why he was popular with the rank and file.) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 18:46, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Very true, and he was also under considerable pressure from above - the Empire, but Britain in particular, had no more manpower reserves to draw on. He couldn't afford to spend lives the way the Americans were prepared to. EyeSerene^talk 20:32, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

It's been promoted. Thanks for all your help. Cam (Chat) 05:41, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Decorating infoboxes

Roger, the discussion at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/New York State Route 32 raised a MilHist comparison; do you have any guideline dealing with flags in infoboxes? We're talking about the difference between this old version of a road article (cluttered infobox) and a typical MilHist infobox like Battle of Barrosa. IMO, the MilHist infobox isn't as cluttered, but now that they've raised this point, well, they may have a point about allowing the shields in road articles. Not sure. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:32, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:MILMOS#FLAGS? ;-) Kirill ^(prof) 14:49, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

(E/C)We have WP:MILMOS#FLAGS. Is that what you were looking for? The most recent substantial discussion on them can be found here. Woody (talk) 14:50, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, guys; any ideas for how to make that road infobox have a less cluttered appearance (or, rephrased, does it look cluttered to you)? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:57, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's ridiculous. It looks like a board game :) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 18:40, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but. How can we explain the difference between that and the simple flags in MilHist articles? What guideline do roads need, or how the differences be made understandable? We know it looks funky but how to explain it ?? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:44, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Ship salvage

I'm into ship salvage today, but having done one, need sleep for the other. Could you please offer support on preventing AfD on HMAT Berrima? I think three voices will do it. Cheers--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 15:03, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Author names

Hi, I just seen your edit on the Operation Brevity page where you have removed titles and ranks from the referances section. If the author is above the rank of captain or have a title, should that not be shown since that is techically part of there name?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:34, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Titles aren't usually used for book cataloguing purposes and they clutter up the ref list. In this case, it seemed very strange keeping a major's title but then not giving Rommel his full title (Field Marshal). Also, if we're going to list full titles, then Carver is "Field Marshal the Lord Carver", not "Lord Michael Carver": though in reality he is catalogued simply as "Michael Carver". Hope this is clearer, --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 11:46, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Admin nom

After looking over my schedual I think the best time to submit and RFA on my end would be from June 27th - July 11. The week of June 29 our professor will be showing films in class with no reading and no homework, so I will be in a position to remain active in the rfa to address the requests that come up during the process. The week of July 6 will be the first week of Summer II, and as a result the professors will be slow to assign any large homework projects for fear of scaring students off, so I will have the time adress any issues that crop up. We you be around at the time to get the nom started? TomStar81 (Talk) 23:48, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 16:07, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll be around as well for the co-nom. -MBK₀₀₄ 16:02, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I caught a lucky break today, my professor has decided to have us take a trip to the holocuast muesum and have a guest speaker this coming week, so I think that now would be the very best time to go. If you and mbk are willing to write up the rfa today or tomorrow, then I think I can best handle this and summer school. Thought you should know. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:14, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll draft something today (sorry, yesterday was impossible). --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 05:40, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

's'alright; we all have days like that (like most of my collage semester, for example :) I've waited about a year for another rfa, so one more day or a few more hours won't kill me. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:46, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Ping :)

I've been checking/refreshing my email page since the last message, and I do not see any new emails or replies. Not sure why, though I'm certain that you wouldn't have asked me to check email unless you were going to send/already sent something. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Spam traps probably :0 Anyhow, what I was after a really brief explanation of what happened during the first nom as it's not completely apparent from the RfA and I was worried about getting the wrong end of the stick. Anyhow, I've started drafting the nom in my sandbox. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 01:02, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Yep, that what it was. I got it. The disaster in the first nom began innocently enough when I spotted an incorrectly filled out admin nom on OWB talk page by StillStudying [9]. I spotted the malform RFA on July 6th [10], and left a message for OWB notifying him that the nom was malformed and that I had refiled it correctly, leaving a link in StillStudyings name to the nom (since SS was the first to nominate, I did not think it right to remove his name from the nom, and in the end getting credit for the rfa was not that big a deal for me). After OWB nom passed with flying colors he asked me for help with the admin buttons, to which I replied that I was not an admin and would be unable to help him understand the new buttons. In the ensuing conversation he asked when I was planning to go up for admin, and I reply that I could go any time I wanted to but was waiting to be nominated by a second or third party [11]. OWB then filed my first rfa, which went smoothly until New England commented that it seemed supicious that OWB would nominate me so soon after I had nominated him (remember that SS had nominated OWB for admin, but that I had fixed that nom on the official channels since SS's original nom was malformed.) I was the first to reply to that comment, telling New England not to read to much into the timing, it was a coincidence that OWB was unaware that I was not an admin. OWB then responded to New England directly, and from there the rfa collapsed into allegations of who had actually nominated OWB, thus starting the edit war. I elected to play the waiting game to see if the problem would self correct, but when it didn't I elected to pull the rfa, which abruptly stopped the edit war since the rfa pages are archived after passing or failing, and the absence of the battle arena choked the edit war pretty quickly (although OWB, SS, and New England all eventually left for various reasons). After a week (if I recall correctly) I took J-stan up on an offer to try another rfa. This one was too quick on the heels of the other one to pass, but was valuable becuase the opposition (in the absence of the edit war which killed the first one) was allowed to accurately oppose for adressable reasons (not providing edit summaries, to little admin-area work experience, and so forth) and in this rfa I recieved a much better fix on what I needed to do to improve my odds for the next rfa. Since then I have endevoured to get more active in the areas suggested by the second rfa opposers, stepping into rc patrols and getting a little more active in the afd discussions and csd tagging on site. I've also tried my hand as a coordinator in part to get used to the idea of having increased responsibility, and to counter those who will oppose for lack of any hardcore admin-area activities (like obsessively hanging out on the afd pages or at ANI or traits of that nature). TomStar81 (Talk) 01:33, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that. There's a working draft of the nom here. Please check it to make sure it's accurate. Once I've had your okay on its accuracy, I'll set up the nom. Sorry it's taken so long (a sick dog and builders at home are eaten up my time), --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 01:40, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Wannabe_kate reports the number of edits I have as being 17,000+ (which is odd, becuase preferences reports 18,000+, and I am not sure why the two aren't agreeing), so I might consider rewording to note that the edit count is over 17,000 (if you think it will make a difference). Otherwise, its all accurate (especially the part about 'famously idiosyncratic spelling'). I note for the record that among my FA works the articles Battle of Midway, USS Missouri, and Able Archer 83 fall under unique circumstances: Midway was an assist for another editer, my help was in providing FA suggestions, USS Missouri was originally nominated by Bschorr, although the current version with the 30+ citations is largely built from my rewrite, and Able Archer 83 was expanded en mass by another editer, but bares my name since I filed the nom. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:58, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

The discrepancy may be in deleted edits (those show in preferences, but not on wannabe kate). Also, remember that USS Illinois was my nom the first time until you came after that fiasco. Once Roger finishes his draft, I'll add my nom to it before it is transcluded. -MBK₀₀₄ 03:42, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Nom here awaiting MBK004's co-no and Tom's acceptance.--ROGER DAVIES ^talk 03:58, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

On it, I'll leave a message on Tom's talk page when I'm done, with the instructions on how to transclude it. -MBK₀₀₄ 04:02, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I am back

I am back sir after completing my examination.I hate your wikibreak enfocer I hate it It keep awar from wikipedia for one month --Suyogaerospace^{talk to me!} 16:49, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm very pleased to hear it! (And, while it's kind of you to be so courteous, please stop calling me "sir". Nobody else does. ) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 17:45, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you :) Suyogaerospace^{talk to me!} 13:48, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Horrocks

I think I've done all I can now - I don't know if you'll get a chance to give it a browse-through, but anyway, we'll see what the reviewers think :P EyeSerene^talk 17:41, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll try to look at it later :) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 17:45, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I've had a quick whizz through it (made a handful of minor changes) and it seems fine. While it's not perhaps the best FAC ever written, it's certainly professional enough. Anyhow, I've added my support and left messages for Tony and Laser brain asking them to revisit and re-appraise. Thanks for your input on this :) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 07:01, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Nice work ;) I meant to clarify the plural name issue with you; I'd thought the article should properly use Horrocks's rather than Horrocks', but it hadn't been raised during the FAC, so I changed my 'corrections' back (clearly missing one!) Is this an editor preference? EyeSerene^talk 07:06, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks but i really did very little :) Otherwise, yep, it's an editor preference. The MOS guideline says consistency for one style so I went for the existing majority option (Horrocks').

Thanks Roger - I thought that might be the case. It's been good working with you again. EyeSerene^talk 07:31, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:AN/I

Would you please consider making some comments here? Thanks very much. Buckshot06(prof) 01:28, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Multiple help

Hello,

1. I want to create ARCHIVES for my talk page, Can you guide me to create it?
2. As a Administer please delete this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Suyogaerospace/Archive
3. I have created new banister For my state where to submit it?

Thank you.-Suyogaerospace^{talk to me!} 16:32, 18 June 2008 (UTC)(I would prefer that you try to reply at my talk page)

Thanks for creating the archive page But I have taken a help of a bot to archive my page (Engineers are always lazy [:P]) sorry :) Suyogaerospace^{talk to me!} 14:58, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Favour

Could you assess Soviet partisans in Poland for me, duplicating my assessment. I really struggled to assess it, not sure why. If you think it is B class, then by all means, make it so (and complete it on WP:MHA#REQ). Many thanks, hope all is good. Regards. Woody (talk) 20:13, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, much appreciated. Woody (talk) 10:24, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

T&A 08

We forgot to adress C-class on this page. I added a breif note to the instruction section to advise people not to add C-class until we get a project wide opinion on whether or not we want that in our assessment chart. You are free to change it. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:05, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I've added a note abouyt this directly to the /instructions. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 04:23, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

MSUG

Hi Roger. Kevin Forsyth (talk · contribs) asked me if I knew any people who were interested in VN topics to look at a certain article, so here I am. Wikipedia:Peer_review/Michigan_State_University_Group/archive1 is about a program of technical assistance to Ngo Dinh Diem. Best regards. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:43, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Jim Limber

Would Jim Limber be in MilHist?--Bedford ^Pray 05:32, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't have thought so. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 05:34, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Re your message

Re this message from you on my talk page. Thanks for sending me a message and for letting me know that there's a proposal. However, I think the link you give is to a section of the policy page, not to a proposal; and I'm not convinced that your messages are in compliance with WP:CANVASS. Coppertwig (talk) 10:20, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I apologize. I found the discussion of the proposal, and your disclosure. I should have looked for that first before commenting, and probably would not have said anything about WP:CANVASS if I'd seen that. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 10:57, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. Doug Weller (talk) 17:12, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. I may get involved in the discussion if I have time. It is an interesting discussion. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 22:04, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Persian Revolt

Hi - this article is rated B-class, which means as you know:

Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

But the article has no references or citations, and is a straight plagiarism from a 19th century article by George Rawlinson, 150 years old. Its links are just as bad, one of them has an infobox only and no text. Siege of Ecbatana. I'm wondering how such a bad article gets assessed as good. I've removed everything but the lead and I don't particularly trust that. Sorry to be a pain, but it's embarrassing to see something so bad. Doug Weller (talk) 21:32, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Doug, it was self-assessed by the main author as B. I have now re-assessed it as Stub per the checklist and common sense. Unfortunately, that is a problem with the wiki system of editing and, as such, cannot be truly rectified other than checks through the B-class lists fairly often. Thanks for bringing it up. Woody (talk) 22:04, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks, I will take it up with the main author as well as trying to stop him from creating all these one-line non-referenced articles about dubious battles. Doug Weller (talk) 06:39, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for alerting us :) Sorry about the delay in reply, I'm rather busy in real life this week (builders running amok in my house). --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 19:41, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

A-Class

Question: What happens if, at the end of the three-day extension, sufficient support has yet to be garnered, but no major objections have been raised and comments are minimal? (essentially, what happens if our well-covered & well-maintained ACR reviewing-system goes the way of the dodo-bird?) Cam (Chat) 06:45, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Military History Wiki

Dear Roger Davies, you are a member of Wikiproject Military History, and I would like to notify you that a new Wiki has been made for Military History. If you are interested in participating in this project, please follow the following link.http://www.militaryhistorywiki.scribblewiki.com/Main_Page. Cheers, ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ ^{Drop me a line}_{Review Me!}

Thank you for the invitation. Unfortunately, I have way too many other commitments at the moment, both here and in real life, to participate. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 19:04, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

That's ok, it will still be around if you would like to help out. However, how do you appoint other users administrators? (On that Wiki) ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ ^{Drop me a line}_{Review Me!} 19:05, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

No idea, I'm afraid. There'll probably be instructions there somewhere if you poke around. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 19:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Special:UserRights is what you need. By the way Redmarkviolinist, you are breaching copyright rules at the moment with the Battle of Marion article over there. It needs to have a link to the Wikipedia article that you copied, and state that it is released under the GFDL. Woody (talk) 19:26, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm the author of that article. ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ ^{Drop me a line}_{Review Me!} 19:41, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes but you sign all your rights away the minute you upload it. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 19:43, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Replied on his talkpage given the content. To sum up: read WP:GFDL and WP:MIRROR. Woody (talk) 19:50, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, RDM, "please" and "thank you" are really good words for admins to use. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 19:38, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I'll fix it and thanks for the reminder. ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ ^{Drop me a line}_{Review Me!} 20:31, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Time constraints

Really is no problem Roger, you don't need to mention it twice. ;) I am currently floating around the wikis trying to unify accounts, I am almost there now, 20 down, a couple to go!! You should know by now that I am omnipresent, (;)) if you need any help, just holla! I am off to create a few ship articles and then review some articles. Best regards. Woody (talk) 20:12, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

LOL! Bluddy BT went soggy on me and I didn't think I'd posted at all. The SUL idea is a good one: I'll get round to doing it myself one day (in the mañana sense), I expect :) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 21:11, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Removed it now. ;) The wonders of BT!! You shouldn't have a problem on the SUL front, your name is rather unique compared to mine. If the Polish one isn't yours, then pl:Wikipedia:Przejmowanie nazwy użytkownika is the place to go. Hoping the house is building itself. Warm regards. Woody (talk) 21:31, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I wish it would :) The conservatory arrived (in pieces) on Friday and they've made really good progress in putting up the frame. So I expect I won't see them again for a month :) The downside is that they still haven't finished some internal work so we've work inside and out now.

On the SUL front, do you start with the account and register names to it? Or the other way round? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 05:36, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Mind having a look at India House?

Hello Roger, I remember your comments and encouragements were very helpful during the FAC for Hindu-German Conspiracy. I was wondering if you could find the time to have a look through India House, which is actually a sort of sib-article of HGC. I know the english will be not very good, but for some reason, I dont seem to be able to pick up my own mistakes. regards. rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 11:53, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd love to help but I'm spread a bit thin at the moment. I'll try to take a look soon but don't hold your breath :) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 05:42, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:MHSP

Hi Roger, I was trying to pilot the Top Ten Team for a while, but my key idea was to get some outside inputs for the structure of the important WW1 and WW2 articles, which our uni history students have so far been unable to do. My wiki-time is also just about to drop right off as my thesis ramps up. I'm not sure I can continue carrying the baton in this area. Buckshot06(prof) 23:31, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the warning :) I'll see what we can do ....--ROGER DAVIES ^talk 05:39, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Academics and Wikiproject milhist

I'm sure by now you have noticed that VLarc (talk · contribs) left a message on the main project talk page looking for participants for an academic study at collage. I was wondering if we might be able to include that in the monthly newsletter ("you have new messages" is a good way to get peoples attention), or whether doing so would be a bad idea.

Research about us

I had a discussion with Vanessa Larco about her research on us (she would be delighted if some more coordinators participated). Can we publish her paper within our project's infrastructure (it will probably be finished in August/September). Wandalstouring (talk) 20:35, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: Milhist reviews March-May 2008

Thank you very much! :-) Kirill ^(prof) 02:27, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm more amazed at the number of reviews some articles are getting; a few months ago, reviews by four or five editors were basically unheard of. You've done wonders here, in my humble opinion. Kirill ^(prof) 02:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Cheers Ryan4314 (talk) 08:54, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

RE: Contest Department May 2008

Thank-you for the Chevrons! They are always a morale-booster (and it'll look nice on the awards wall). Regards, Cam (Chat) 03:27, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks also. Here's an 'ward' for you? :) Cheers, ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ ^{Drop me a line}_{Review Me!} 11:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I got another one! Thanks again! Cam (Chat) 21:10, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it's crossed my mind. They're in August, if I'm not mistaken (I'm gone for the first week of August, so I hope it's the two-week signup period again). Cam (Chat) 05:50, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

MilCon June

I have tallied it all up and added it to the table. In the traditional manner, the blurb is "The Contest department has completed its fifteenth month of competition, which saw 15 entries. The top scorer this month is JonCatalan with 32 points, followed by Cam with 20 points. Ed!, David Underdown, CyclonicWhirlwind, and Blnguyen also fielded entries. Blnguyen remains the overall leader, with 193 points in total. You are encouraged to submit articles you're working on as entries."

That really is an very impressive effort by JonCatalan by the way. I didn't enter this month, have a break from assessing myself. Oh and by the way Roger, you seem to be living in the past!!! Hope all is good. Best regards. Woody (talk) 20:17, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, he is doing well. It's a pity the Leopard 2E article is faltering at FAC: perhaps three Spanish tank articles following in short very succession was a bit too sameish. Thanks for picking up the 2006: Gawd only knows how that happened :) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 20:37, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

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

♠ No response as of today. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 21:38, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

If you take a gander at Special:Contributions/Roger Davies, you'll see he hasn't really edited much in the last 36 hours, so no response is to be expected. Roger is quite busy at the moment in that most fabled of places: real life! I am sure he will reply when he gets the time to be active again. Woody (talk) 21:43, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Are you his guardian angel? We all have real life, I was trying to respond to a message he sent me. Thanks. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 03:38, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, in a way he is. He's one of the handful of people (the others notably include Kirill and SandyGeorgia) who understand that lead coordinator of Milhist is at times a full-time job and he does whatever he can whenever he can to take the pressure off. For that, which I regard as a great kindness, I am deeply grateful. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 09:10, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Impressive!

		All Around Amazing Barnstar
		Roger, I joined the Military History Project in 2006 and after taking the T-26 article through the featured article candidacy process I left on a year-long hiatus. I came back to find the project led by another user, and I thought it would be difficult to meet the 'standards' (lack of a better word) set by Kirill Loshkin and his drive to improve the project. However, I have truly been astonished and impressed by your drive to increase the quality of the project and everything relevant to it. Furthermore, you have found ample time to partake in other Wikipedia-related decisions and you have taken steps to ensure that the interests of the MilHist project are always taken into consideration. Since I have nothing to do until I start the next semester I take time to look through user constributions, and it was impossible to miss the fact that you have taken extraordinary efforts to find peer reviewers for MilHist articles. It is difficult to find a person with as strong of a character as yours. I hope this message isn't too long, but you truly deserve this award as a wikipedian renaissance man. JonCatalán (talk) 12:56, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

MilHist and copy editing

I'd love to help but can't do much till August. Am traveling and will have mostly iffy internet connections! --Regents Park (sink with the skaters) 13:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Sure. So I guess I'll just generally improve any A-Class articles in the project. VolatileChemical (talk) 19:00, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Roger. Got your note, and ditto here, but short-term I'm a bit booked. Will try to help though; it is an impressive, well-run project. Gosgood (talk) 19:57, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Roger, I'd be happy to help out some with the Military History Wikiproject copyediting. I won't be able to do all that much though, I've got a few new things going on, so I don't have a ton of extra time for it. But I'll be able to help out with some of the articles that need a copyedit. Good luck, Jamie^☆S93 20:06, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. Sounds interesting. However, I probably won't be able to help until after the 4th of July. But after that, I'm free and will most likely help you guys out! RC-0722 ^361.0/1 21:16, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Of course :) Vishnava _talk 07:06, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

{{busy}} miranda 17:04, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Newletter

Is the newsletter ready to go? Do we want to keep the C-class discussion open for a week until the newsletter has been out and advertised this to the masses? We should get more opinions that way... If not, do you want me to close it? I am currently going through our large number of FACs at the moment, we have the same number of FACs up as PRs! Hope all is good, best regards. Woody (talk) 20:22, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Looks good to me, I have left a note on CBrown's talk page, he seems to be on holiday though so I will see if there is any activity. If it isn't done in a couple of days, I will look around for someone else to deliver it. Regards Woody (talk) 16:57, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I am back

Hello sir I am back from my vacation from tommrow I will start the militart assement. I have sucessfully creater a barnstar for my state see this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Maharashtra_Barnstar And Mifter adopted me you can also adopt me Bye sir Suyogaerospace^{talk to me!} 14:20, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Help me

1. Sorry But I again require your help Please delet this image http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Fishing_Boat_kelva.JPG thank you (I am in greef because Sam Badhure Passed away)
2. I think this two articles should go for class A Ilyushin_Il-76 and Image_intensifier.Suyogaerospace^{talk to me!} 05:05, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Scope

Interesting question.... are

1. Military career of Keith Miller
2. Australian Services XI

in scope? I ask because Miller isn't famous for his battlefield achievements strictly speaking, and also note that the army cricket team was officially a military unit! Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:30, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

A discussion

An important discussion on Should WikiProjects get prior approval of other WikiProjects (Descendant or Related or any ) to tag articles that overlaps their scope ? is open here . We welcome you to participate and give your valuable opinions. You are receiving this note as you are a member of WikiProject Council -- TinuCherian ^{(Wanna Talk?)} - 12:40, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The traditional rfa thank you message

		Thank you for the support!
		Roger Davies, it is my honor to report that thanks in part to your support my third request for adminship passed (80/18/2). I appreciate the trust you and the WP community have in me, and I will endeovour to put my newly acquired mop and bucket to work for the community as a whole. Yours sincerly and respectfuly, TomStar81 (Talk) 02:47, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the offer to file the nomination. I appreciate it; now all I need to do is learn how to use the tools :) TomStar81 (Talk) 02:47, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Auxiliaries ACR

Can you close that one? I've already commented...Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:57, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Specify level of copy-editing

Hi Roger

Could you please specify your level of copy-editing for the military history project here.

These are the levels:

1. Copy-edit lite: basic proof-reading, spellchecking, punctuation.
2. English variant conversion: for example, from American English to Commonwealth English, or vice versa.
3. Naturalising: copy-edit for editors whose English is fluent but not perfect.
4. FAC prose copy-edit: flow, structure, elegance.
5. FAC technical copy-edit: MoS-compliance for dashes, hard spaces, numbers, measurement conversion.

Thanks a lot. Wandalstouring (talk) 12:21, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: 2007–2008 Ethiopian crackdown in Ogaden ACR

I'm always happy to receive compliments. Just trying to share the benefits of my mistakes. -- llywrch (talk) 18:10, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: Firm Proposal

I want to debate on that proposal rather I want to clarify my opinion about it ,where should i do it ? Thank you sir Suyogaerospace^{talk to me!} 07:56, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the award Mr Davies, and I will instead reguest an assessment next time instead of pestering Nick; I just did not realise I could do so, even though it is quite obvious, lol. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 12:28, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Since you were the one to review the article (Albert Jacka), I was wondering if you could tell me whether you think it is good enough for me to apply for it to be assed for GA class? Thanks, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 13:10, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Mr Abraham! I'm not the best person to ask, I'm afraid, as I have little direct experience of GA. A good person to ask is EyeSerene, who is much more involved. I've left a message on his talk page. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 03:46, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Again, I believe a thanks is in order:

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		To Roger Davies, for great assistance in a time of need, without being requested. Thank you, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 05:09, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Tank task force

Quick question: once we're done with sorting out the best name, are you and Wandalstouring going to create the infrastructure, or would you like me to do that? Cheers! Kirill ^(prof) 12:33, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

My take is that there isn't yet enough support for a new task force especially as the scope remains hotly contested. On the other question, I'd be delighted if you or WT handled it :) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 04:08, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I think six editors are enough for a task force. We do have smaller ones. The clue could be that we make a military land vehicles tf with armoured fighting vehicles as a subgroup. But we might also add both to the weaponry tf. I'm quite open minded on this issue. Wandalstouring (talk) 06:27, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

At this point, I think the easiest way forward would be to create a broad task force (military land vehicles) and let the editors participating sort out priorities internally; if they want to focus primarily on tanks, at least initially, that's fine, and deciding that shouldn't need to involve the entire project. There seems to be enough interest in the area, broadly speaking, that a task force could take off, even if the potential participants don't necessarily all agree on what the precise scope should be.

As a practical matter: Wandalstouring, would you like for me to create the infrastructure (templates, categories, etc. etc.), or would you prefer to do that yourself? Kirill ^(prof) 14:16, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

It would be better if you created it. I'm a bit under stress again. Wandalstouring (talk) 07:58, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, will do (once the name gets sorted out). Kirill ^(prof) 13:17, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Talk:1421 hypothesis

Hi. Was just looking at the category of articles that don't have task forces associated with them - and this article seems to have been redirected or merged but the talk page hasn't. I don't really know how to fix this, but I thought you might! Many thanks... Cricketgirl (talk) 02:11, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I've fixed this now by moving, merging and archiving the talk page :) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 04:47, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Cricketgirl (talk) 06:08, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

re:copyediting

Hi Roger - just dropping a note that I'll be away for a while, but I will do my best to help in copyediting whenever I get the chance. Regards, Vishnava _talk 08:27, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: Can you help?

Sure, I'll be happy to help. I just added myself to the list of participants. Just let me know if there are any articles in specific that need attention. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 00:07, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

RE: T&A '08

Unfortunately not. I've got two weeks of hectic traveling (I'm back for 1 day to repack before heading to Miami). Thanks for the notification on the ACR. It's always great to hear that a editor's work has been noticed. Cam (Chat) 04:58, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Admin attn needed on a FAC

Roger, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Insane Clown Posse/archive2 was restarted by the nominator without consulting me. It needs to be moved back to the non-archived file, over redirect, and the archive2 maintenance deleted. Can you help? I'll leave messages for some other admins, to see if someone else gets to it first. Perhaps a word with the nominator? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:38, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Pagrashtak got to it; thanks anyway, Roger. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:01, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Glad it's sorted. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 04:39, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Re Albert Jacka

Thanks for the note Roger. I'll leave some feedback on his talk page. All the best, EyeSerene^talk 08:19, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Croeso! EyeSerene^talk 09:23, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

"Play it, Sam"

Noticing your edit summary here, I feel compelled to note that's a misquotation. While common, it's correctly, "Once more unto the breach, dear friends". And nobody but a Shakespearean scholar, or a trivia nut, cares, I know. TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 12:30, 14 July 2008 (UTC) (Henry V, III.i.1, according to my trusty Oxford Dictionary of Quotations.)

Before the walls of Harfleur. I won the declamation prize at school for that :) Oh, and talking of edit summaries ... :) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 14:00, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, well played. On WP, I fear, the kingdom is well and truly lost. Forsooth! We band of buggered... ;D Ta. TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 16:07, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism on ODU article

Roger, 24.254.240.254 and others continue to vandalize the ODU article, by added content untraditional to university articles. Could you place a block on this IP address? Thanks. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 23:50, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

History of rugby union matches between All Blacks and France

Just letting you know that I have nominated this article for Featured Article status. I'm not sure how much time you will have available, but feel free to contribute to the discussion. You can view the nomination and add any comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/History of rugby union matches between All Blacks and France. Thanks. - Shudde ^talk 08:11, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Romeo and Juliet collaboration

Greetings! The current Shakespeare Project Collaboration is Romeo and Juliet. This project is currently going a thorough peer review and copyedit before moving on to FAC. The link to the peer review is Wikipedia:Peer review/Romeo and Juliet/archive1. Have a look! « Diligent Terrier Bot (talk) 20:49, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Signpost interview

Do you want to do this? Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-07-28/WikiProject report - Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:57, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello Roger, you'll have to complete this soon otherwise I'll have to offer the opportunity to another project. If so, I'd consider returning at a time when its most appropriate for you. Rudget 12:42, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

That's fine. Thanks again. Rudget 18:17, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

That is excellent! Once again, thanks very much. Rudget 20:05, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Category:Types of military forces in the Napoleonic Wars

First thankyou very much for your actions in regard to Mrg´s block. I have felt a bit alone sometimes in reacting to his bizarre edits, so I felt very appreciative of your action in response to his incivility, insults, etc.

However, there are still some remaining issues with the things he`s done. One canput a tag on an article that it´s disputed etc, but here Mrg3105´s categorisations, carried to their logical conclusion, would have a category saying type of military forces in War X for every war in history added to the bottom of the infantry, cavalry, and artillery articles. How do I register that I do not agree with the categorisation without the slow revert war that has been occurring? How may I get this considered in a fair way? (This also applies to the WW2 category issue of course).

Thanks again Roger. Buckshot06(prof) 08:10, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

First, it goes without saying that the blocks/editing restriction don't automatically invalidate everything that Mrg has done in the past: many of his contributions have been useful. Second, the question here is whether the categorisation is supported by consensus/guidelines: the easiest way to resolve this is to nominate the category for deletion. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 13:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, no. You know very well that the "usual crowd" gathers, and so a "consensus" can be easily reached regardless of evidence.

What I would really like to find out is WHY Buckshot06 wants the categorisation of the types of troops that are found during the Napoleonic Wars to be uncategorised? Categories are after all to combine article subjects that have something significant in common into a group. I fail to see the problem either logically or from the guideline perspective.

So what if everyone starts creating categories of troop types for all the general periods of conflict? The Category:Types of military forces was created expressly for this purpose (I see Kirill was included), and it says so on the category page!

As it happens, the period in question was particularly diverse in the troop types, and the sub-category was warranted to combine them all, currently 30 in number though several need articles written for them, or have not been included because articles are incomplete.

How many types of military forces were found in the American Civil War? How many in the World Wars? By WWI all the cavalry were just that, with no emphasis made on the light or "heavy" status, and although cuirasses were issued, none were worn in combat to my knowledge. Horse artillery virtually disappeared for want of horses, or opportunity for its use. Grenadiers became units (note specification on category page) and not a type of troops issued with grenades because everyone was using them by that stage. Machine-gun units appeared. Combat engineers replaced pioneers, and shovels were issued to infantry because there were not enough sappers to dig all the trenches. Navy and artillery were combined into the Armoured troops. This grouping of types is actually important in showing how shifts in doctrines during various periods of conflicts affected the sort of troops used in the conflicts. This is the most basic thing to understand about the military history, the change in the application of force and forces! How can this not be understood by someone purportedly intending to edit articles in the project and try to de-group these through "consensus" despite plentiful supply of sources to the contrary? It is just wrong.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 23:24, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

First, my reply to Buckshot06 was, if anything, supportive of you. I do not know that "the usual crowd gathers and so a consensus can be easily reached regardless of evidence" – that has certainly not been my experience – and I'd be grateful if you'd assume good faith in all your dealings with me.

Second, I see that this category has already been nominated for deletion. The discussion is here. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 10:12, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, the almost the usual crowd if you prefer, and it was nowhere better demonstrated then in the matter of the Manchurian Strategic Offensive Operation where I know they were gathered by BS06 with the express purpose of forcing a change to the title because of his prior vendetta against using Soviet operational names based on imaginary guidelines and conventions. That was also the case in the Yassy-Kishinev Strategic Offensive Operation where the overwhelming number of opposing editors were Rumanian. I can go on because after scanning the editor contribution histories I can easily show a pattern of this "phenomena".

Good faith? When did I ever get "good faith". "Unless there is strong evidence to the contrary, assume that people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it." Well, gee, renaming an article from an explicit, sourced, and official name to an imaginary, ambiguous, and not reflective of the article contents title must be "trying to help". How didn't I see that?

I DO NOT WANT GOOD FAITH - ONLY WANT GOOD AND PROPERLY CITED REFERENCES. f

You blocked me for what? I had the opportunity to go over your diffs, and I could not see anything aside from the "yesman" remark that was remotely deserving a block. As for the "yesman" remark, it was entirely BS06 interpretation that made it uncivil because it was taken out of context in which it was made!

Yes, the category has been nominated for deletion. Would you care to comment in good faith? I saw that Kirill participated in the set-up of the parent category. Surely no one expected that all troop types during the entire history of warfare will go into that one category?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 10:50, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Roger for your ping; have seen the deletion discussion. Thanks for your guidance on a tricky issue. Buckshot06(prof) 14:09, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Mentioning interesting project

Félix Houphouët-Boigny has been translated from the French and needs a translation check and a copyedit. We at the FA-Team are short on French speakers. If you have any time at all, we would really appreciate it. Awadewit (talk) 14:43, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I've had a quick look at this and, while the article certainly isn't a literal translation, it is a very good paraphrase. I haven't had time to go through it in great detail but will try to do so over the upcoming weekend. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 13:58, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Edit War

Recently, there has been a series of edit wars in reference to the order of precedence when listing the service branches of the United States Military on the Military of the United States article. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Military_of_the_United_States&action=history Furthermore, I've tried to address this issue with the user Sp 8503 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sp_8503 I've tried to consolidate this discussion on his talk page but it can be moved to another location to accomodate further discussion and input from other users. Your thoughts? I would appreciate it if you could please copy and paste this discussion to Sp 8503's talk page in order to keep a record of all discussions together in one location. Thank you. -Signaleer (talk) 19:37, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the awards Mr Davies! I greatly enjoyed participating in Tag & Assess 08, and hope to do the next one as well. p.s. I took your advice and have been using the proper way to request an assessment from wikiprojects, rather then bother Nick. I have found that the Military History requests are as quick as lightening; unfortunately that is not the case for all the projects. Thanks, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 10:44, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the thanks, Mr Abraham. I'm delighted to see you're settling in :) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 11:41, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Re:Thank you

Thank you for what sir???? I have tagged only 20 or 30 articles there are still more to tag give me more time to do that; Because I am busy with my collage (PS Please see my user page for my new Wiki break template)Suyogaerospace^{talk to me!} 11:04, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I know you're busy, sir, which is why I appreciate the efforts you did make :) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 11:43, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

DON'T CALL ME SIR I am not a sir I am just 18 I am calling you sir because I respect you and to show my respect I am calling you sir. In Hindi we have different words for person of our age, for elder person etc. But in English only one word you how is one going to show his respect with word you?? So I am using Sir to refer you. By the way thanks for Flower barnstar is a Barnstar?? Should I put under Barnstar userbox??Suyogaerospace^{talk to me!} 09:10, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

You can include it if you like, Many people do and there are no rules about it anyway :) Incidentally, this place is based on mutual respect, sir, and reciprocating salutations is a good way of doing it :) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 13:57, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Workshop

Hi Roger -- I'd like to respond to the workshop, but am headed out the door for vacation. Will it still be around in two weeks? -- Avocado (talk) 17:05, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Indeed it will! Look forward to hearing from you, --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 17:06, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Just finished. Sorry I couldn't be of more use during the drive. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:55, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Contest Dept.

Hey there Roger, hope the house is coming along. The Contest dept has been tallied up, the July newsletter has been updated with the tallies, the Assessment page has been updated with new examples. Do you want to give out barnstars for this month? User:Bellhalla had an excellent first entry into the Contest with a very respectable first place score. (highest I have seen when tallying). Regards. Woody (talk) 15:48, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Crossed in cyberspace, will hand them out now. Woody (talk) 15:49, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Done, got anything more for the newsletter? Regards. Woody (talk) 16:04, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Done, and I hope you get a finished bathroom soon! (took my builders three attempts to get the tiling done on my current house, so know how you feel! ;) Regards. Woody (talk) 23:10, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Battle of Vimy Ridge

Battle of Vimy Ridge is currently under peer review in an effort to get it to A or FA quality. The article has greatly improved over the pas few months but still needs work. I am sending out a notice to individuals who have contributed on the talk page to help with a copy-edit. Fresh eyes are always helpful. All the best. Labattblueboy (talk) 14:58, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

MILHIST FAQ links

Quick question: do you think it would be useful to add visible links to the assessment FAQs into the navigation box? Or should we stick with only having links from the assessment pages? Kirill ^(prof) 11:35, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think it would be an excellent idea :) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 11:41, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, will do. :-) Kirill ^(prof) 11:43, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much :) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 13:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Panzer I A-Class Assessment

Hey, I just wanted to know if the A-class assessment for the Panzer I article was extended or if none of the coordinators have gotten around to closing it. In any case, just a reminder that it exists! It has been six days - so, one more, if I'm not mistaken. Thanks! JonCatalán (talk) 21:31, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't read about the new policies for A-class reviews. JonCatalán (talk) 22:21, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

References and validity of Special Forces units

Hi. There's a discussion down at List of special forces units. This started when user Archangel1 started deleting units from the list, saying that they didn't fit SF title. While he was right about some, me and others feel that we went a little to far, due to our different interpretations of what a Special Forces title stands for. Since we are now on a discussion of what SF are and what units should qualify for the list, I decided to come here and as for an independent view on the subject. The discussion is taking place at "References and validity of units" section in the talk page of the article. Please go there or send someone, so we can arrive at a consesus. Yosy (talk) 13:14, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. It's not really my subject so I've left a message inviting comment here on the main Milhist talk page. I hope this helps, --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 13:25, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Drive/WorkshopT&A08

What if we start a monthly drive in which each user has to tag 30 articles for a month it will be easy and simple with no work load--Suyogaerospace^{talk to me!} 08:07, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

How about starting a "One tag a day" team on the Special Projects page? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 17:58, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes it will do but a idea of one article per day sounds nice and it will be effective in long turn--Suyogaerospace^{talk to me!} 15:49, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Sheva means 7

Hi Roger,
sorry for the problems. I still think it is an interesting discussion. But I think you all give enough so that the issue is quite clear.
Thx, Ceedjee (talk) 19:12, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Ship project template

Hi - Any idea who might be able to help out Ships with our project banner? Over @ Template_talk:WikiProject_Ships#Alternate_parameter_names.2C_acceptable_values there is a list of issues that were left open. Apparently Trevor became otherwise occupied and can't finish the job. If you would comment over there in answer to this I will respond. Thanks. --Brad (talk) 21:09, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Re: Milhist Quality Scale

No reason that I can think of. I'll go ahead and set it up. Cheers! Kirill ^(prof) 00:52, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Having taken a brief look at that, I'm not quite sure what the technical question/concern/etc. is; a lot of the comments are rather cryptic. If there's something specific they would like to see implemented, I'd be happy to do that; but somebody needs to decide precisely what they want, since I can't really do that for them. Kirill ^(prof) 03:15, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Ban warning: Silesian Offensives

What are you talking about Roger? Not one of these books mentions Silesian operations as they are presented in the article. No citations are offered. What is it exactly that I am "disrupting?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 06:28, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

You are subject to both a personal editing restriction and the Digwuren restriction. In the circumstances, your best course in your future edits on this article is probably circumspection. As for the citations, my best advice about the citations is either fix them or move on. Many editors will see a slow edit war and serial tagging as tendentious, especially when it follows on the heels of an unsuccessful AfD. 06:45, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar of good humor/humour

I guess one or the other works fine either way. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 17:28, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

WikiUpdate

Hey, I saw from the MILHIST coordinator page that you'd be willing to do an interview if nobody else was; when are you available? Ironholds 21:30, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Again, any time :). At the moment we're looking at putting it up next wednesday (would have been today, but everything went balls-up with something else we're doing) so any time you're free before then is good. I'll be busy sunday, but the best time would probably be late evening tomorrow, monday or tuesday; I'm in the GMT/UTC +0 timezone, don't know about you. Ironholds 14:47, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't seem to have got your email :S. As of Friday i'm semi-retired from WUPDATE; my time on the wiki is going to be limited, and i've got a secret project to get a couple of lists to Featured status which is taking up most of my remaining time. The co-interviewer would have been [User:Mastrchf91]]; I'd advise contacting him. I'm sorry if i've wasted your time :(. Ironholds 23:16, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Request

Hi Roger, would you mind protecting the Military of Georgia and Georgian Air Force articles? They are been continuosly disrupted by vandals/ultranationalists. Thanks, --Eurocopter (talk) 12:15, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm reluctant to immediately protect either article as the disruption, although irritating, does not currently appear that great and can be (and is being) speedily reverted. However, I will add both to my watchlist, will monitor the position and will protect if the situation escalates. I hope all is well with you, --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 13:19, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Cheers mate, told you it was necessary. :) --Eurocopter (talk) 13:04, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

LOL! I might accept "would be necessary" :) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 13:40, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Question

How do you become a member of the American Civil War task force? Mws77 (talk) 21:40, 15 August 2008 (UTC) -Matt

The user Archangel1

This user is goingo too far. Desguised as "improving an article" (List of special forces units) he simply deletes the work of others (myself included) - the discussion about his behaviour is taking place at the talk page of the said article (check the content Archangel1). Therefor I request that he should be unable to do any more editions. Yosy (talk) 18:20, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Question, if an article that has been edited lacks:

• References
• Lacks a source article
• Is blatantly biased (POV)
• Is unstructered
• Has gibberish content

would you allow it to entered? All the edits made have been taken after consulting the relevant talkpages. Have you researched the history of the complaint from Yosy? (Archangel1 (talk) 21:29, 18 August 2008 (UTC)).

What I see is a content dispute which has erupted into an edit-war spanning several articles. Content disputes are never resolved by edit-warring: instead consider dispute resolution or, if the article fulfils the deletion criteria, AfD. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 21:57, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Obviously you made the same heavy handed threats to all the other parties involved? O, no. I see you didn't! If you are going to dole out threats, make them to the people who are being disruptive to the articles. I was valid in all the deletions I made according to Wiki policy or has it now changed? My interpretation of it was that all additions that need it, should be referenced. If you care to look through the talkpages you'll see that adequate notices had been made prior to any action taking place. I thought this was the procedure but hey, maybe I'm wrong (Archangel1 (talk) 22:08, 18 August 2008 (UTC)).

I placed a general warning on the most affected page and warned you individually as far and away the single most prolific reverter. This was not heavy handed at all as you were way past the usual criteria for a 3RR block, which I was seriously considering instead. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 05:29, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

1964 Gabon coup d'état

Hi Roger. Hope you are well. COuld you add a military infobox or whatever it is to this article?. Thanks The Bald One ^{White cat} 20:02, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Done :) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 21:12, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I mean an infobox in the article itself. DO you think it needs one? Its just it is up for an FA and an editor suggested it might include one. Oh I started Battle of Acajutla too, translated from spanish wiki -there are some fascinating articles on military conficts during the spanish conquest and independence movement that will be translated!! Thanks The Bald One ^{White cat} 21:16, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh gawd. I have absolutely no idea what happened there (perhaps I previewed but forgot to save!?) as I did the info box before I added the Milhist template. Happily, I see Kirill has fixed it. Apologies, --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 04:17, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Air Combat Group RAAF

You recently stated on the above review that the dates should be unlinked, I am not sure what you wish me to do, as I was under the impression that if you had a full date that it was to be linked as well... CYCLONICWHIRLWIND ^talk 23:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:DATE changed a couple of months ago, making the requirement for wikilinked dates optional. Instead, consistency is required (ie either all day/month or all month/day or all wikilinked). I noticed that many of the dates in the article aren't wikilinked so I assumed this was your preferred option and you'd overlooked the wikilinked ones. I hope this explanation helps. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 04:26, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes it does, thank you! CYCLONICWHIRLWIND ^talk 13:38, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Re:Kaunas Fortress A-Class review

Hi, article undergone additional copy editing. Do you think this time all problems there addressed? M.K. (talk) 10:34, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks and take care, M.K. (talk) 10:56, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Avoiding nepotism

Hey there Roger, hope you are enjoying the break from the chaos! Would you mind assessing my contest entries please: List of Indian Mutiny Victoria Cross recipients, Andaman Islands Expedition, List of New Zealand Land Wars Victoria Cross recipients, List of Victoria Cross recipients by campaign and List of Zulu War Victoria Cross recipients. I will still update the logs at the end of the month, I just want the actuall assessing to be done by someone else to avoid the old bias charges! Thanks and regards. Woody (talk) 17:05, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I am honored by your barnstar

I hope to keep helping out with tag and assess drives now and in the future. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 12:08, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Me, too, Roger. I am currently tagging away on the Category:Aviation articles with no associated task force for Aviation, which has some overlap with Category:Military history articles with no associated task force, so I'll keep chipping away at that list. As you suggested, I will review the A-Class criteria and join in on the A-Class reviews in September. - Canglesea (talk) 16:18, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Same here. I've been getting more involved with the ACRs as of late (I'm currently working on a copyedit of USS Iowa to improve it to A-Class after leaving other comments). I'm one of those who's also got an article in need of reviewing (2nd Canadian Infantry Division), so I get what you mean by needing more reviewers. Regards, Cam (Chat) 17:23, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Roger, one more thank you... this one from me. And, yes, I'll take a look at the ACRs. --Rosiestep (talk) 18:49, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

(od) It'll be really great to get so much more quality input at ACR! Thanks everyone for your positive responses :) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 06:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hi Mr Davies, I have been away from the wonderful world of Wikipedia for the past 36 odd hours due to my dad's 50th birthday, and was very excited to learn that Harry Murray has been approved for A-Class status! I will promptly address the issues that came up in the review, and expand the lead - a task that I have been meaning to do for some time.

Also, thank you for the WikiProject Barnstar. As for the A-Class reviews, I have also been thinking about participating, but was unsure of how I would assess the articles as I do not have very much experience with A-Class articles.

Well, thank you for everything you have done to help me in the past few months - I am very greatful. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 06:47, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I will make an attempt to contribute to the reviews, but I think I will mainly start on modern biographies as I have more experience with these then other subject areas. Thanks Roger, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 10:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Harry Murray

Hi Mr Davies, I have expanded the lead to the article Harry Murray as you suggested if I was to nominate it for FA. As I do wish to nominate it for FA, I was wondering if you would be able to have a look at the lead and ascertain whether it is appropriate or not. If you do not wish to that is fine; you don't have to, please do not feel obliged to do so. Thanks, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 10:42, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks heaps, Roger! I will ask EyeSerene to have a quick look at the article and see if anything else needs to be done. Thanks, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 10:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, yes, call me Bryce; it is my name afterall. Lol. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 10:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Roger, I just thought I would give you an update. EyeSerene has completed a copyedit of the article, and I have now nominated it for FA. Thanks, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 06:29, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

That's a great idea! Thanks very much, Roger! Abraham, B.S. (talk) 23:37, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Harry Murray has now been passed as a Featured Article! Thank you so very much for your contributions and support towards helping to promote the article, Roger! Sincerely thanking you, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 04:28, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: Milhist elections

Ok, done. :-) Kirill ^(prof) 01:00, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

August newsletter

Looks good, if not a bit chunky! Quite a size now isn't it? I had a look through the archives to see the biggest Milcon score (which Bellhalla comfortably beat) and the biggest number of entries (which was easily beaten), and I realised we now have one big newsletter! Far too many article at FA/A and far too many great editors getting them there! I hope your getaway is ending well, and I am still intrigued by the Foreign Legion, and that you are ready for the rain! I will get the ball rolling on sending it out now. Best regards. Woody (talk) 22:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Nominations for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on September 14!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

THANK YOU

Thanks for giving me my first Award.--Suyogaerospace^{talk to me!} 13:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Civil War Ainimations added as exlernal links?

Hello Roger, I am the author of the animations at http://civilwaranimated.com/

I have spent 200-250 hours building each animation and invite you to take a quick look. This is a completely non-commercial site and I have made literally no money off it (I have a minimal google add just to ensure that google looks at the site I will remove it if it is objectionable - just one mouse click).

For the last couple of years, I have had links to the battles in the external links page of the specific battles. Once I had enough of the battles done, I thought it might be useful to add a link under a specific general which would enable someone to see all the battles for a general (see wiki for Nathan Bedford Forrest, for example).

But once I did this, a Wiki editor decided I was spamming and began deleting all of the links. He received a response from another wiki editor when he deleted the Forrest link "Hi, Donald. I'm not sure why you think the animated history links are spam, but I restored the one on General Forrest after checking the link. I think it's an excellent link for anyone interested in Forrest's military history. JD Lambert(T|C) 23:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)"

I ask you to look at the link to civilwaranimated.com, validate its value and relevance, and make a note here if you believe that the links should be allowed for Civil War battles. I can then use your opinion to speak to the Wiki editor.

If you find that it would help for something to be changed in how the links are applied or how the animations are displayed, I would be quite cooperative.

I asked Hal Jespersen his opinion and he responded: "It is not possible to give "permission" in Wikipedia because people can always edit away things others find satisfactory. I have no objection to this link (other than that I don't like the word The capitalized). There are people and robots around, however, who object to mass additions of links, so you need to be judicious. For example, adding links to all the generals' bio pages was rather over the top. One link per battle or campaign seems fine to me. But that's just my opinion. B Hal Jespersen (talk) 17:01, 7 September 2008 (UTC)"

I promise to be very judicious from this point forward and strictly follow what Hal has suggested. One link per battle or campaign. Your opinion would help greatly as well.

Please assist me in this,

James Cagney Jcagney (talk) 15:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC)) Historyanimated.com

coordinator elections 2008

Just out of pure curiosity, are you rerunning for coordinator this time around? Cam (Chat) 23:35, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the review-medal! All the best, Cam (Chat) 19:53, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

(P.S. Good luck in the coordinator elections;)

And you! --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 21:37, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Cheers Roger, hopefully we will count on each for another six months! All the best, --Eurocopter (talk) 19:48, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Sad news

Well, I did only run because there was a shortness of suitable candidates and stated from the beginning that this would be my last term. I think not being a coordinator is quite good, because I have lots of articles to improve and so far invested little time. Wandalstouring (talk) 08:08, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Template:Barnstar of Awesomeness

A tag has been placed on Template:Barnstar of Awesomeness requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 15:36, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Templates

Hey Roger, yes {{WPMILHIST}} is a lot shorter than the code you used! ;) Or you can use {{WPMILHIST}}, depends on the look you are going for. I am still trying to catch up on my watchlist after my week away, and keep an eye on the Milhist TFA though it seems to have been spared any serious editing which is quite unusual for a TFA! Hope all is well, regards. Woody (talk) 16:00, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the shining star; understated, yes... ;-) It certainly brings colour to my page! I have just been cleaning up the article history and all the associated back links to Battle of Marion: a lot of links! I now know how Sandy feels, and she does it all the time! Apologies for not replying this morning, but I went to bed: In future, you might try purging the template, though it was showing for me because I checked it when I made the banner change. Anyway, back to my VC lists, I've got a few on the go at the moment, and an FTC. Best Regards. Woody (talk) 17:53, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for all you Do

Hey Roger I just want to thank you for all you have done for Wikipedia particularly the Military History Department, your leadership and experience has led me to throw my full support behind you for this election. I just hope one day I could run as a coordinator and do as good as you, God Bless --LORDoliver † (talk) 22:52, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The September 2008 Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting nine coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of fourteen candidates. Please vote here by September 30!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:21, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

I really appreciate that, thanks. --LORDoliver † (talk) 12:23, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Tag and Assess workshop

A bit late, but I've left a few comments nonetheless. See here. Thanks, --Jordan ^Contribs 15:56, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

VNQDD

The vandalism is pretty average or even moderate for the main page. The vandals havne't noticed it now taht it is off the main page. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 01:25, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Operation Epsom

Hi Roger, I have addressed and replied to your issues within Operation Epsom's ACR, you might want to check them when you have some time. Cheers, --Eurocopter (talk) 10:49, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Jagdgeschwader 1 (World War 2)

Hello,

I am taking up your offer of help. The one you extended when I requested Peer Review. I am gunning to get a A Rating. I can and will incorporate most of your comments. The one I have problem with is that I can't somehow rename the article.

So could you please let me know what does it lack to get an A ?

Thanks perseus71 (talk) 18:59, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: Template:Infobox Firearm Cartridge

To be honest, I'm not quite sure what's going on. The documentation page itself (Template:Infobox Firearm Cartridge/doc) shows the example working correctly; the transclusion of that same example on the template seems to be broken. I suspect that there's some sort of caching issue at work here, and that waiting a bit may clear it up; other than that, I can't see any obvious cause for this. Kirill ^(prof) 20:36, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Notice of unavalability

Due to a miscommunication (or intentional oversight) I wasn't informed of a me-related afd (outside the milhist project), and my finding about it the hard way has angered me to the point that I feel that I need to take a wikibreak before I do something I may (or will) regret later. I ask that you not close the ACR for USS Iowa (BB-61), I am still working to address the concerns there, and I wanted to asure you before leaving for a few days that I will be back on here and can still serve as a coordinator. I just need a little cool off time to get over this...unexpected discovery before coming back so I don;t chew someone out or, worse, abuse adminship privilages. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:27, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

WOW! I go away for a week due to the hurricane and all hell breaks loose. Unfortunately, due to these external issues relating to the hurricane (i.e. make-up for a week out of school), I will be unavailable for the 0.7 improvements. I do not foresee this additional work will interfere with my other (hopefully as a coordinator) work with the project, though. -MBK₀₀₄ 01:29, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I think I have cooled off enough to back on. Thanks for the help in my absence, I apreciate it. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:52, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

0.7 Drive

I have signed up for this, I assume that the drive is meant to be completed by next Sunday (28th) not today (21st)? Thanks, Harland1 (^t/_c) 10:52, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Good! Harland1 (^t/_c) 11:01, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Count me in, too - Canglesea (talk) 14:44, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I've got a heavy school-workload right now, but I will definitely do what I can. Cam (Chat) 22:35, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Problems

I went through the processed worksheets. About one third to half of the articles is not considered fit and lacks replacements. What do you want to do about this? Another issus is that some moron did our B-class assessment and I had to downgrade most stuff I'm working on. Same problem is with the others. Wandalstouring (talk) 11:33, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

The reality is probably that we'll have to accept a load of sub-standard stuff because otherwise our representation will be minimal and we simply don't have the time/resources to get everything up to standard. In the meantime, perhaps ask the editors to find replacements? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 11:37, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

In the end, it will come down to a compromise between prose quality and refs quality. For example, provided there aren't any glaring errors in the prose, I'm willing to let the heavily-cited B-Classes go through as "OK". Che Guevara is an example (B-Class but of FA cite-density). We can't have the best of both worlds (ideally, we'd just have our FA's on Version 0.7, but many of them aren't as heavily visited. Just look at the Top-Ten Team. Our top ten articles are all B's or A's, not a single FA). If I notice articles I think I can improve, I will, but again, my schedule is quite full (I'm just gonna keep telling myself that I love Full IB...maybe I'll believe it after a while). Regards, Cam (Chat) 04:08, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Fighter aircraft 0.7

I'll take this on Roger. I can at least clean it up; not sure about filling in missing citations in the time available, though. Frankly, if I'd known earlier about the upcoming deadline, I'd have run the F-16 Fighting Falcon through a GA. I think it can do it now. Askari Mark (Talk) 03:40, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

assessment standards

I noticed your comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Wikipedia 0.7 stating that you had revised the FAQ on what constituted a B-pass. I changed the line 'A. Policy is to cite anything that might be challenged but, again, this is B-Class not a FAC so some latitude is permitted.' since as a statement of fact it is incorrect. The referenced policy clearly states that only statements likely to be challenged need to be referenced, not statement which merely might be challenged. I don't know if you wrote that line, but you seem to have written most of the page. As to the rest, I forebear from messing with it because it is not my place to express the view of the project (as distinct form statements of fact established elsewhere). I begin to suspect, however, that you might be guilty of pushing the page in one direction which may not be a concensus of editors? Sandpiper (talk) 21:37, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Battle of Marion

Sorry to trouble you, Hal, but one of our budding editors has been working very hard on Battle of Marion and the text needs some work on it. It's not in bad shape but he's aiming for FAC, you see. Would you have time to give it a quick read through and improve as necessary? I know you don't normally get involved with things like this but I really can't think of a better person to ask. Thanks for your time, --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 18:47, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm on vacation this week and don't have a lot of free time (ironic, isn't it?), so I can look at it next week, if that's OK. Hal Jespersen (talk) 21:42, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I have no particular interest in the battles of the civil war, and have repeatedly found it difficult to do anything more than skim the article. The main thing that would create a stir of political interest - that a former candidate for president of the USA was fighting/commanding on the side of the CSA - does not appear to be mentioned anywhere. Perhaps I will try again to read the whole article, but there is nothing in the lede that makes me want to read it through. --JimWae (talk) 06:27, 26 September 2008 (UTC) I read the entire lede now. I think there could be a POV problem with calling Stoneman's offense a "raid into Virginia". It also is not language that the source uses. I also find it annoying that I have to hunt the list of references to find the source - it makes it that much harder to care to check -- especially since not even alphabetical order could be used. That rather short source (with barely a dozen facts in it) is referenced 10 times. I would not normally mention this last point, since it could seem overly-critical, but I am just commenting on my early impressions --JimWae (talk) 06:37, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Elections

Did you mean to vote for yourself :)) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 09:03, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

No, of course not. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 08:36, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Review Department

Hi Roger, I was wondering if you could help me or work out what’s going on in reference to the Review Department. I currently have the article Percy Herbert Cherry up for A-class review, and for some reason it is not showing up under the appropriate section despite being listed there and previously being displayed since I have requested the review until now. I have no idea why it is not showing, especially since it has had a few comments, and was hoping if you would be able to amend the problem? I hope all is well with you, and you aren’t getting too stressed out over the 0.7 assessment! Regards, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 03:17, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Roger! Abraham, B.S. (talk) 05:27, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Pleasure! It was caused by the automated review script, which contained the following string (the "onlyinclude" call):

<onlyinclude>{{#ifeq:{{{name}}}|Percy Herbert Cherry|<span style="cursor:help"><font face="Papyrus">[[User:Redmarkviolinist|<font color="red">Ṝέđ</font><font color="green">ṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ</font>]]</font> ^{[[User talk:Redmarkviolinist|Drop me a line]]}'''</span> 16:45, 24 September 2008 (UTC)}}</onlyinclude>

This prevented the article from being transcluded to the A-Class review page. If you get a similar problem in the future, it may have a similar cause. It is explained more fully/clearly here. All the best, --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 05:50, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments in the review. I think I have properly addressed each and every one, and whenever you get another chance I was hoping you could have another look to see if that has been the case? If you're too busy, or can't get around to it for awhile, that's fine. Thanks for all of your help and contributions, Roger. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 09:55, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah sorry about that. I didn't realize that the automated review script did that. ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ ^{Drop me a line} 14:56, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

If you wouldn't mind giving the article a bit of a copyedit, it would be greatly appreciated. I've re-read the article a few times, and given it a bit of a copyedit myself, but now it is probably time to have a third party copyedit. Thank you very much for the offer, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 05:54, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Roger! Abraham, B.S. (talk) 06:14, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't possess a copy of either novel actually, but I shall definitely look into it now! Any further information you would be able to provide would be excellent. Thank you once again for your contributions, assistance and guidance. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:54, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: Can you urgently help Milhist please?

Hi Roger! I hope you are fine. Please do accept my apology for responding that much late. Actually I was on an unannounced Wikibreak. I read your message for this drive today and noticed that it is almost over. So I guess I am too late now! even I need some time to get used to here again. Hope you understand! Thanks! Regards --SMS ^Talk 10:17, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Roger, thank you so much for the invite, it really means a lot to me that you thought enough of me to ask...I too am on an wikibreak...checked in to look something up and saw the mail note. I'm sorry I couldn't help. I hope everything went ok! LegoTech·(t)·(c) 09:22, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

day is over

Roger, I'm still waiting for your idea about the replacements for 0.7. Wandalstouring (talk) 17:45, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Still mulling but I'm getting there .... --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 05:55, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia 0.7 Questions

Hi, Roger. I was wondering if you could assist me by answering some queries I have in regard to the Wikipedia 0.7 review? Even though I have downgraded several articles from B to Start, if they do not have any tags should I still include a link to them? Also, if I come across an FA that has no tags, but is lacking in citations/references, should I include the best version I can find of this article, even if it is still lacking? And finally, in regards to replacement articles, if I cannot find a closely related article that is any decent what would be my preferred action? Sorry for being such a pain, mate, but I figured you were the best person to ask. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 11:26, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, mate. I tried to fix up some of my adopted worklists earlier today, and was able to provide a few suggestions for replacements, however, I wasn't able to find that many but I hope my suggestions are helpful. After your reply, I went and added links to the crummy GAs and FAs, but have also left the comments I had originally placed in the "Comments" section stating what is wrong/lacking in the article. Thanks, Roger. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 11:12, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi There

Hey there. Thanks for the link on my talkpage, but it appears to be a redlink. Is that the correct lnik and there's just nothing there yet? Or is it the wrong link? Thanks, Skinny87 (talk) 09:50, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Advice needed

Hi Roger! You recently assessed the article BTR-90 as B class, so I'm asking you about this since you've seen the article already. I'm thinking of improving this article to GA, but I think I will need some advice on this before I get working on it (I don't have experience with improving articles at a level like GA). What I want to know is, how can I get some feedback and suggestions on it so that I can get an idea about what needs to be done? Should I put it for peer review at MILHIST to start with? Chamal ^Talk ± 14:13, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

MH-A-class

Have you noticed what Sandy has noticed? YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 07:36, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Improving 0.7 articles

Once an article has been brought to a level where it can be included, do we change its listing on the worklists here, or re-nominate it? Harland1 (^t/_c) 09:06, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Changing the comment (and the class) is best. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 10:07, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the non-existent barnstar... :) Harland1 (^t/_c) 13:13, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, update, etc

Hi Roger. Thanks for the barnstar! In regards to the 0.7 articles, I'm not sure if I can help out much in article improvement as my area of expertise lies mainly in Australian military biographies. However, I will search through the lists and see if there is anything that I am able to help out on. Now, on to PHC; I really like and appreciate the brilliant work you have done so far to the article, keep up the good work! Thanks once again mate, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 23:43, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Re:Insignia

Not a problem. In fact, your timing is perfect: I was just about to do that :) TomStar81 (Talk) 01:00, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, everythings been handed out: New coordinators have recieved there stars, returning coordinators (myself excluded) recieved the stars and the barnstar, retiring coordinators have recieved the barnstar award. If I messed anything up, feel fre to ask me to try again :) TomStar81 (Talk) 01:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

thank you

		Milhist Coordinator elections
		Thank you very much for your much appreciated support in the recently concluded September 2008 Military History Wikiproject Coordinator Elections. I was thoroughly surprised to walk away with a position of Coordinator. Thank-you for your support, and I assure you that I will do my best to serve this spectacular project well. Esteemed Regards, Cam (Chat) 01:05, 1 October 2008 (UTC) Notre Dame de Lorrette Cemetary - Arras, France

Congrats!

Lead Coordinator of the
Military history Wikiproject,
October 2008 — March 2009

Congratulations on your election as Lead Coordinator of the Military history Wikiproject. In honor of your achievement, I present you with these stars. I wish you and your staff luck in the coming term. -- TomStar81 (Talk) 01:05, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

		The WikiProject Barnstar
		In gratitude for your coordination services to the Military history WikiProject, from February 2008 to September 2008, please accept this barnstar.-- TomStar81 (Talk) 01:05, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Congrats on your re-elction Roger. I know you will continue to lead the project to greater heights. Kyriakos (talk) 09:12, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Fell free to tell me if you even need my assistance. Kyriakos (talk) 09:18, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: Something for you

Thank you very much for the award, and for your kind words. It has been a pleasure to work under your leadership over the past seven months. Kirill ^(prof) 01:14, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

emeritus userbox

Well, thanks for the suggestion. If you'd also take a look a few sections up on my talk page, TomStar81 had already stated that he was going to award Kirill a special version of the stars (the story is quite interesting if you don't already know about them). I have tried to integrate those onto the userbox in my Sandbox, but the image does not work correctly. I'm open to suggestions, but I think that keeping the stars would be best to keep all of our coordinator userboxes looking somewhat uniform. -MBK₀₀₄ 02:41, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

The image would need to be redrawn with a transparent background rather than a white one for it to be usable on a colored userbox; I can do that if you'd like. It's probably a candidate to be converted to an SVG as well, but I don't have the right tools for that, unfortunately.

(Since I don't actually use userboxes on my user page, incidentally, this may be something that doesn't really need to be dealt with at the moment; you could just avoid making that particular userbox until we get an emeritus coordinator that would like to make use of it.) Kirill ^(prof) 02:52, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the solution is to make the person who makes the graphic a coordinator emeritus? That way, we get the userbox AND somewhere to display it :) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 06:10, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Geesh...don't take this "thinking outside the box" thing too seriously now...;) Cam (Chat) 06:21, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

[Chuckle] --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 06:23, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh wow, I didn't even realize the pun in that. God, I'm slow today. Cam (Chat) 22:55, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Resignation

Hi Roger,

I'd like to withdraw/decline/resign the coordinator role. I was actually hesitant about running this time—I scrubbed out a statement on an earlier day but put my name back in soon after. Hopefully I don't cheese off too many of the people that voted for me. The reasons are

1. I feel guilty not helping to fix up MILHIST FACs/FARCs, which I think I should do if I am a coord, and I am always trying to write more and am getting substantially busier in RL
2. Also a new relatively user Djwilms (talk · contribs) has popped up working on 19th century Vietnamese military history articles, which makes things more exciting on the article writing front, especially now that he has taken to writing articles related to the likes of Can Vuong, Phan Dinh Phung, Truong Dinh that I have been interested in in recent times.
3. I have (relatively) strong "fundamentalist" outlook on Wikipedia, which I think is probably becoming less mainstream on Wikipedia, so I think that as a more structured/flowchart approach becomes more favoured, I would be less relevant/loose cannon/irrelevant to this model and someone else can come in and contribute whatever they have to contribute
4. From my reading of the statistics, probably the first incumbent coord to get a decrease in raw support - excluding coords who went on a break and came back again; From my psephological experience on Wikipedia, an incumbent generally gets more raw support over time (although often more opposes as well) due to the fact that so much voting depends on public profile. So getting less support probably means that my attitude/ideology (or incompetence) is probably cheesing people off—probably the fundamentalist part and attitudes on MOS
5. I once stopped writing articles for a certain WikiProject because I didn't like what the "seniors" (no official coords in that project) were doing so I think if I stick around here maybe some people will stop participating because of the same reasoning
6. Also with the increased focus on coordinating by task force, I think it's better that someone else step in because, apart from the handful of articles that I write about, I know almost nothing about military history.
7. I envisage nothing changing on my part as far as participating less or whatever, except a psychological burden being removed so I should be more productive anyway. The only official thing that changes is that I can't close A-class reviews- that's fine, I comment in a lot of them anyway.

YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 08:53, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I think it's for the best for everyone. I think it'll freshen me up. I'm not too worried/hurt about a voter backlash, I've received much worse, including some double-dealing, fall-guy traps, faking emails to get people in trouble etc by political users who were all schmoozing it up when they wanted me to dispose their enemies etc... Nothing like that happened here of course. The coords all have 5+ A/FAs etc and none of them are running about trying to start a personality cult and disciple-gathering while never doing any work unlike some "seniors" in some other WikiProjects. It's just a lifestyle change. I was in two minds about walking away and getting more article work of course due to increasing time pressures, and I think this was the right thing to do. The only thing I can't do now is close a few A-class reviews, which only cost a few minutes a week anyway. I don't tally the contest votes because I'm competing obviously. I'm not sure how many people would be put off writing A/FA class articles if they consider it to be an endorsement of a coordinator to be a "fingerwagging headmaster" (MOS) but its good to stay on the safe side. They might think "If that's how MILHIST is run I don't want to be a part of it". If I want to change something I can do my own thing, but I think staying away and not feeling pressured about helping to spruce up the FACs and FARCs will rejuvenate me. Which involves fixing up MOS and then harping to people about getting into good habits about MOS and why it's important for FAs... and why it's important because MILHIST likes to keep its quality tradition up. I'll continue to do these MOS things without proselytising about it of course, which I'm probably less inclined to do without. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 07:30, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's fair to say that it is a beauty contest, after all, everyone who got elected has written lots of A/FAs and nobody did publicity stunts, which unfortunately is the staple diet of getting political job promotions in other parts of Wikipedia which is a credit to this wikiproject. The members of this WikiProject are good at working out who is useful and who is freeloading. I can think of a lot of serious article writers, predominantly oldtimers, who have criticised Sandy and the modern FA system, and said that they would boycott it. I don't mind whatever the system is, but I don't want MILHIST people to boycott MHR-A/FA. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 07:30, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

WP 0.7 noms

Hello Roger! I've begun checking what articles could or should be included in the 0.7 release, and have begun nominating some of them (for now, I'm sifting through A-class and GA articles that weren't included in the master list). However, I notice that there is a big backlog, and not much movement on the part of the assessment team. Perhaps it would be better if we first gather the WPMILHIST proposals and send them as a single package "approved" by the project, instead of individual nominations? PS. Thanks for the barnstar, and congrats for the re-election! Best regards, Constantine ✍ 17:33, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Congrats

Congrats on winning the election for Lead Coordinator of Wikiproject Military History, I knew you could do it. I just hope someday I can become a Coordinator. You are such an inspiration! God Bless, and thanks for all you do.--LORDoliver † (talk) 02:31, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry For The Question

I know you must be busy ,but I have a question Could you explain to me how Service Awards work.--LORDoliver † (talk) 02:33, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Sept newsletter

I have added the contest dept to the newsletter. We have a new leader for the first time in a long time! Do you want to hand out the barnstars for a bit of variety? Are we going to comment on the YellowMonkey resignation in the newsletter? Regards. Woody (talk) 11:21, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

The awards have been handed out. Sorry for the delay, I was in class and thus unable to react swiftly to your message. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:31, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I will look over it now. Things are calming down for me now, back into routine so I should be able to get a couple more VC lists done in the next few days, and back to more of the behind the scenes MILHIST stuff. Best regards. Woody (talk) 15:56, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Done. Woody (talk) 16:07, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I started reading but abandoned that idea when I saw a certain users monologue. I might try and review some articles instead! Regards. Woody (talk) 16:16, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

BrEng review of Mrs. Pankhurst?

Hello, RogerD! I've just finished reconstructing the article on prominent British women's suffrage activist Emmeline Pankhurst, and I wonder if you'd do me a favor – probably not now, since we're just entering peer review mode, but sometime before we go to FAC. I've tried my best to apply British English, since it's obviously needed here, and I'm hoping you could have a look to make sure it's all legit. I'd really appreciate it, and as I say, it's nothing urgent. I'll probably need you in a week or two. Thanks in advance! Scartol • Tok 19:11, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Sure, no problems. (My grandfather knew Sylvia, by the way.) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 03:14, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Wow, really? I can't decide what I think of any of them. They were all crazy in their own way.. =) Thanks for the help; we've apparently got some other folks also casually checking it over as we polish and review. Cheers! Scartol • Tok 19:06, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Insofar as at least four British-native editors have been whacking away at the Americanisms, I don't know how urgent your eyes are needed, but it's up at FAC if you'd like to have a look. Cheers! Scartol • Tok 22:39, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I've done it. Mostly BrEng hyphens added. A few added hidden comments about perceived awkwardnesses and possible additions. Looks good! --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 23:40, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks! Cheers, mate. Scartol • Tok 00:44, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for answering my message I can only imagine how busy you are right now. I'm trying to keep the Unassessed Article number low, but I guess it's a good thing if people are creating more articles.--LORDoliver † (talk) 20:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Yellow Monkey's spot

I'm aware of YellowMonkey resigning. I will accept, well aware of the vote gap that makes me have to prove myself far more than others would have to.--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 22:59, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Are we officially accepting Bedford as the 9th coordinator? I ask becuase if we are I want to make sure he gets his stars asap :) TomStar81 (Talk) 02:41, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

There might be a controversy brewing about par. 3 of his user page but other than that I'd say that concensus is imminent :) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 02:46, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Then I think I will go ahead and present Bedford with the Coordinator's stars. I wish him luck. God knows he is going to need it :) TomStar81 (Talk) 02:51, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Should we go ahead and update the actual coordinator lists, then? Kirill ^(prof) 02:58, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Yep, I guess so. It looks like a done deal. The only remaining objection is from Woody and he said he could live with it. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 03:02, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, done. I've listed YM as "resigned" in the history; but I'm not sure whether that's the best way to handle it. Should we keep the name there (annotated or otherwise), or take it off? Thoughts? Kirill ^(prof) 03:06, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I wondered about that. I'd be tempted to just take it off. It happened so soon after the event that it's scarcely worth recording for posterity (especially accounting for time differences) and the fewer dramas the better :) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 03:12, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

True enough; I suppose anyone really curious can dig through the archives well enough on their own. Cheers! Kirill ^(prof) 03:15, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

		The Copyeditor's Barnstar
		For his extraordinarily brilliant work in copy-editing the articles Harry Murray and Percy Herbert Cherry, which thus enhanced their readability and sophistication levels, I present the Copyeditor's Barnstar to Roger Davies. Thanks mate, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 10:29, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Inactice A-class Reviews

There are a number of reviews where the nominator has not responded in a while. How long should we wait before failing these? Also, in the Battle of Fort Henry ACR the nominator has three conditional supports, but he hasn't actually fulfilled the conditions. I'm assuming that this is a failed ACR, as well, should we decide to close it. Thanks, JonCatalán^(Talk) 15:42, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: W 0.7

Can you please establish some standards for release. When will starts be relased? Wandalstouring (talk) 10:07, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Just saw the Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Wikipedia 0.7/C02 load you seem to have been burdened with, so now understand where the busy came from

So I'm wondering if that was not the best place to direct energies and leave the Soviet titles to be resolved later? --mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 09:34, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

You could have given me a note that C-class standards were adopted for release. I expanded your introduction to provide a definition of C-class since our project so far had none. Wandalstouring (talk) 11:58, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

PHC update

Hi Roger, I just thought I would give you an update on the Percy Herbert Cherry article. It has now [finally] been passed as A-Class, and I would like to thank you for all of your help, support and contributions that led to the article's promotion. Once again, thanks. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 16:02, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

C-3PO

Not sure who that was, but I can assure you I had nothing to do with those moves--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 11:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Buckshot

Sorry I did see that it was closed after I had cast my vote, thought it was better just to leave it then go back and revert Jim Sweeney (talk) 13:53, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

articles for deletion

Which articles that I edited you think should be deleted?

Also, I will be away until tomorrow evening Australian time, so will not be able to contribute on the title discussion, however I left several requests and questions--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 08:08, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

MS West Honaker

Hi Roger, I was just going through the review page and saw that a few A-Class reviews have now been closed as either failed or promoted. Among them was the article MS West Honaker put forward by Bellhalla, which you closed as promoted on the review page. However, this is not reflected on the article's take page which still classes the article as GA and under A-Class review. I presume this was just a minor oversight due to your busy schedule, but I just thought I would tell you. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 13:40, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

That's awesomely diplomatic of you, Bryce ... Thanks! Now fixed. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 13:45, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

RE:W.07 Checklists

Sorry it took me so long to get about to it. If it provides a link and says it is OK should I mark it KEEP or USE LINK? Harland1 (^t/_c) 17:17, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

		The Invisible Barnstar
		In recognition of your important behind-the-scenes work in organising the reviews of nominations for the Release Version 0.7. Harland1 (t/c) 17:31, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Can't believe no-one's given this to you yet:). Harland1 (^t/_c) 17:31, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

3d Kharkov

Yes, of course, that would be awesome! Admittedly, I wrote the aftermath section and the lead hastily, since I had gotten the urge to finish the article after the long period it took to write the background and battle sections. So, I would bet that the lead would probably need a few edits (which I will look to do, as well, over the next few days). In any case, I would appreciate any type of copyedit which you could lend a hand with. Thanks! JonCatalán^(Talk) 17:19, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Roger. Great work on winding up this incredible saga of Soviet operation names!! Can't thank you enough! Cheers Buckshot06(prof) 13:45, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

There is an order of battle, but the problem is the amount of armies that Stavka redeployed from other areas or threw in after the operation started. Also, there is a lack of information on specifics. Honestly, that order of battle extrapolated the information I could get from those sources. There are other books on the battle, but one of the best is about $150, while the others are $50+. JonCatalán^(Talk) 14:20, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I might be wrong. Although almost none of my sources give them numbers, Michael Reynolds refers to the Liebstandarte as the 1st SS Panzer Division in the "formation" chapter of his book. I will change these back. JonCatalán^(Talk) 14:49, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

re: ACR CSJ

Hi Roger, thanks for correcting my typo and pointing out the sentence that needs clarification. What the sentence was ment to convey was that Jeffries was promoted to lieutenant in the Citizens Military Force before receiving appointment as a second lieutenant in the Australian Imperial Force. I have reworded it as:

He was promoted to lieutenant in the Citizens Military Force during July 1915. On 1 February 1916, Jeffries transfered to the Australian Imperial Force and was allotted to C Company of the 34th Battalion as a second lieutenant.

Is it clearer now? If not, I can have another look. Thanks mate. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 08:07, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, not bad, but I just don't think it really sits well with the rest of the paragraph; it may be just me, but there seems to be something iffy about it. I can't really think of any other way I can write it, but I'm definitely open to any further suggestions you are able to offer. Thanks, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 05:16, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

[Sour face] I'd prefer not to, as, although it is rather minor, it still documents a part of Jeffries life and service, and I'd like to retain it. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 05:28, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Lol, fair enough. The wording sounds great to me, so I have added it in. As usual, thank you very much for your assistance, Roger. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 07:13, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Roger, thanks for supporting me in my recent RfA. Also, thanks for your comments on Pied-Noir and Marquis de Lafayette. Regards, Lazulilasher (talk) 23:56, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Jagdgeschwader 1 WWII

Hi RogerDevis,

I don't mean to be rude. I do understand you are busy with the coordinator activities. Would you mind going over the Reduction of jargon that I did in a major copy edit ? Also my problem of Page numbers for Cite Web ?

P.S. I did leave a message on my own talk page, per your policy.

perseus71 (talk) 19:37, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the kudos. Go ahead and involve the experts. But note that, per your suggestion, after I left messages with peer review request on all three related forums (MILHIST, MILHIST GERMAN and World WAR II), nobody responded. Probably you have a bigger pull! The only thing I want is to see this article get an A. That's one less article to be improved. I will change the & to and as well as de-link the ranks (Next 2 hrs ?). After that I will stop polishing it and its yours. If you need any subject matter or need to expand a specific point, then let me know. I will be moving on to next article, biography of Walter Oesau. Thanks once again. Perseus71 (talk) 18:40, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Roger, I've made a quick clean-up pass through the article, however, it's not nearly ready to be considered for A-class. It needs serious wordsmithing and some restructuring. I don't have the time to do that right now, since I'm still working on Fighter aircraft. After I get that out of my inbox, I may take a look at this again. Askari Mark (Talk) 00:04, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your changes and comments. I'm afraid I've lost any sense of the perspective on this one as I've got myself too involved. (Funnily enough I don't have this problem with stuff I write myself.) I've made some minor tweaks myself and will look at it again tomorrow. Much appreciated. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 03:06, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind taking it through to A level. However I don't know enough about the process other than getting peer review for Level A. Needless to say I don't know if I can directly request an A level Review. Thanks Perseus71 (talk) 17:49, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Roger Davies. You have new messages at Perseus71's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Reception history of Jane Austen

Reception history of Jane Austen, one of the daughter articles for Jane Austen, is up for peer review here. I would appreciate your thoughts. It's Austen! Awadewit (talk) 20:53, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

131st Fighter Wing

Currently there are many people anxious to move the 131st Fighter Wing page. It is really getting out of hand lately because people are moving it before the name has bee officially changed. I was wondering if you could put a move protection on it until it is officially renamed. I was also wondering if you could free up the protection on moving the 131st Fighter/Bomb Wing page back to "131st Fighter Wing". Thanks for your help. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:58, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

It's never very clear cut what to do in cases like this but the current arrangement, where the old name redirects to the new name, seems reasonable. The levels of name to-ing and fro-ing are low so it's not really appropriate for admin intervention and my hands are tied. Perhaps you should discuss this first on the article's talk page? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 07:58, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I talked to the editor and explained to him what people usually do. The name right now is actually not a name by DOD standards. The editor seems to indicate that the official change in name hasn't occured yet. Thanks for your input concerning this. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:21, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Re 0.7

I think I can, but it might be best to pester me on Friday. I've got an exam in 9 hours and I really ought to be getting to bed. -MBK₀₀₄ 05:43, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder. Consider a worklist done within 24 hours from me. -MBK₀₀₄ 17:45, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

That was a bit optimistic from me. As much as I'd like to help out, I've lost interest in serious gnoming at the moment due to the fact that I have two more exams this week to prepare for as well as a desire to develop some non-MILHIST articles. I would appreciate it if you could find someone to handle the worklist I claimed. -MBK₀₀₄ 20:19, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

RE: NZ VCS

I saw that, it did bring a smile to my face! Oh well, hope you haven't riled the FL directors too much! ;) Hows things, what needs to be done on the 0.7 stuff, I have some free time tommorrow. Regards. Woody (talk) 10:19, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

"Oooh, no missus, titter ye not! Don't mock the afflicted!" Actually it's a matter of certainty that I'll screw up some procedural thing at some stage or another.

Otherwise, very glad to have you on board for the 0.7 stuff. Basically, it's grab a checklist and follow the instructions. The objective is to get them all checked off and then paste the links etc in the appropriate release version list. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 10:46, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Peer Review for 11th Airborne Division

Hi Roger. I'm trying to set up a Peer Review for a second time for 11th Airborne Division (United States), but although I've archived the old PR, the link to what should be the new one takes me to the archived old one. Could you take a look at it and see what I'm doing wrong? Cheers, Skinny87 (talk) 17:28, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Roger, that's a real help. Very kind of you. Skinny87 (talk) 17:41, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Camel Corps

Many thanks for the fish ;) I acctually have a love of the quirky and well, the Camel Corps is possibly the greatest British military unit ever. If only because it gives us the line in the film Khatoum: Gentlemen, mount your....CAMELS given in that wonderful British colour sergeant tone. --Narson ~ Talk • 18:14, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, there was the time when the only fighting force of the RAF was an armoured car squadron.....that was slightly less flying than you'd expect. Still. Short of a Zebra brigade or the Imperial Giraffe Tamers, it has to be way up there. Though can you imagine the smell of it in the late 1800s? All the smells of an army camp of the period combined with camel. Sory I've not been more help lately, been busy with the start of university. Edited to add: My other suggestions would have been The Oriflamme or Corps d'Armee/Grande Columne just to be a smart arse. I prefer zaney for wiki. --Narson ~ Talk • 18:40, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Template:Campaignbox Stalin's ten blows?

Hi, just wondering about your edit to the Campaignbox for Stalin's ten blows. I was under the impression that dashes were normally used instead of bullets, and based the template on what I saw on other WWII Campaignboxes. By all means please tell me if I'm wrong, I probably just misread something somewhere. Joe (Talk) 21:02, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

FA Medal

		The Featured Article Medal
		For having five featured articles, which should have earned you this a while ago, and for copyediting Third Battle of Kharkov, which will be going through FAC at some point in the near future, JonCatalán(Talk) 00:16, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Wiki 1.0

Hello Roger,

I was looking at the MILHIST preparations for the release of 1.0, but I can't seem to find anywhere the date that it's going to be released to the public on CD/DVD whatever. Do you happen to know? Skinny87 (talk) 13:23, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't. When it gets done, I suspect. These exercises are huge undertakings and very difficult to keep to schedule with entirely volunteer input. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 13:33, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Gentle nag noted. I'm on it. Cam ^(Chat) 17:43, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Cool!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 18:03, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

And I've finished both my first ones, and am moving onto a second worklist (although I will note that when you said "low standard", you weren't kidding;). Cam ^(Chat) 05:10, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

And now I've finished the third one :) I've got physics & chemistry exams tomorrow, so once those are done, I'll likely adopt another worklist. Cam ^(Chat) 05:38, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Music of the American Civil War‎

Since you're the other ACW coordinator, I thought I'd let you know that Music of the American Civil War‎ just passed GA.--Gen. Bedford ^{his Forest} 16:45, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Well done, tho' that ain't gonna get me whistlin' "Dixie" :) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 17:29, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I've been jammin' to When Johnny Comes Marching Home Again myself. :) --Gen. Bedford ^{his Forest} 17:43, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

[Chuckle] Much better though is "And the band played by waltzing Mathilda". (The Pogues version is best.}

And dragging this back to the Civil War, did you know that "Dixie" was Lincoln's favourite tune? Incidentally, what's his name singing "Bonnie Blue Star" in "Gods and Generals" is right up there at the top of awesome film music list. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 18:02, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Oi, and that reminds me. You've got a checklist to finish, Bedford, me lad. :))) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 18:04, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

MILHIST

Funny, I'd thought I was a member of Milhist. I added my name to the list. I like to hang around the A-class review, because I like that there is a consistent flow of quality work (like the USS Constitution article). The tools? Ha...well, they were fun, for a day. It's more of a yolk than I'd imagined; I find myself stuck in odd tasks (like checking copyvios, cut n pastes) than before. But, I feel obligated to do it; because, it appears we have a lack of folks doing that grunt work. But, it takes away from what I enjoy: writing and researching. I guess that's the nature of the project, though. Lazulilasher (talk) 15:12, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Just wondering

Always nice to meet old friends - or not, as in this case. Never mind, a stranger is just a friend you haven't met yet.Thunderer (talk) 16:30, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Convoy Naming Convention

Thank you for including me on this conversation. I am neutral on the issue, but added a few thoughts to the discussion. Thewellman (talk) 16:38, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Ditto. I presumed silence implied consent. Sorry for hanging everybody up. TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 08:25, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Re:0.7 checklists

Yes I'm sorry, I'm always making excuses but I have mock GCSE's soon which I need to do well in to get into a decent sixth form college soon. I'm away from the 23rd until Sunday wk but I WILL get it done. Apologies. Harland1 (^t/_c) 20:41, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

11AD copy-edit

Hey Roger. I'd be very greatful if you could give the article a copy-edit. I don't need it done yesterday, just fairly soon because I intend to take it to FAC within a week or so. Cheers, Skinny87 (talk) 07:44, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'll make a start later. What, by the way, does "activated" mean? Is it the day it became fully operational? Or the day the CO arrived at his desk? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 07:48, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah. Now, that's a good question...a very good one...let me get back to you on that. Skinny87 (talk) 07:51, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Erm, my sources just say it was activated on the 25th of February and don't seem to expand on what that means. Is that going to be a major problem, do you think? Skinny87 (talk) 08:00, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Only to the extent that neither of us know what it means :)))) It's no problem though, I know just the person to ask. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 08:06, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the info Roger. Yes, consistency on Maj. Gen. is fine, and fixing the long windedness would be nice - I think I'm too close to solve that so I'll have to find someone to copyedit the whole article. Anything you can do further for the article would be really appreciated. And yes, my offer for the overfill stuff is still open - although I'm not the most technical of people. Thanks again, Skinny87 (talk) 17:21, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Ta Roger, but please don't let it take up too much of your time compared to more important stuff. Skinny87 (talk) 17:37, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I really can't thank you enough for your help on 11th ABN, I owe you a big one. And thanks for mentioning me as a possible Coordinator, that means a lot. Skinny87 (talk) 10:30, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, happy birthday. Didn't realize you were a Brit! Good luck with the booze cruise though, haven't done one of those in a while. Skinny87 (talk) 11:12, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

General US military terminology question

Could you clarify please what "activated" means precisely in the context of a new formation (in this case, the 11th Airborne Division)? Is it the date the unit had its own headquaters? The day the CO moved into his office? The day the men arrived to start training? Or the day the unit became fully operational? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 08:25, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I've been out of the Army for 28+ years--and it's not an ACW term--but if I recall it's the date on the orders authorizing the unit to start up. It is administrative event, not an indication of readiness. An activated unit could have a lieutenant in 'command' and a flag coming out of storage. Hal Jespersen (talk) 19:59, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Time for a bit of the mother tongue

Hi Rog, I've finished the first pass at my overhaul of Fighter aircraft. Before I do a complete start-to-finish clean-up, I'd appreciate it if you gave it a once-through yourself, if only to ensure that my British accent isn't too damn bloody bad. TIA & cheers! Askari Mark (Talk) 02:28, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

That’s “Wilco, Guv’nor, old bean” to you, old chap! :-) Really, it’s quite difficult to get one’s mind wrapped around a cultural orientation that considers “chips” – fries ruined with vinegar – to be the best thing since warm beer. Thanks and G-day, mate! (Oh, drat! Wrong continent.) Cheerio, Askari Mark (Talk) 18:33, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar, Roger! Ditto for giving the article a run-through – although I have to admit to surprise that you converted it to the Websterian offence to simple, consistant and straightforward spelling of the language. I'll give the article a start-to-finish this coming weekend, but I think it's in good enough condition now for 0.7. Cheers, mate! Askari Mark (Talk) 01:33, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Wanna podcast with us?

Roger, you obviously have nothing going on and I expect you're really bored these days. =) Well, Awadewit and I are organizing a podcast about moving articles along the path of quality from stub to FA. (Perhaps you heard our last project about copyediting?) We'd like you to be part of this project! If you'd like to join us, please sign up at User:Scartol/canvas. Cheers! Scartol • Tok 12:35, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Arras 1917

I've been reading the article, which you seem to have had big a hand in. I thought that it was rather good but I was somewhat surprised to see that the Somme was called a costly failure. I favour the view that it was a costly success. I also note that Lupfer cropped up whom I find a questionable source. I've been looking for operational level analyses of the German army without much success (any suggestions?) but did find Robert Foley's book on Falkenhayn rather helpful as were Falkenhayn's book and Duffy's recent effort. Arras is described in the article as having little influence on the tactical or strategic situation. I am rather curious about this and wonder if your thinking has changed much since the article settled? Keith-264 (talk) 22:11, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I'm glad people actually read this stuff :)

The Somme is probably always going to be controversial. While we now know that the attritional effect of the Somme and Verdun effectively crippled the professional army of Imperial Germany, that wasn't known at the time. It was seen as a big push that would win the war, which failed. Obviously, lessons needed to be learned and Arras was the result of those. We concentrate on these in the article rather than an analysis of the Somme.

Lupfer is a reliable source as far as Wikipedia is concerned though there's a dearth of information about German operational planning. I don't know the Foley book (I'll get it) but the best source I could find was Cyril Falls, ("If Germany Attacks"). If I were writing Arras today, I'd put much more emphasis on Fritz von Lossberg as he clearly saved the day for the Central Powers. The problem there though is that there is virtually nothing on him in print.

I don't think I'd radically change much of what I wrote about tactical or strategic importance. The new tactics were effective until von Lossberg arrived and the overall gains were nothing like as great as were hoped for.

All the best, --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 04:16, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Often I find the discussion pages more enlightening than the articles [;-). I asked because having had the opportunity over the last five years to look at such matters in detail I have got a bit of a bee in my bonnet about a difference between attrition and manoeuvre. Some authorities these days see them as points on a spectrum but I don't see them as different types of war any more, I see them as different facets of the same thing. I think that the conditions on the Western front meant that a long bloodbath was inevitable and that such things as 'breakthroughs' were impossible. Hence my doubts about judging a battle according to the amount of land gained or the achievement of a 'breakthrough'. Terry Copp compared 'win-lose' and 'cost-benefit' paradigms in regard of Normandy and suggested that German 'success' in stifling Allied attacks had costs which the German army couldn't bear for long. I thought that this was a microcosm of WWI after mid-1916. For as long as the Entente populations supported the war, 'indecisive' battles on the Western Front undermined the fighting power of the German army faster than that of its enemies. I think that the withdrawal of the German army from the Somme in early 1917 really was a consequence of defeat. Although there is a sense of exceptionalism about WWI I have come round to John Terraine's claim that the ACW, WWI and WWII were industrial wars which were characterised but an extraordinary recuperative power in the face of unprecedented military destructiveness. Looked at like this, paltry gains of ground like at the Somme and Arras had strategic significance.

I think you'll get a lot of food for though in Foley's book, which despite being history and written by a known American(!) has a fine prose style and synthesises much work from German archives. Apparently the 'loss' of Inperial records at Potsdam was far less than thought. Much of the material was duplicated for the non-Prussian contingents in archives at places like Munich. Much of the dearth of German operational narratives and analyses seem to stem from post-war needs to pass the buck, particularly on the unwinnability of the war. There's a good account of this in a book by Annika Mombauer (Origins of the FWW), sadly devoid of Foley's literary fluency. These led me to Falkenhayn's book which though understandably partisan puts the German need to manage scarcity against the need to force an end to the war by expending resources in terms which I think can't be gainsaid. Ta for reading. Keith-264 (talk) 10:41, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

'Personal' info on military pages

I noticed an addition to the 9th New Jersey Volunteer Infantry page today about a member of that regiment (Ethelbert Hubbs) that seemed a little out of place. While I think it is great that his story has been added to the article I'm wondering if there is a standard or guideline about placement? It seems this 'personal' story should be in a separate section on the page (below the story about the regiment and its history?), but that just might be how I think rather than how the group has decided to go. (Marksdaly (talk) 22:16, 25 October 2008 (UTC))

It does seem out of place, doesn't it. The best thing is probably to be bold and change the article, leaving a note explaining what you've done on the article's talk page. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 04:20, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I can be bold, but this is the first time I've updated a military page in a while. Sometimes, just sometimes, it is better to ask a simple question before swinging the bat at what might be a bees nest (been there, done that). Made the change and the personal story seems to fit now. Marksdaly (talk) 14:39, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: Couple of things

I took another look at the transclusion problem, and I still have no idea regarding what's happening there.

As far as ranks go: would we get more benefit from adding a MoS section on ranks specifically, or a more general section on abbreviations (and the accessibility thereof to the general reader), possibly with ranks being one of the examples? The ACW debate seems to center more around the latter issue; I don't think anyone is really arguing over what the ranks themselves were.

(Of course, there is also the question of foreign ranks; but that may be better dealt with in a section on the use of foreign terms generally.) Kirill ^(prof) 14:33, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Barnstar of Peace
		Roger, this is in recognition of your excellent work resolving conflicts relating to the names of battles on the Eastern Front of World War II. Nick Dowling (talk) 22:53, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Howdy

Howdy Roger, can I ask you for a favor, can you do a thorough copyedit on the article Uniforms of the Confederate States military forces. If you can thank you so much, and if you cannot can you please lead me to someone who can.(I am trying to get this article to Good Article Status) Thanks so much and have a great day!--Duke R. Oliver I ^{His Duchy} 20:46, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Nice work so far but a copyedit at this stage is probably premature as the article is far short of GA standard. While it's copiously illustrated, the text needs expanding significantly. There is no shortage of specialist material on the subject:

• Jensen, Leslie. Johnny Reb: The Uniform of the Confederate Army, 1861-1865. Greenhill Books. ISBN 978-1853672514
• Smith, Robin & Field, Ron. Uniforms of the Civil War: An Illustrated Guide for Historians, Collectors, and Reenactors. The Lyons Press. ISBN 978-1592285259
• Troiani, Don. Don Troiani's Regiments and Uniforms of the Civil War. Stackpole Books. ISBN 978-0811705202
• Field, Ron. American Civil War Confederate Army: Confederate Army (Brassey's History of Uniforms). Potomac Books. ISBN 978-1857532180
• University of Georgia - Uniform styles and illustrations
• The original text of the Confederate uniform regulations New York Times (1861).

Additionally, Osprey Publishing have whole series devoted to Civil War regiments and their uniforms.

All the best, --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 07:31, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the advice and info. Have a great Day! --Duke R. Oliver I ^{His Duchy} 12:27, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Main Page redesign

The Main Page Redesign proposal is currently conducting a straw poll to select five new designs, before an RFC in which one will be proposed to replace the Main Page. The poll closes on October 31st. Your input would be hugely appreciated! Many thanks, Pretzels^Talk! 10:15, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Battle of Arras (1917)

Since you are listed on the {{maintained}} for this article, I thought it might be best to inform you of this discussion: Wikipedia_talk:Today's_featured_article/requests#November_11.2C_MilHist which proposes that the article could run as the TFA on 11 November. -MBK₀₀₄ 22:38, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

Wow, you're really giving the 11th ABN a really thorough copy-edit Roger. I can't thank you enough, but hopefully this'll help:

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		To Roger, for all his tireless contributuons and help on 11th Airborne Division (United States) Skinny87 (talk) 10:56, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear. I completely rewrote that section as well, after someone complained about it in the last FAC. What seems to be the main problem with it? Skinny87 (talk) 11:48, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I've have a look at it tonight when I get home from uni. What kind of link do you mean? Skinny87 (talk) 11:56, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll have a look, but I'm not sure? Did I write that in the article? Skinny87 (talk) 12:02, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Well, as I know that was the case (especially for the Americans) so I'll try and find quote and add it in somewhere at the beginning of the section. Skinny87 (talk) 12:08, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Well yes there would be info on that, a fair bit of it I think. Should I try and rewrite the Knollwood section again with that info and the info on Allied airborne development? Skinny87 (talk) 13:11, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

While we're on the subject of barnstars, it might be appropriate to award the very first one of those shiny new ACW task force barnstars (when complete) to the user who spent so much time helping to render its final design, Grayghost01. BusterD (talk) 16:20, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I endorse this as well.--Gen. Bedford ^{his Forest} 16:50, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Roger, thanks so much for the help. I did what we discussed and expanded the 'Formation' section, and all that needs doing is the extra references I added. If you could look it over when you have time and tell me if you think it's ready? Cheers, Skinny87 (talk) 11:56, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I am so sorry

I have to leave for a while. I do not know when I will be back. I am so sarry to ahve to do this Roger, but the losses...I just can not take the losses anymore. I need a long rest, so I must leave for now. Since I volenteered to help as a coordinator I serve notice that you may reassign my spot to some one else if you need to. My guilt over this is emense, I have let you and the milhist project down, but if you could find it in your heart to forgive me for leaving the coordinators when you need us the most I would be in your debt. I shall return, but I do not know when. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:59, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Done.

Done, closed and archived. Incidentally, "The Bugle" came out on top, so you get one of these.

		What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar
		For coming up with the new name for the Military History Project Monthly Newsletter, which shall hereby be known as The Bugle, I am pleased to award you this barnstar. Cam (Chat) 07:08, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Jon already handed out the writers barnstar, and I've given theed the wikichevrons. Now I'm hitting the sack. G'night. Cam ^(Chat) 07:08, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Re your question

The new year should be OK - I think the FA-Team project only runs until Christmas anyway, Sweeney Todd will have had its FAC by then, and the on/off GA working group reform proposals I seem to have ended up facilitating and just yesterday starting resurrecting will be done with... one way or another :P If you think I can be useful, I'd be happy to help out then. Lol, food processors are important too! EyeSerene^talk 13:21, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Addendum: Perhaps I should add that, if Tom's back by then and ready to step back into his coordinator shoes, I have no problem with the position being filled ;) EyeSerene^talk 13:36, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment

Thanks for your compliment about Protection of Military Remains Act 1986 on 13 Sept on my talk page. I've been off line for a while becuase my husband has been ill, so I've only just seen it. The Falklands bit took a bit of tracking down! Viv Hamilton (talk) 22:42, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

11th ABN

Hey Roger. I guess you're sick to death of this, but I'm thinking of finally taking it to FAC in a day or so. Do you think it's finally ready? Skinny87 (talk) 14:44, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Cheers Roger, and thanks for all the help you've given me. I'll take it over from here, ask EyeSerene to give it a look over. Skinny87 (talk) 09:46, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Shrine of Remembrance

I was reading this and noticed that a WW1 article I know of (Shrine of Remembrance) is not in Category:FA-Class World War I articles. Should it be? I was going to ask Tom, but given what has happened I thought it best to ask elsewhere and leave him in peace for the time being. Carcharoth (talk) 05:52, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Sandy fixed this. I could have done that myself, as she said. :-/ Carcharoth (talk) 06:36, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Good ole Sandy :) I was just looking at it. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 06:44, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, Carcharoth has popped my watchlist about two dozen times tonight just when I'm trying to figure out why that blooming ad banner came back and I can't get rid of it ... grrrrr ... not happy with that banner ... the gadgets button is gone and the monobook.css code isn't working, and I've got Carcharoth setting off my watchlist while that blipping red banner is asking me to give more blood to Wiki :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:46, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Sandy! Yeah, that bloody red banner is coming and going here too :) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 06:55, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Request for clarification

I noticed in your 'What's expected' guide that you gave the caveat that coordinators who also happen to be admins do not become involved in admin duties. Obviously the usual rules about abusing the tools would apply, but are coordinator/admins no longer seen as sufficiently neutral or uninvolved to make appropriate judgments on any MilHist-related article? I'm not sure I'm entirely comfortable with it, if that's the case (and I'm already involved as an admin in some fairly contentious MilHist-related areas). Apologies if I've misunderstood... EyeSerene^talk 09:48, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Roger, that does help. I fully appreciate the need to separate the roles of coordinator and admin, but since in entrusting the tools the community has the expectation that admins are capable of exercising judgement about when to employ then, I did wonder if the notice was being over-cautious, or if there was some unwritten tradition in MilHist that coordinators are not expected to put on their admin hats while in the role. Just to reassure you that I've no intention of blocking half the membership, but via ANI I seem to have become involved in helping to police the WP:ARBMAC decision, and as you can imagine this impinges on many areas round the project, including MilHist. It might be best if I stay away as much as possible from Balkans-related areas of MilHist in the light of that, although it may be difficult given the scope. I've got a while to think about it though, so no big deal yet, and if you've got any thoughts I'd be pleased to hear them ;) EyeSerene^talk 12:37, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

That sounds like the best way to go... and I agree that polarisation is undesirable if it goes too far; it's only a short step from there to groups set up to ensure articles have the 'right' political or nationalist spin. I suppose it relates to my earlier question too - under some of the arbcom decisions I've seen, the proverbial 'uninvolved admin' has incredibly wide-ranging discretionary powers, which in my view makes it all the more important that these are exercised thoughtfully and with due care, transparency, and process. I'm not really sure where I'm going with this, other than that I've started pontificating, which is usually a good sign I should go and find something productive to do... One thing I did mean to mention earlier but forgot - I noticed your comment to Cam re adminship, and if you're intending to nominate him at some point in the future, I'd be very grateful if you could let me know; I'd be delighted to provide a co-nom. EyeSerene^talk 20:14, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Grayghost01?

Hey Roger. Guess what - I'm not here about the 11th Airborne Division! Anyway, looking up Grayghost01 to see if he was still trying to change all of our military ranks, I stumbled upon this, which concerns me a bit. Combined with his comments on military ranks and the ACW taskforce talkpage, Grayghost seems to have a considerable chip on his shoulder. Is this something to be concerned about? I mean, it won't really affect me as I don't edit in that area, but for you and others I'm concerned. That page and his comments don't make him seem to be most flexible editor in the world, especially about the CSA. Just wondering what you thought, Skinny87 (talk) 18:18, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I've been working on a draft but my weekend has been disrupted by intensive partying. I'll post something today or tomorrow on the main Milhist talk page. It will be not be specific to any particular period or region. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 07:47, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Cheers Roger, that sounds like a great idea. Party on! Skinny87 (talk) 08:07, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Romeo and Juliet

Didn't know if you were aware of this FAC. Please take a look, since you helped write Hamlet. I'm about to lose my mind. I really can't stand high-profile FACs. Wrad (talk) 00:09, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I share your pain. To be honest, Smatprt is one of the reasons why I drifted away from the article.--ROGER DAVIES ^talk 07:50, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Milhist newsletter

Hi Roger. I just wanted to inquire, is it just me or did the October edition of the Milhist newsletter not come out? I just havn't recieved it yet, and was just a little puzzled/curious, lol. Hope all is well on your end, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 10:11, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

It's with CBrown1023 awaiting despatch. The problem is he's busy with fundraising so it might be a day or two. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 13:14, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah, okay. Sorry for being a bit of a nag. Thanks mate, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 02:56, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Great Train Raid of 1861

It seems like this RFC has gotten off to a slow start. It seems like the next step in the Dispute Resolution process would be Informal Mediation. Did you just volunteer to serve in that role?

This was also posted on the article's discussion page. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 19:11, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

In theory, yes, though I might not be seen as impartial by other editors. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 12:12, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I have composed a summary of my feelings on this matter on the article's discussion page in the section you originated. If you or someone else wants to start mediating this might be the place to start. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 20:47, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

It is time, in my opinion, to start eliminating non-encyclopedic material from the article. Please see Talk:Great Train Raid of 1861#Search for Consensus -- Elimination of Section “ List of historians believing the locomotive raid true”. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 12:04, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Useful RS links

Have you seen Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Logistics#Current reference sources? It really is fantastic work, though there isn't a way to go to articles and remove some of the "bad" links. I think it highlights some of the regular gripes at ACR/FAC about reliable sourcing particularly well. As with the IP who made it, I am not sure where it should go or where it should be linked to / from. Any ideas? Hope all is well. Best regards. Woody (talk) 20:54, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree it's good work BUT, as you say, it has a number of problems. Without linking to the articles it is sourced from, it cannot be easily expanded. Without linking to task forces/subjects referenced, it is just a indiscriminate collection of links. So it is really just raw data that will take considerable work to get into a useful form. Perhaps the best home would be a logistics sub-page, probably hatnoted from sources, called something like "popular Milhist external links". What you do think? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 12:19, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, as a simple measure of the state of play, it is good. As an editorial tool, not so much. I don't know where to put it really, a sub-page is a good idea. Perhaps /Logistics/Sourcing overview or /Sources situation.? As an aside, I think I will stay out of the ACR discussion for the time being, my opinion on the matter has been made clear I feel. Regards. Woody (talk) 21:26, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Shakespeare notice

There is currently a discussion going on regarding the project's policy on how information on characters should be represented in articles on Shakespeare's plays. Please take part by clicking Talk:Romeo and Juliet#Character Analysis. Further context, if needed, can be found by scanning the two previous talk sections on the page as well. Sent by §hepBot (Disable) at 04:20, 11 November 2008 (UTC) per request of Wrad (talk)

Remnants of Mrg

What do you reckon we should do about this one - Front mobile group? Buckshot06(prof) 11:35, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Your guess is as good as mine :) The term is commonly used for Soviet operations (as Google reveals) though the article seems to have gold-plated it a bit. Recent experience shows that article such as these don't attract consensus to delete at AfD. Best is probably to quietly ignore it? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 05:53, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

It is what it is, so there's no problem with leaving it as is. He has always done okay describing Soviet military terminology. It could actually become much more than a stub if someone knowledgeable wanted to work on it. Askari Mark (Talk) 03:00, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

The Black Book list with Eric Blair?

I have a copy of the list, and I didn't see the name Eric Blair or George Orwell. Does the author of the article know something I don't? My copy has what looks like the original list in it, and I don't see his name.Openskye (talk) 01:53, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Best is to add a {{fact}} tag after Blair's name on The Black Book article. This asks for an inline citation to be added to verify the source of the information. Taking this a step further, I see that none of the names have inline citations so this could be part of a larger clean up. Perhaps, if you have the main source, and some available time, you might like to take this on as a little project? It's only a matter of adding <ref>[source name], p. xx</ref> after each of the names on the list. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 05:21, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I made a change, showing that George Bernard Shaw is not on the list, and I cited the page in my copy of the book. When I have a chance, I shall make citations for the other names. Openskye (talk) 02:00, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I have now removed Eric Blair and John Buchan, and made the citations needed to show where in the book, or my copy of it, that the person's name is. I also transposed the names of Paul Robeson and Bertrand Russell, to reflect their positions on the list.Openskye (talk) 22:32, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Nominating Jagdgeschwader 1 (World War II) for GA Review

Hi !

Just letting you know that I am nominating the article for a GA Review. I have requested Dapi89 to spare the time for the review. Thanks for all the help you can offer. Perseus71 (talk) 18:33, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the appreciation. I do understand that you have other engagements. It was simply an FYI, that I am taking to GA. Perseus71 (talk) 19:54, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Re task force adoption

What would you like me to do about your list? I can sign up to a few now, bearing in mind that I probably won't be very active for a while, or I could perhaps take a selection on in the new year from the other coordinators. I'm easy either way ;) EyeSerene^talk 20:12, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Entirely up to you though you might up end with a very mixed bag in the New Year :) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 20:41, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Test run with AWB

Hi - I decided to test AWB and project tagging on Category:French Navy officers. Out of about 170 articles in that category, 56 of them did not have the milhist tag. Since the category would seem to require |Maritime=yes |French=yes |Biography=yes and the B-class checklist. I laid those task forces down along with |auto=yes. |Class= was left blank because I'm only seeing the talk page. I saw about 80 articles in "needing class rating" but if you could have a look at them and spot any errors in my tagging I would appreciate it. This might be something I can do when I'm bored but not often enough to overwhelm people with articles to assess for class. --Brad (talk) 05:11, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I made a run through Category:Army Medal of Honor recipients and found about 300 articles this time around. The |auto=yes option doesn't seem to be working and I'll find out why before doing any further scans. If you're interested you can go to Brad101AWB (talk · contribs) and see what I'm up to. Perhaps the best thing to do would be putting in a request there for categories you think need scanning. I'll work on them eventually. --Brad (talk) 21:35, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Awadewit on Flickr!

Ok, my India pictures are slowly going up on Flickr, but as I do not want to share all of them with the world, I have restricted their access to "family and friends". Do you have a Flickr account that I could share them with? Awadewit (talk) 02:49, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar!

Thanks for the barnstar! That was unexpected (and also appreciated a lot).

Chamal ^talk has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Chamal ^talk 14:32, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Reference Problems

Hey Roger. Sorry to bother you, but as I've been working on Tetrarch (tank), someone has combined some of my refs together. Very kind of them, but it wasn't until I looked closer that I noticed they've put about twenty of them together, many different pages, under an odd reference of between pages 9 and 14, ie instead of combining all the Page 10s and Page 14s, they've combined all the references between pages 9 and 14 into one combined ref. I've left the user a message, but I think they're kinda new; and to be honest I've no idea how to I could undo the refs myself. Can you help, or point me in the right direction of how to get my citations back? I can't remember what page belongs to which citation! Skinny87 (talk) 18:03, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Roger. Thanks for the quick response, but I've fixed all of the references by comparing revisions. Sorry to bother you again! Skinny87 (talk) 18:21, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Re. Welcome

Thank you. :)

I'm somewhat confused, though, is this WikiProject focused on military tactics (i.e. type of weaponry used, science behind guns/gunpowder, etc.), or is it more to do with territorial expansion and warfare in general? Master&Expert (Talk) 22:29, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Re:Some help

I'd be glad to accept your help. ṜedMarkViolinist^{Drop me a line} 18:08, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Sure. What's first task for bringing it up to A class? ṜedMarkViolinist^{Drop me a line} 18:47, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I put in many more references, but there is still the issue with the U.S war dept. refs. Do you have any ideas? ṜedMarkViolinist^{Drop me a line} 16:52, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Always there when needed, thanks :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:46, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

T-54/55 supporting materials

Hi. Thanks for assessing T-54/55. What supporting materials are needed (checkpoint 5)? —Michael Z. 2008-11-18 15:53 z

Whoops, done in haste, that should have been B4 (prose) not B5. Fixed on article talk page. In fact, I thought it was rather well illustrated :) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 05:38, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah, thank you. I should have realized. Cheers. —Michael Z. 2008-11-19 06:06 z

It's very generous of you to say that :) Thanks, --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 06:11, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Battle of Marion A-class

Check the talk page. I've made a short list from suggestions of other users. Tell me if you have anything else. In the meantime, I'll get to work on it. ṜedMarkViolinist^{Drop me a line} 21:34, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

The biggest article gap is missing context. What else was happening at this point of the war? Otherwise, the Original Records page numbers don't correspond to your refs and need checking. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 05:47, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Finished everything on the checklist. How do you suggest putting the missing context into the article? I'll get to work on the official records. ṜedMarkViolinist^{Drop me a line} 17:38, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Add a paragraph or two at the beginning of the "Background" section, providing a thumbnail sketch of the state of the war at that time? (I did something similar in Operation Camargue#Background.) Shelby Foote's The Civil War: A Narrative (Vol. 3) Red River to Appomattox, available in any States-side library I guess, sets the scene well. If you get really, really stuck, I'll write it but I'd much rather you did :) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 05:42, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

The Plourde Amendment

I am aware of the result of the discussion I initiated in September. Thanks for the catchy name. It adds colour to my resume. lol Geoff Plourde (talk) 03:44, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

:)) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 05:36, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Reception history of Jane Austen

We could use a BE specialist. Don't want there to be any ghastly mistakes at FAC. Could cause great offense you know. The "or" heard around the world. :) Awadewit (talk) 03:45, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

No, no, that would be absolutely awful and one would simply die of shame, don't you know. I only found one: humourist > humorist :) Good stuff! --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 05:34, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! (Btw, I think we're all glad the curtain has come down on R&J.) Awadewit (talk) 00:10, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. It's a pity it took so long and was so painful. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 05:21, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Newsletter stuff

How does this sound?

"Following a lengthy lengthy discussion, a new task group - personal libraries - has been added to the Logistics Department. It will focus on making citation checking and sourcing easier by sharing information from various users about the books resources they possess."

Tweak as necessary if you wish. Cam ^(Chat) 00:42, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Good idea to add that. How about tweaking it it thus (as it's not really a task group)?

"Following a lengthy lengthy discussion, a new section - Personal libraries - has been added to the Logistics Department. The aim is to make sourcing and citation checking easier by sharing information about editors' personal book holdings."

If you hate it, just tweak! --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 05:34, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. I did spend quite a bit of time trying to figure out the exact term for it, and wasn't exactly pleased with TG anyways ;) Cam ^(Chat) 07:12, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Flight 19

There's something at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Flight 19/Archive2 as well: I think Moni got tangled up in upper and lower case ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:01, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I was just looking at that. I think we now only have /archive1 and /archive2. The links seems to all work okay. The problem was Moni creating /Archive2/archive1 and /Archive2/archive2 but that's now sorted and they've now been deleted. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 19:04, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I think the gentleman has been given entirely too much rope

IMHO. I've been completely uninvolved with page edits, and my edits to the talk page have stuck pretty much to behaviors (not content, with which I've been pursuing some research of my own, Robertson is unimpeachable in this arena, and even he doesn't say he knows 100%), so if you want me to take lead on DR process, it's probably my turn... We're talking about an entire pattern of behavior, not one page's content. BusterD (talk) 14:36, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem at all with any policy-based solution :) Good luck! --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 18:20, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

It turns out that Grayghost01 is responsive to sensible critique, has userfied his version, and will refrain from editing the page in question until he has some time to present a stronger position. After this settles, I intend to raise the issue of the general pattern. I hope he's willing to listen at that time. As I told User:Gwen Gale, I wish we had twenty more like him. We might get more hostile, but imagine the pagespace evolution we'd also get. BusterD (talk) 00:08, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I hope the dust settles on this soon too. And once the Ghost gets his head round the Wikipedia rules of engagement I'm sure he'll make a fine collaborative editor. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 05:23, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Fighter aircraft & WP 0.7

I haven't heard anything about WP 0.7 lately, so I don't know where it stands. I'm going to suggest using this verion of the Fighter aircraft article for it. It's been experiencing the usual trials and tribulations since that point, and is preparing to undergo a new stage of restructuring (clean up, image clean up, reference additions, etc.). I think the F-16 Fighting Falcon article is still in pretty good shape. Please let whoever on the WP 0.7 team who needs to know this be so advised. (BTW, I'll be gone on a Thanksgiving wikibreak, and won't be back on WP until later on the first week of December. Man, year's end is coming on with afterburners lit! :o Cheers, mate! Askari Mark (Talk) 22:01, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help on all this :) I've updated the "versions" link for Fighter aircraft per your request. Enjoy Thanksgiving and, yes, the holidays will soon be upon us at supersonic speed :) All the best, and thanks again, --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 05:19, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Howdy I

Howdy, I am not sure if you can, but I wanted to ask you if I could see a copy of the article Samuel S. Lewis (Texas) that was deleted? I wanted to remake the Article and need a starting point. It is okay if you can't but could you check for me. Thanks and Have a Great Day! Duke R. Oliver I ^{His Duchy} 02:10, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I've created User:Lordoliver/SSL and copied the text there. Please do not move into main space until all the deletion concerns have been addressed. Good luck and happy editing, --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 05:27, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Note to Oliver: MOVE once ready; don't just do a copy/paste job. It would be better that way.--Gen. Bedford ^{his Forest} 06:39, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks SO MUCH! Duke R. Oliver I ^{His Duchy} 18:44, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Regarding KF

Hello, could you please copy edit Kaunas Fortress article and improve style of it as asked per this FAC. I would be very grateful, M.K. (talk) 11:25, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd love too but will probably not be able to start until mid-December. If this is too long for you to wait, I can suggest names of copy-editors who may be able to start earlier. Thanks for thinking for me, --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 15:52, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Hey, no problem; I can wait until you have more time. M.K. (talk) 23:23, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Terraine hugging

Noting your claim to almost everything by him, I'm hoping you can help. I've read The Right of the Line, but can't lay my hands on a copy except by interlibrary loan, which could take til the Sun burns electric blue. If you've got it, can you look at this & this & see if I've overstated it? And if you can page cite the quote, that'd be great, too. Also, any support of the claims (in particular the "strategic blindness") would be a big help. I've got a start on fixing the stubbiness, but until the merge or duplication here gets resolved, I think I'll wait, rather than risk screwing something up. Thanks. TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 12:25, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

The good news is I definitely have this. The bad news is until I organise my books and move them to my shiny new bookshelves, many of them are either in boxes or double-stacked. I need to find something else so I'll kill both birds with one stone. I'll get back to you, hopefully in a day or two :) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 16:00, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I now have this before me. The book generally supports the content in Mid-Atlantic gap much better than in Air Gap (Battle of the Atlantic) but it would be stretching it to attribute page numbers to statements. That said, I've only used the index to check stuff and a systemic read of all 850 pages (which I don't have time for just now) might yield better results. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 06:21, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I won't ask that, beyond a quick glance at the last page or two. He says to the effect "the war was irrelevant to Bomber Command", & IIRC, it's the last line (or close to it); can you put a page on it?

Also, in re the missions against the sub pens, I've got a mission count of 7000 & 266 bombers lost. Does that tally? And do I recall correctly the loss of 266 (presuming it's correct) is above the #VLRs? IIRC, Terraine says the numbers of aircraft lost exceeded the number of LR/VLRs given Coastal Command.

And finally, do I have it right the bombing of the U-boat yards accomplished next to nothing?

Since there's still some "hangfire" over moving this to mainspace, you can still find it here. I'm hoping all three of these are indexed & EZ to find... If not, pass. As to when, if it's less than, oh, three months from now, you'll probably still beat how long it would take an interlibrary loan to get in... Any free moment you can spare, whenever it happens to be. Thanks. TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 07:03, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid the penultimate page of the narrative suggests the opposite: "There was hardly a day when some – usually part – part of this great force was not actively promoting the victory which it is impossible to see as being feasible without it". <ref> [[John Terraine|Terraine, John]] (1985). ''The Right of the Line''. London: Wordsworth (1997 ed.) ISBN 9781853266836 p. 685.</ref>.

Terraine refers to "devastating raids" on the sub-pens at Hamburg in Jul/Aug 1944 but goes on to say that the Germans were "artists at ferro-concrete", suggesting that the Biscay pens were effectively indestructible and that Bomber Command shifted its North Sea targets from the pens themselves to the canals linking them, to the sea.He concludes that the "end arrived none too soon in the maritime war". All from pp 454-455.

Probably best if I get this out of the way, then look at Terraine more closely. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 07:47, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

*sigh* I know it's in there somewhere. I'll just have to read it again... Not that it'll be a hardship, just...I wanted to get this nailed down before it gets moved to where everybody can see it. (Of course, seeing how slowly that's going... ;D) Thanks for the help.

Oh, FYI, the sub pens were something like 6m thick reinforced concrete. IIRC, it took a Tallboy to put a dent in them. Bomber Command managed to blow the crap out of the towns around them without achieving anything of note. The same number of aircraft lost, if applied to ASW patrol, would've put a stop to U-boat sinkings before 1942 was over.... (Just be glad Hitler prohibited Ju-88 raids on BC/CC bases...& Göring didn't have the wit to press him on it....)

And on 2d thought, it strikes me maybe it was Hastings in Bomber Command. That the local library has (or had, as of a month ago)... Either way, I think rereading Terraine is worth it. TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 08:03 & 08:08, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Have you thought about picking up a secondhand Terraine from Amazon or Abebooks? Reading copies of paperbacks go for very little money and the delivery is usually swift. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 08:15, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, no, because I already have a hardback copy. ;D It, however, is in storage, it could take days to find, & it's already below freezing.... ;p Also, I've got to do some looking to try & boost this to a length DYK will accept it, & I should nail down a couple of other Black Pit fn, which my local will let me do, so...

It occurs to me Google Books might do it, too... (no joy) TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 21:59 & 22:08, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Please input

Your information here. Thank you. --Moni3 (talk) 15:08, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Howdy II

Howdy, sorry Roger, After relooking at the information I can get for the article Samuel S. Lewis (Texas) I just don't think I can remake it, Sorry. Thanks so much on the Help of bringing it out so that I could look at it. Have A Great Day! Duke R. Oliver I ^{His Duchy} 22:17, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I've deleted the text – User:Lordoliver/SSL – from your user space. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 04:33, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom questions

Hi. I'm Ral315, editor of the Wikipedia Signpost. We're interviewing all ArbCom candidates for an article this week, and your response is requested.

1. What positions do you hold (adminship, mediation, etc.), on this or other wikis?

2. Have you been involved in any arbitration cases? In what capacity?

3. Why are you running for the Arbitration Committee?

4. How do you feel the Arbitration Committee has handled cases and other situations over the last year? Can you provide an examples of situations where you feel the Committee handled a situation exceptionally well, and why? Any you feel they handled poorly, and why?

5. What is your opinion on confidentiality? If evidence is submitted privately to the Committee, would you share it with other parties in the case? Would you make a decision based on confidential information without making it public?

6. Why do you think users should vote for you?

Please respond on my talk page. We'll probably go to press on Tuesday, but late responses will be added as they're submitted. Thanks, Ral315 (talk) 22:46, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Question

For months now I've been working on a new version of John Jellicoe, 1st Earl Jellicoe in my userspace here: User:Harlsbottom/John Jellicoe, 1st Earl Jellicoe. I reckon I should finally have it finished it the next couple of weeks, and then would like to transfer it into the mainspace and replace the existing article. User:Leithp suggested a while back when I asked him to look at an early draft that I should place a notice on the Jellicoe article discussion page announcing my intention and after a week or so, hopefully after discussion, replace it. Is this the right way to go about it? Regards, --Harlsbottom (talk | library | book reviews) 15:16, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

That seems like a very good route to me. Good luck! --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 13:02, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

LAF TF

Thank you for your message, and thank you for adding it to the list. Concerning what you asked from me to do:

1. There is a number of contributors however they don't have an account. Anyway, I'm already a member in a forum where we discuss LAF subjects and share photos and information. I will make contact with the members there.
2. As for the scope, I have changed it ccording to your recommendation
3. As for the explanatory scope I have modified it.
4. I tried to edit Template:WPMILHIST to add Lebanese, but that template is not editable..
5. Concerning the tags, i will be tagging all pages that are related once the template is ready, umm tagging is done in the discussions page of the article right?

--Zaher1988 (talk) 12:37, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the swift reply. I've asked about moving the page to "Lebanese military history task force" so we'll soon see what comes of that. In the meantime, good luck with the recruiting drive! A good approach, by the way, is to ask editors who have edited related articles if they're interested in joining by leaving messages on their talk pages. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 13:07, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

So we should a reply from someone first??. Concerning the recruiting, I'm following you that approach you suggested too. --Zaher1988 (talk) 16:42, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Kirill is one of the Milhist coordinators and looks after our templates, TF set up, and so forth. I've asked him to change the name to "Lebanese milihasry history task force" and to integrate the task force fully into our structure. He has put together a changed page [[12]]. It looks good to me. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 18:01, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, I have checked the page, indeed it looks nice, but am I supposed to use that code and update the TF page or he will do all this once the page is moved? --Zaher1988 (talk) 18:16, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad you like it. There's nothing now for you to do on the infrastructure, other than recruit members :) Kirill will take care of all the technical stuff. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 18:16, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Alright, but i will make recruitment contacts when the page is ready and has its final name (after being moved), better not confuse them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zaher1988 (talk • contribs) 18:24, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Indeed but it shouldn't be long now. Kirill is putting it all together at the moment. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 18:46, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, yeah I'm seeing what he is doing:D —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zaher1988 (talk • contribs) 18:48, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Amazing, isn't it? :) (And don't forget to sign --ROGER DAVIES talk 18:52, 27 November 2008 (UTC) your posts :) ) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 18:52, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Ooops i'm sorry i forgot it this time... yeah it is taking form very nice!!..--Zaher1988 (talk) 18:53, 27 November 2008 (UTC) AH! that's new to me.. one goes to you and one to him:D--Zaher1988 (talk) 19:23, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

third watch

hey, you dont know me, but im Lucia. A while ago I had spoken to LegoTech about designing the Third Watch list of episodes as the ER one is, because the episode webpages were getting deleted and I felt that a lot of information was getting lost. Now, it has been a while since I last contacted LegoTech, and I dunno if he's connected to wikiepdia anymore. I have in my Sandbox the 6 seasons in that format. Could you check it out? and see if the system can be implemented? If you can, please answer to me on my discussion page, if not I'll come here anyways. Cya, and thanks for your help. Lucia (talk) 00:53, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I know nothing about this tv show so I'm probably not the best person to offer advice. I did notice though that none of the material is cited to a reliable source and is therefore unverifiable, which may be why it's being deleted. You may be better off raising this on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Television talk page. I hope this helps. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 06:45, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Question about the assessment statistics

Hey! I have a question, when do the assessment statistics start to generate on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Lebanese military history task force ?? I have marked all the pages related with the banner...

Thanks --Zaher1988 (talk) 21:59, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Your candidacy

Hi! I don't think we've ever encountered each other, have we? I've heard a lot of good things about your candidacy. As you know I asked some rather long and intricate questions (intended to be a bit soul searching, and to draw out some possibly controversial views)... I noticed you hadn't answered them yet. I hope you didn't find them too offputting, and I'd like to encourage you to answer them soon. Thanks! ++Lar: t/c 06:09, 30 November 2008

(Refactored from User_talk:Lar per my policy - ++Lar) Thanks for your message :) I'm working through the general questions in strict chronological order: and I'll be responding to yours next. It has been, I must say, the most searching so far :) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 09:03, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I look forward to it, thanks for letting me know. ++Lar: t/c 13:09, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I've just seen the result of your efforts. Interesting idea, I didn't know user guides existed. there's a reason why I declined some of UC's questions, by the way. I've added a comment underneath explaining. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 22:18, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

You and me both. :( Cheers for letting me know. :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:07, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Please note I've posted further questions - if you could answer them well within the next couple of days, that'd be great. Cheers - Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:45, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I ask that you review your answers to my questions (to ensure that all of them have been addressed). 24 hours from now, I will be reviewing each candidate and preparing final votes. This is a courtesy note to make you aware that I will not look at any further answers or modifications once this time has lapsed. I apologise for an inconvenience caused, and hope that you've been adequately notified. Thank you for your time, Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:01, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Newsletter stuff.

scoreboard's updated, awards given out, newsletter blurb written (tweak as necessary)

The Contest department has completed its twentieth month of competition, which saw 78 entries. The top scorer this month is Bellhalla with 143 points, followed by Catalan with 42 points. Georgejdorner, Ian Rose, Abraham, B.S., the_ed17, Skinny87, Rosiestep, ERcheck, David Underdown and Gaia Octavia Agrippa also fielded entries. Bellhalla remains the overall leader with 481 points in total. The Chevrons go to Bellhalla and Catalan gets the Writer's Barnstar. You are encouraged to submit any articles you are working on as entries.

I've also carried over the C-Class discussion notice from last newsletter and added the new name to the top. All the best, Cam ^(Chat) 06:12, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

p.s. I hope things are warmer in Europe than they are here...I'm up to about a foot of solid snow here

glad to hear the weather's good. As for the logo competition, that seems like the only practical method of accomplishing it and not being accused later of "cabalistic tendencies". Thanks for finishing up the newsletter, and best of luck with ArbCom elections (you know that you have my full support;) Cam ^(Chat) 06:43, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

No worries

I have four candidates I am currently "considering" (per this), and my support for one of the candidates I've cast my vote for is wavering. I'm evaluating the answers to my question as they come in, but I can say that I'm not even considering opposing you. At worst, I will abstain, if I choose to support a candidate whose answers I like and that are offered before yours. At best, I will support. I hope your cold passes quickly, and as painlessly as possible. ^S._D.D.J.Jameson 18:26, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

The Bugle

Do you want to add anything to The Bugle before it gets sent out. I know you are a bit preoccupied at the moment, but I think we need to get it out soon. Also, you may want to take a look at USS Liberty incident PR which was formed from this thread at WP:AN: it could be a test case for those arbcom skills! ;)) Good luck with the Arbcom election, best regards. Woody (talk) 22:14, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Arbcom and openness

It's possible that I might have misunderstood your views on confidentiality as the summary page I read seems to have got quite a few details badly wrong. I realise now that you don't approve of people not being told of the accusations against them, however I'm not sure what you think about evidence. My own view is that if evidence cannot be disclosed to the person it is being used against, then the evidence must not be used at all. Would you agree with this? Cynical (talk) 06:35, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Entirely agree. I've just edited this to read:

Secret evidence: As a basic non-negotiable principle, everyone must (i) know precisely what they're accused of and (ii) be able to make an informed response to the accusations. As secret evidence conflicts with this basic principle, because you cannot make an informed response to something you haven't seen, it should be excluded. Processes that dispense with basic principles of fairness will inevitably attract criticism and, rightly so, because a flawed process will usually produce a flawed result. ArbCom must not only be fair but must be seen to be fair.

--ROGER DAVIES ^talk 06:54, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Perfect! Cynical (talk) 07:18, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

BLP issues

I just noticed this. I'm not (yet) intending to vote in these elections, but can I just say that I wholeheartedly endorse what you have written there, and I fully intend to link to it where and when I can. See here for what I wrote (I had intended to do thematic summaries like you are doing, but may not find the time). In particular, see here and here for what I wrote recently on the BLP policy talk page. Unfortunately, there was not much response to what I wrote there (the archive bots are to blame there), but I do hope that after these elections things keep moving forward on all of this. As you can see, various processes of varying utility and efficiency have been tried in the past. The big problem, in my view, is getting people involved and keeping things moving forward. I think we should all, as a community, get far more involved in this, and that this should be a "cross-party" issue, if you like, that all candidates should be able to agree on. I had the idea, before the elections, that candidates should be able to sign up to "platforms", sets of issues that they felt most urgently needed to be addressed, and it may yet be possible to do that for the BLP issue, which should, in my view, transcend ordinary "politics". Carcharoth (talk) 07:38, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Roger, the first half of your post applies directly and equally to medical articles, considering the effect they can have on real lives. Similar proposals to the existing BLP and your new ideas are needed for medical articles. I once queried Jimbo on his talk page about why we don't have an equivalent policy, as strong as BLP, on medical articles because of the real life impact those articles can have. He didn't answer. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:46, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

we're not the main or best source of information for medicine, and for anything of clinical significance there is always a prominent authoritative source to which we can refer. (MedlinePlus, for example). For BLP, we are on our own. Any topic can harm people, and I am much more concerned about our inaccurate & incomplete legal information, in much worse shape than in medicine. As for BLP, though, I disagree with you both as strongly as one possibly could, but that's for another time. DGG (talk) 19:04, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello, it's me (again)

Just wondering if you might have a gander at a merge of this to this. It's been hanging fire for a few days, & I just wondered if there's issues needing attention, or if it's just everybody's busy. (I'm not going near it, i'd just bungle it. ;D) Seeing you've been patient with me over Terraine, I thought I'd try you. I did post to Milhist & Aviation talk, no joy. I'm not in a particular rush...just a bit curious. And curious if there's a "typical" time delay. Thanks. TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 06:59, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi! Sorry about the delay getting back to you, I've been off-wiki for a few days.

I can't see any reason why you can't just now go ahead with the merges/redirects. All seems sensible :) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 10:19, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

No worries the delay. (Welcome back, BTW. ;D) I'm not really qualified to merge (I'd bugger it, I'm sure =]), so if you wouldn't mind? Thanx. TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 10:21, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Not expand BLP?

I'm sorry, I really need a clarification now? You stated you don't favor expanding BLP? It looks to me like you favor expanding the BLP policy tremendously, and deleting thousands of articles in the process for no reason other than that they are a BLP! You phrase this as "raising the bar for notability and raising the bar for verifiability" in the area of BLPs, but if you're claiming that doesn't make it a BLP expansion, that would be semantic nitpicking of the worst type. You then have several lists of stricter BLP requirements. Can you please clarify what you meant by that? I cannot see that essay as anything but a tremendous expansion of BLP. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:17, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

And this is the basic problem I have - I did read the side convo at Seraphimblade's talk page - and it didn't allay my concern. However, I think I'll echo DGG and say that it's an issue for another time. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 09:32, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Coming back to clarify - a full discussion of the concerns would probably take significant time, which I'm not likely to have on Wikipedia until after the ArbCom election (exams) - at which time my concern with your candidacy will be rendered moot due to either your election or your non-election. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 09:38, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your response - I will not be changing my vote because of the outstanding issue - though I struck the "Strong" part of the oppose. This isn't to say that I think you'll make a bad ArbCom member, but I've opposed or supported where I lean a certain way, restricting my "neutrals" to cases where I'm radically uncertain about a candidate. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 10:08, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Your note

Hi Roger,

It was nice of you to take time to explain, and I'm sorry to hear you were ill. I take on board that your answers might have been different otherwise.

Here are my concerns. For the last couple of years, we've elected people who promised reform but were short on detail; and who in some cases had almost zero experience of WP dispute resolution and little knowledge of wiki-politics. The result has arguably been the least effective ArbCom in the history of the project. That's why people from all corners of the community, including people who normally agree about nothing, are asking for change.

My fear is that your answers indicate a lack of knowledge about the project's sensitive spots, and this would mean you'd find it difficult to see when you were being manipulated. Bear in mind that certain forces are going to be ranged against you if you go for genuine reform, and they'll come at you in ways not always easy to spot or resist. You'd have to be very familiar with the issues and the personalities to be able to deal with it, in my view.

I feel you have almost everything we need — you're intelligent, professional, mature, you're a great writer (badly needed for writing coherent decisions), and you know how to stand up for yourself. What you lack is experience, which means I can't tell whether you'd be able and willing to resist some of the pressures you'd be placed under, because I've never seen you in a position where you've had to do it.

It looks as though you'll get on anyway, but if you don't, I'd be happy to support you next year if you spend some time getting to know the tiresome side of the project. Thank you again for explaining yourself so nicely (even though my vote will almost certainly make no difference), which in itself is a breath of fresh air. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 06:43, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, Roger, thank you. If you're used to dealing with giant egos trying to manipulate you, then sadly you have the ideal background. There's certainly a bit of a contradiction between wanting change while insisting that candidates be immersed in the politics, because change usually needs a fresh pair of eyes. So I wish you the best of luck, and trust that you'll use it for the good. :-) SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 10:23, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Well wishes

Roger, I saw that you had been ill lately, and wanted to extend my wishes for a speedy recovery. I share the concerns that Slim expresses above about what the new members will be facing with the current composition of ArbCom, but having worked with and around you in the past, I believe you've demonstrated something that isn't necessarily shown in other editors who may appear to be more experienced because of their involvement Wiki's dispute resolution fora. What will be needed to set this ship on course is a strong moral and ethical compass, and I know you own one of those. As I said about Cas, I hope you don't go screaming from the building after you take a look around and see what you're dealing with; it may be hard at first, but I have no doubt that you know right from wrong and will do well. I hope you're feeling better soon, best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:49, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much indeed both for your kind wishes and your support during the election. I've taken the last few days off to try to get completely rid of the infection (and to get me fighting fit for the upcoming over-indulgence holidays). I hope all is well with you. Best wishes, --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 10:23, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Your age

I was under the impression you were 21 - didn't you say that in your answers to general questions? - Gregg (talk) 09:55, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake. I went through the statements and answers a few days ago and made some notes to consider, and I wrote your age down as 21 rather than (lots) over. I'll amend that vote. - Gregg (talk) 10:04, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I was glad to read that article on Copeman - although they mentioned the officers involved, none of the sources I found for that article on Invergordon contained any details on the strikers themselves. - Gregg (talk) 16:09, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: Awards

Ah, no problem; no doubt you're quite busy with certain other things at the moment. :-) Kirill ^(prof) 16:48, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Discussion about you

Hi Roger, and congratulations on your success in the ArbCom election. I've asked a question about you on WT:ACE2008: please scroll to the bottom and look there. Thank you! Crystal whacker (talk) 04:35, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom

A curiousity question, if Jimbo chooses to appoint you (As I'm sure he will), will we be losing you from MilHist? If so, let me be the first to say what a loss that will be for the project. You have stepped wonderfully into the giant clomping boots left by Kirill. --Narson ~ Talk • 13:00, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Well done. AC should be better next year. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 00:58, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Perfectly understand Roger. I've been fighting off a lingering series of head infections after a very heavy cold and know how distracting it can be. Hope you get well soon. --Narson ~ Talk • 11:04, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

There's a bug that's bringing all sorts of secondary infections. Whisky in strong hot tea is very effective: it's doesn't actually get rid of it but it'll soon stop you caring :) Get well soon! --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 11:36, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Two things

1: Congratulations on your spectacular showing in the 2008 ArbCom Elections. You truly deserve the appointment, and you have my full support in your actions there (provided it doesn't overly-pull you away from MilHist, that is;)

2: I'm in the middle of a full copyedit of Battle of Marion. that said, I'd appreciate a second set of eyes. If you get a smidge of time (as I'm sure won't happen until sometime in Januaryish), would you be able to take a quick look over the article?

All the best, Cam ^(Chat) 01:02, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

You too. Cam ^(Chat) 05:15, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

The Desert Fox: The Story of Rommel

I added the cast list to the page, but it's sitting at the bottom of the page. How do I get the cast list moved up on the page to where the cast section header is?Openskye (talk) 01:50, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Never mind. BILLCJ fixed my problem. Openskye (talk) 12:17, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

My apologies for the slow response: I've not been ignoring you :) I took a short wiki-break in an effort to get rid of an lung infection I've had for a couple of weeks. Anyhow, I'm glad to see your formatting problem has been fixed. Happy holidays and happy editing ... --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 10:43, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Arbcom?? WHAT?

Roger, I took a short break from Wikipedia...come back...and you've gone off and made an amazing showing in the ArbCom elections. Huh...I missed the whole show. Anyway, I would have wholeheartedly supported you. I note, however, that if you are appointed this will be bittersweet. Your work on Milhist is excellent; I'm not sure if you recall, but you have guided much of my article work (Lafayette, Pied Noir, and more). I guess this is the direction a Wikipedia editor takes; but, I hope to still see you around the review sections on milhist. Lazulilasher (talk) 23:23, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your message :)) Assuming Jimbo ratifies the election result, I intend staying well and truly involved with Milhist. It really is my first love and will be a great antidote to the crazies ArbCom sometimes deals with. I must also say I do enjoy dipping into your work so it's never a chore and it's also great to work with a receptive editor. Autrement, je te souhaite de passer de bonnes fêtes/vacances :) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 10:55, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Toi de meme :) Congrats, I think you'll do well. I hope you enjoy the role. Yes, I will likely return with a few peer review requests :) Best of luck out there; although, I still hope that I never appear before that Committee. Lazulilasher (talk) 20:24, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: Something for you

Thanks! It wasn't really a big deal, though; you've brought the project to such a state that it runs smoothly and productively even when there's nobody there to watch over it. :-)

(The Committee, meanwhile, seems to have acquired an unfortunate tendency to lurch from crisis to crisis like a drunken sailor. As you've mentioned elsewhere, the agenda going forward really does need to be reform, of the most fundamental sort.) Kirill 13:25, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't know; the map icon is a bit more recognizable as a MilHist symbol (and avoids any questions about my status relative the other coordinators), so I went with that. ;-)

As far as those strange edits go, it doesn't look like anything local to Wikipedia; I suspect that something in AGK's browser or connection setup was broken. Kirill 13:28, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

The essence of judgment

Precepts on the secret of success in life drafted by Tokugawa Ieyasu from the collection of Nikkō Tōshō-gū.

In this interval between the close of Arbcom voting and whatever comes next, this could be a timely opportunity to share a bit of wisdom attributed to Tokugawa Ieyasu, the founder of Japan's Tokugawa shogunate. I modestly offer a translation of the calligraphy -- with an emphasis not in the original:

Life is like walking along a long road shouldering a heavy load; there is no need to hurry.

One who treats difficulties as the normal state of affairs will never be discontented.

Patience is the source of eternal peace; treat anger as an enemy.

Harm will befall one who knows only success and has never experienced failure.

Blame yourself rather than others.

It is better not to reach than to go too far. --Tokugawa Ieayasu, 1604

I hope this becomes helpful in the year ahead. --Tenmei (talk) 04:36, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time and trouble to translate that for me. My personal belief though is that fortes fortuna adiuvat ("fortune favours the bold" or, more snappily, "who dares wins") and that reform rather than inertia is the best way forward for ArbCom :) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 10:09, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations!

I'm glad to see you got the ArbCom appointment as expected. I wanted to let you know I sincerely appreciate your willingness to discuss concerns I had brought up during the election. If there's anything we need more of ArbCom, it's transparency and willingness to communicate. Best of luck! Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 09:27, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations from me also. Hopefully you'll be better than some of the current arbs at preventing "drama".--Patton123 12:34, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Congrats once again! Cam ^(Chat) 21:32, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, well done! All best wishes to you, Roger.–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 22:51, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations on your ArbCom appointment. Make us proud. :) --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:05, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Congrats from me too. I wasn't really involved in the elections, didn't really like the idea of reading through all that, but glad to see you've made it. Chamal ^talk 02:01, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, everyone, for your good wishes :) I shall do my best to live up to expectations. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 10:10, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Happy First Day Of Winter!

Happy First Day of Winter!

A stand of Pine trees beautifully coated in winter snow.

Wishing you a Merry Christmas, Hanukkah, or Kwanzaa!

Just wishing you a wonderful First Day of Winter 2008! Mifter (talk) 17:25, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

If you live in the Southern Hemisphere and are entering the season of Summer not Winter then I wish you a happy First Day of Summer 2008!
To spread this message to others, add {{subst:First Day Of Winter}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Congrats on your appointment to the Arbcom and Best of Luck :)! --Mifter (talk) 17:25, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your winter solstice message and warm best wishes to compensate :) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 10:12, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom

Thanks for your kind message and your support during the election. I intend staying as active as possible within Milhist - it'll be a good antidote for the crazies - if Jimbo appoints me. I suspect the agenda for the first six months or so will be reform! --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 10:32, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

It might make you write more vigourously, like it did to me. Well done. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 05:19, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

It'll probably make me even terser :) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 10:13, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations...

...on your Arbcom appointment. I believe, along with the other appointees, you'll do an excellent job. Best regards, EyeSerene^talk 08:38, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the vote of confidence! --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 10:14, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Like everyone else is saying...congrats Roger! I happen to agree with EyeSerene... :) Allanon ^{♠The Dark Druid♠} 16:14, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Though, in my obliviousness to everything that doesn't directly impact A-Class reviews, I missed the announcement of the results, it's never too late to offer well-deserved congratulations on your successful campaign! I know you'll greatly improve ArbCom, and hope that it doesn't keep you from continuing your work on Milhist. – Joe Nutter 19:32, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Congrats

Hi Roger, I am back from me trip away and so should be back up to editing capacity soon, I am still going through my watchlist. Commisserations on your appointment to Arbcom (;-). I hope that Arbcom becomes a more effective tool with your appointment to its benches. Regards. Woody (talk) 12:07, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Dornier Do 17

Hi. I am looking for a bit of "off the record" feedback on the above. I want to take it to GA status, but I think it needs a huge amount of work. What do you think? Dapi89 (talk) 00:15, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

Howdy,

I would like to take the appropriate steps to revert Vandalism on my talk page User talk:Lordoliver. Can you please help I don't want to make a mess of things or make a big scene. Thanks and Have a Great Day! Lord R. Oliver I ^{His Lordship's Court} 15:58, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Never mind someone else has fixed it. Thank you though. Lord R. Oliver I ^{His Lordship's Court} 15:59, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Happy holidays

Thanks for making 2008 an interesting and enlightening year for me; I shall look forward to working with you on the Arbitration Committee in the coming year.

Wishing you and yours a joyous holiday season, and happiness, health and hopefulness in 2009. I trust you'll enjoy this little token, a favourite performance of Baby, it's Cold Outside, for your holiday amusement.
Best, Risker (talk) 22:28, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Happy Roger Davies/Archive 2008's Day!

User:Roger Davies/Archive 2008 has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, and therefore, I've officially declared today as Roger Davies/Archive 2008's day! For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian, enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Roger Davies/Archive 2008! Peace, Rlevse ~ A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:25, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

A Class Support Received for Jagdgeschwader 1 (World War II)

Hi Roger Davies!

Merry Christmas ! It'd seem we have support of three independent folks for this article. Yourself included of course. So I believe according to the A Class Review process, a coordinator needs to formally make it as such. So could you let me know which one should I reach out to ? You will have to excuse my ignorance as its my first time. Thanks Perseus71 (talk) 01:11, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Merry Christmas from Promethean

O'Hai there Roger Davies, Merry Christmas!

Roger Davies,
I wish you and your family all the best this Christmas and that you also have a Happy and safe new year.
Thankyou for all your contributions to Wikipedia this year and I look forward to seeing many more from you in the future.
Your work around Wikipedia has not gone un-noticed, this notice is testimony to that
Please feel free to drop by my talkpage any time to say Hi, as I will probably say Hi back :)

All the Best.   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk)

feedback requested at Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Committees

Hi, if you have time, I'd appreciate any feedback on a slightly crazy idea I had at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Committees. It's related to the Arbitration Committee. Thanks! rootology (C)(T) 18:32, 29 December 2008 (UTC