User talk:Trebor/archive2

TeckWiz's RFA

TeckWiz's RFA

I would like to thank you for helping the Wikipedia community determine if I should become a sysop by voting oppose on my second RFA. Many opposes were because of my "different" answer to question two, which I still partly agree with. I withdrew per WP:SNOW, as consensus to promote was against me. I will continue to improve until one day, I become an admin. Happy editing! --TeckWizTalk Contribs@ 21:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Appreciate the kind words

Thanks for the encouragement with infoboxes. I tend to get focused on one thing at a time, which expedites the process. I took a quick tour through some of the G's that you'd worked on. Nice to bask in a comrade's work. I managed to come up with an image for Good to Go, although it's not very impressive. Cheers. Planetneutral 11:47, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Scott Johnson (artist)

Hi, you voted in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Instance. I was wondering if you could also weigh in on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott Johnson (artist) and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/ExtraLife_(2nd_nomination), as they are also up for deletion. Thank you. - Ocatecir 22:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Re your AfD comments

Thanks again for your feedback at my RfA. Regarding my understanding of policy, could I ask you to look at this RfM and (to a lesser extent) this user RfC? The former relates to content policies, and the latter to user conduct.

I'm not asking you to change your mind, but I would appreciate your feedback on these issues. I'm asking here because it feels a little inappropriate to link to another user's RfC on that page. Thanks, Jakew 21:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. It was unexpected - I genuinely did not intend to change your mind. Best wishes, Jakew 21:38, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Peer review of Prince Sadruddin Aga Khan

Hi Trebor. I have read a number of your PR reviews, and I thought I might interest you in looking at Prince Sadruddin Aga Khan. I would really appreciate if you would take the time to read the article and provide your comments at the article's peer review page. Kind regards Cimm^[talk] 02:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello again Trebor! I thought I would let you know that I have just nominated the Prince Sadruddin Aga Khan article as a Featured Article candidate. The feedback and encouragement from you and the other reviewers is what motivated the nomination. Thank you again for all your support! Cimm^[talk] 00:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Trebor - thank you for your support in pushing this article all the way to FA status! Best, Cimm^[talk] 11:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad's RfA

Thank you for your support on my RfA, which closed favorably this morning, as well as for your kind comment accompanying your !vote (not to mention your "housekeeping" of my RfA page during the week). I appreciate the confidence the community has placed in me and am looking forward to my new responsibilities. Please let me know if ever you have any comments or suggestions, especially as I am learning how to use the tools. Best regards, Newyorkbrad 18:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Tomorrow Never Dies

Good job in helping to promote Tomorrow Never Dies to GA. Keep up the good work. --Nehrams2020 20:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

That's an excellent goal. Each time you get one passed as GA or FA, WP:Films will mention it in its monthly newsletter for all its members to see and will also be featured in our Spotlight department. If you're not part of WP:Films yet, consider signing the participants list here to get the monthly newsletter sent to you and help assist in other film-related tasks if you desire. Again, good job, and hopefully you can get a lot more GAs. --Nehrams2020 20:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Peer review on Freak Out!

Your concerns have been addressed. Please take a look at the current revision. (Ibaranoff24 23:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC))

• Done! (Ibaranoff24 23:56, 21 January 2007 (UTC))

Peer review for Armenian Revolutionary Federation

Hey man, thanks for reviewing the ARF article. I solved most of the concerns you posted. About the Nagorno-Karabakh and Lebanon templates, those are there because the ARF holds parliamentary seats in both countries (or de-facto country). I fixed the date stuff as much as I can but i'm not sure if everything is good. Everything else is pretty much taken care of. Could you please take another look at it? Again, I thank you :) - Fedayee 02:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey Trebor, I cleaned up all the problems you mentioned for the ARF page. Could you please read up on the Modern History section and point out anything that needs change please? Thank you :) - Fedayee 23:49, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Trebor (yeah it's me again :P) I completed all your suggestions in the Modern history section as well. Could you please take another look at the article as a whole: content, weighting, style and the references as you said (hope you're not bored or tired of reading this article already!) Thanks man. - Fedayee 05:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Bet you're getting tired of me but I changed the article using your suggestions. Do you think their good? Also, I'd appreciate it if you have a new batch of comments for me :D - Fedayee 03:00, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Alright, thank you for all the help Trebor :) - Fedayee 20:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

KGV School

Thanls Trebor for your peer review KGV 14:07, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Your problems with the New York City Article

I fixed some of the issues you had listed that needed to be fixed before the NYC article could become a featured article, such as the repetition of "major" and "is also," but I'm not sure how to approach some of the others. I replied to your comment on the page in more detail. Irish Pearl 19:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• I'm not sure you read my actual reply since your response seemed more to my "support" statement than mentioning any of the changes or questions I made in my original reply to you, so I've made the text smaller on the page to hopefully make it more noticable.
  
• But to your response: Fixing citations are not my forte (unless I'm the one actually citing my own facts and statements, the majority of the edits I've made on wikipedia have been rearranging words so they make more sense or correcting/making internal links) but I did look back over the "History" and "Crime" sections, and I'll agree that compared to the other sections, there is a terrible derth of cited facts. However, I did notice that most of the books under the "Further Reading" section had to do with New York History, so I would assume whoever added those under that section were the ones who added in the information in the "History" and most likely "Crime" sections too (because the present day crime is cited on its page with several links, so it's reasonable to assume that the "History of New York City Crime" information can be found in the same history books of non-criminal NYC) So perhaps if we were to look up the information on the books we would see that the facts came from there? Although I'm not sure if it's listed as a book, if the information needs to be cited? Seeing as it's really only History books listed, however, it's very possible I'm wrong. But if I am, that's probably the same incorrect thinking the people who added in the information to those sections made.
  
• And if you could list more examples of the problems with prose throughout, I would be willing to try and work on it to make it better, because I really don't see the glaring problems with the page--I am, however, willing to look at the examples if you would be willing to point them out. Irish Pearl 20:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your support

--Yannismarou 20:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

As you set out for Ithaka, hope the voyage is long Knowledge is your destiny, but don't ever hurry the journey May there be many summer mornings when With what pleasure and joy, you come into harbors seen for the first time Don't expect Ithaka to make you rich. Ithaka gave you the marvelous journey And, if I, one of your fellow-travellers, can offer something To make this journey of yours even more fascinating and enjoyable This is my assistance with anything I can help.

Darkest Hour

Um go see my user page under Simple awnsers go to the user greetings links and see the other greetings (New user greetings 1,1.5 & 2). --Darkest Hour ^Talk•_contribs 20:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Check these out and tell me if it is okay to make a few more templates --Darkest Hour ^Talk•_contribs 21:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

i create a few more temlates??????? I labored over those (1 & 2) for a long while and I would like to make templates out of them. Oh yeah the awnser is 42.

--Darkest Hour ^Talk•_contribs 21:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The Pit and the Pendulum (1961 film)

Thanks for all of your useful suggestions. Your comments are exactly the kind I had hoped to see in a peer review.-Hal Raglan 22:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

David Arnold

Thanks for your keen updates. However, the recent changes to David Arnold's birth date are incorrect. I happen to work with David and can inform you that his birthday is in fact on January 23rd [1962] not February 27th as the wiki keeps getting changed to. This incorrect date is listed elsewhere, IMDB for instance, so it would be great if the WIKI at least was correct. The first edit looks like a typo from me. I was sure I'd changed the 27 to 23 as well but apparently not. Can I suggest that you check with David via his web site http://www.davidarnold.com (he often gives feedback in the forum section). If there are any other links or trivia that you know of that could be added to his Wiki I'm sure he'd be happy to help out.--timecode 23:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC) Many thanks for being the independent varifier on this. Hopefully technology (and David's tricky web forum) will help complete the task.--84.9.130.90 11:59, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Chelsea F.C.

Hi. Per your comments on the Chelsea F.C.'s FAC page, the article now has a lot more references. If you have time, adding your support or any further suggestions for improvement will be much appreciated. Thanks. SteveO 22:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Bart King

Greetings, I'm currently involved in a biography article on Bart King, an American cricketer. The article is being reviewed right now and there are some NPOV problems. In the review, User:Seegoon suggested that I ask you for advice as an experienced biography editor. Would you be willing to take a look, added your suggestions, and edit what you see? Thanks very much.--Eva ^bd 15:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the great suggestions. I think I've gotten all of them incorporated into the article.--Eva ^bd 19:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Truthiness

Give it a couple hours, please -- Tawker 07:38, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Exactly what I was going to say. ;) Provided we don't see any sudden changes, I anticipate that I'll be more than happy to downgrade my protections from tonight to semi, either before I go to bed, or first time I get a chance to use a computer in the morning. No objection if you get ahold another admin to do the same. Apologies for the trouble -- experience is that old accounts tend to come out of the woodwork and circumvent semi, when Colbert mentions us. Luna Santin 07:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Taken it down to semi, just letting you know. Luna Santin 19:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Question for you about Dragons of Autumn Twilight

Firstly, are links to fan reviews acceptable for a review section? Are links to Amazon acceptable as external links? And, I have a question on the plot review; can you give me a more detailed explanation of what is wrong? Bit hard for me, being knowledgeable with the terms as I am. DoomsDay349 22:08, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I see. I am inquiring about the concept of reviews, but if I can't pull up any professional, will it hurt the article's running for a GA and (in the far, far future) FA? DoomsDay349 22:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I found a good looking site; they seem to be professional. I'm looking into it now. DoomsDay349 22:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Do you know of a place that defines what review is considered appropriate? DoomsDay349 22:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I found some stuff, in magazines, but it's all from the 80's. And I'd have to order back issues, and I'm not spending my money on that. I believe somewhere that the concept of considerable effort can come into play at times, and surely it won't count against me if I claim that fact. Surely the fact I'd have to pay for something is considered considerable effort? DoomsDay349 22:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Hrm...I dunno. I'll put in what I can find, and that'll have to do. I guess. DoomsDay349 22:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Featured Picture closures

Hi Trebor, I notice you've been helping out with the FP closures recently - thanks for your efforts. However, I hope you won't mind if I draw your attention to the closing procedure, as I notice you've missed out a lot of the steps in your recent closures. Closing nominations which were unsuccessful is quite straightforward, but promoting is quite a big job because there are a number of pages which have to be updated. Please make sure you follow all the steps in future, as it's very easy to lose track if things get missed out. If you don't have time to do all the steps in one go, it might be better to hold off on closing promoted nominations and letting someone else do them; you can always tackle the not-promoteds if you'd like to muck in but are short of time. Thanks again for your help - please don't be put off! Happy editing, --YFB ¿ 22:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Heheh, no worries :-) - I got a little way in finishing off some of the ones you promoted the other day, but then I got called away from my PC and I haven't had a chance to go back to it. If you get some free time it'd be great if you could go back over your last few days' contribs and check that they all get completed. If not, don't worry about it - just let me know and I'll make a note to myself to finish up where I left off next time I get a moment. Cheers, --YFB ¿ 22:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that, everything's looking great now. It's a pity promotions are so tortuous - I usually end up with 3 or 4 windows on the go to make sure I can always check back to the instructions. Keep up the good work! --YFB ¿ 01:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• Trebor, I hope this redirection is OK on Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Sciences. The Thermodynamic temperature article has a better caption. Greg L 06:14, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:Films Newsletter

The January 2007 issue of the Films 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. Nehrams2020 06:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough

Fair enough. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattramone (talk • contribs)

Wesley Clark

Thanks very much for the comments on the FAC! I've dealt with 2 of your simpler issues and hopefully I'll be able to fix the remaining ones when I get back to my machine with MS Word (Find & Replace is a beautiful tool. :P ). Staxringold _talk^contribs 15:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• Ok, I've made your requested alterations, I hope it's enough for a full support! Thanks! Staxringold _talk^contribs 20:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• Heh, no problem at all. My favorite was in doing a search and replace to change though to although I changed a "thought" to "althought". :p Staxringold _talk^contribs 20:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Nick Drake

You are finding issues in the prose that i would just would never spot. Would appreciate further input from you. Tks. + Ceoil 23:31, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Military brat (U.S. subculture) fac

Hi Trebor, thanks for the feedback on this article. I've made the changes you suggested and would love for you to go through more of the article...Balloonman 07:49, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Just wanted to say thank you for your assistance/critique on this article... will try to address your latest questions tomorrow... but going to bed now.Balloonman 08:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Bemusement

Oh, sorry about that. No, it's not about you. It's an (admittedly rather geeky) inside joke. In the Wizardry series of computer games, the main antagonist of the first game is called Werdna, and the patron that helps you is Trebor. In the fourth game you get to play Werdna, and Trebor is the antagonist. I suppose that's pretty obtuse, though. Sorry for the confusion :) >Radiant< 09:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I am amazed at how many users have names based on game characters. NoSeptember 13:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Proposed Wikipedia talk:Notability (news)

On the Wikipedia talk page for Wikipedia :Notability you expressed some opinions about whether things covered by news media should be entitled to Wikipedia articles for having met the criteria of multiple coverage in reliable independent sources I have created a draft of a proposed guideline Wikipedia talk:Notability (news) looking at the question of whether "newsworty" equals "encyclopedic." Your input is welcome. Thanks. Edison 01:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Sources

Hi! I'd like to discuss something, and this is a better place than an unrelated AfD. In the article you just edited, Houston, Texas, it states:

• Houston is internationally known for its energy—particularly oil—and aeronautics industries, and for its ship channel.

There are multiple sources for this article, but do any of them say that Houston is internationally known for its aeronautics industries? Please could you tell me whether this fact is sourced, and if so which source? What exactly did it say? I chose this fact, because it survived your last sweep through the article. Even finding a source for the oil fact might take some work - even though everyone "knows" Texas is known for its oil. I've never seen a survey asking people internationally whether they know Texas for its oil - so where is the source for this fact? Perhaps people just think Texas is known internationally for its oil, which is a different thing.

I hope this demonstrates a very important point about sources - there is a difference between something being verifiable in principle (which is what the policies and guidelines are currently aimed at - ideological purity perhaps is a bit strong) and what a bunch of unpaid contributors are willing and able to do. So what happens in practice? For most facts, people say what they know, and only fall back on sources when there is a dispute. This is not what is written down in the official rules, but seems to work better.

People often say an article is not notable because it does not have sources, but AfD then brings up a bunch of sources proving that the logic is backwards. Just because non-notable subjects won't have sources doesn't mean that an article without quoted sources is a non-notable subject. AfD takes a mere blink of the eye, and many people who know where to find sources will miss AfDs. I read about Wikinfo in the Economist - or was it New Scientist - on a business trip near the end of last year. If I'd known sources were needed then, I could have added one. But a 5 day AfD several months later when the article has been through recycling many moons ago will not get this source from me.

I prefer to edit articles I know about because it is easy to spot mistakes and relatively easy to find sources for information, as I know where to look. The goal of enabling anyone to contribute and check these articles to the same level is, to say the least, impractical in practice. But this should not mean they are deleted.

So do you think I am being entirely unreasonable? Stephen B Streater 08:22, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your AN/I comment on Light current

Indefinite bans happen when the community (or Jimbo, or ArbCom) decides that the cost of dealing with an editor's behavior is significantly beyond the benefit from their continued contributions. When done right, an indefinite ban is no more retribution than a 20 minute block; and when done wrong, a 20 minute block is as retributive as an indefinite ban. With regard to Light current, we would like to get him on the straight and narrow if it can be done; but if it's not possible to help him make his contributions a net positive for Wikipedia, then removing him as a problem is the next best alternative. Ultimately, the encyclopedia comes first. -- SCZenz 22:20, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

FAR - thanks

Trebor, thanks for the help at FAR: I've noticed your excellent reviews at FAC. With Tony1 (talk · contribs) out for a while, I'm feeling pressured at FAR, and we're getting a rash of editors making more than one nomination at a time, yet not staying to help with the reviews. Every little bit helps, but the help of an excellent reviewer like yourself helps even more ! Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:33, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

What a distraction - like we had no better use of our time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Kirill gave me good advice - see my final talk page entry - we should let it go and let the MilHist guys work it out. Kirill even advised I not worry if they list it at FAR. There are enough MilHist members, that you and I can probably bow out. I will take care of the Citations list, though, since it doesn't belong there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

MOS on tense

The mos is a grey area the example you are using is a book. This is an ongoing T.V series. If he was still alive in the show he would be an IS, but as he is dead he is a WAS. Please also see other deceased 24 character pages.--Lucy-marie 13:46, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Curtis Manning

Hey; mind joining in on the discusion? I'm having difficulty convincing that user of Wikipedia's guidelines, despite the fact that they are set plainly in stone. — Deckiller 14:26, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

FYI

Talk:FrontPageMag.com#I_strongly_object_to_this_deletion up for deletion. Travb (talk) 03:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review/Isis (band)/archive2

I was wondering if, as a very decent peer-reviewer, you could give this a once-over? It needs a fresh set of eyes on it in order to uncover lazy prose, which is undoubtedly passing my jaded senses by. Likewise, I have goals of shooting it towards GA and if you have an opinion either way on that, I'd greatly appreciate hearing it. Thanks in advance, Seegoon 16:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

CommonDreams AFD

I wanted to apologise for any implication of bad faith on your part. I should have been more clear in my original !vote, including the more specific comments I used in my initial reply to you (bad faith by nom, other editors using POV pejoratives). It was not my intention to paint with an entirely broad brush with everyone for voted delete. Rather, it was directed at those using pejoratives like "lunatic fringe" and making false statements about the information available. Again, please accept my earnest apology. Vassyana 15:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

My RFA

Thank You, Trebor/archive2 for your Support! Thank you for your support in my RfA, which closed at 111 / 1 / 2. I am humbled and rather shocked to see such kind comments and for it to reach WP:100. Please feel free to leave a note if I have made a mistake or if you need anything, I will start out slow and tackle the harder work once I get accustomed to the tools. Thank you once more, I simply cannot express in words my gratitude.

...fly on littlewing. ~ Arjun 19:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Original research

Following our previous discussion about notability and reliable sources, I was wondering if you had an opinion on the Wikipedia article. A lot of this seems to be original research. An example is the graph showing a plot of number of articles against time. I cannot find a third party reliable source for this information. Would you propose to delete such independently unverifiable content? Stephen B Streater 14:20, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

My RFA

Hey, Trebor. Just wanted to let you know that I answered your question on page protection. I noticed that all you did was leave me that question, so I thought you might be waiting on my answer before you gave your opinion on whether or not I should get the mop. Happy Editing! -- P.B. Pilhet / ☎ 02:36, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

RE:David I FAC

Thank you for your comments on the FAC for David I. In the some of the criticisms you left, you were clearly correct and I was able to fix them. However, with some of the others, I do not feel I can address them. You mention short sentences and long paragraphs ... making it difficult to read. In what ways are we talking about here? Everyone I've ever heard give advice says that long sentences reduce clarity. Long paragraphs ... ok ... is this a strained eye thing? Is it solvable, for instance, by hitting enter twice, halfway through every or most existing paragraphs? Or do you want content to be deleted. You see, if I do the latter, then someone else is likely to come along and tell me I should explain certain things more, or I shouldn't leave out X. Regarding usage of words like "claim" and "allege", and esp. "by X", these seem necessary to me in this context ... and I'd interpret objections to them (the first two at least) as the misapplication to this topic of good rules for writing about certain other topics. You may think I'm wrong, but you see I think I have a valid point when saying that I can do little about that kind of thing, esp. as it is pretty standard in history writing; i.e., I cannot be expected to predict them elsewhere in the article. I'd ask that for other like examples, if they exist, that you yourself edit the article. I'll put a please with that too. :) I'm genuinely interested in cooperating to improve the article to as many different standards as possible, so I appreciate the help. Regards, Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 00:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks. You have no need to apologize btw - although thanks for doing so anyway - it is an FAC and you should feel perfectly entitled to be blunt. These articles, after all, have to be judged, and judging involves bluntness. :) Regards, Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 00:23, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I got rid of other himselfs and redundant "some"s. Regarding length, is it the paragraph length you don't like, or the article length? Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 00:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of palindromic phrases in English

Your comments in the AfD were added before two related articles were added to it as a group nomination. Please clarify whether your vote applies to all 3 or not. Thanks, Jerry lavoie 02:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

VegaDark's Request for Adminship

Trebor/archive2

---

Thank you for supporting my RfA. It was successful at a unanimous 52/0/0. I hope I can live up to the kind words expressed of me there, and hope to now be more of an asset to the community with access to the tools. Please feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you have any suggestions for me in the future. Thanks again! VegaDark 07:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

---

Peer review

Your comments have been very helpful on on past PRs I've put in, so if you get a moment could you take a look at Wikipedia:Peer review/Red Barn Murder/archive1. Unfortunately it is another one featuring dissection, but that's just the way the books are coming to hand - I've got articles on travel and cuddly toys next on the list in case you get jaded. Cheers, Yomangani^talk 12:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

David FAC

I've significantly reduced the size of the article, esp. the Davidian Revolution section, as well as the opening section. Also shortened the length of most paragraphs. Your feedback would be appreciated. Regards, Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 02:36, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Help desk and the bot

Great idea! Xiner (talk, email) 16:06, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the bot monitors pages in real-time. Xiner (talk, email) 16:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. Anyway, even if it works half the time it'd be that much better. Xiner (talk, email) 16:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Bumbarded

Thanks for your question about the Bumbarded speedy deletion. This is surely a case of G1 (patent-nonsense), no? If you disagree, there is WP:DRV Bucketsofg 18:08, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: Brian Peppers

Hi. As you closed the discussion on WP:AN, could you explain what's going to happen on the 21st? While the discussion may not have been getting anywhere, there does need to be a plan for what to do. Many thanks. Trebor 23:49, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Nothing's going to happen. This silly business caused so much disruption the first time around that we can do without the whole thing being re-hashed again and again. Until someone can come up with a new version of the article with consensus backing across the community then there's no point simply repeating the drama. As far as I am concerned, it can stay protected and deleted forever. --bainer (talk) 00:20, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't around for the "original" drama, so I can't tell how bad it was. However, Jimbo did say it can be discussed in the future if anyone still cares (which evidently, they do). Requiring a new version of the article with consensus backing across the community before it can even be discussed is essentially giving it no chance (how will you get the consensus?). And while you may think it should stay protected and deleted forever, others have different views, so you shouldn't simply stifle discussion on the matter. From the subsequent comments on WP:AN, others seem to agree, so I would ask you to reconsider whether you're acting objectively. Thanks. Trebor 17:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm acting to achieve the objective of limiting the harm to the community as much as possible. If you're not familiar with this particular issue, I strongly suggest that you read some of the mountains of previous discussion on it. You can get a good sense of the issue just by glancing at the log for the page. From there you can progress to the articles for deletion debates, all six of them: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6. You'll note that they've all been protected and blanked (debate available in history), as a courtesy to the subject to prevent the text of the debates appearing in search engines. Try also reading some of the mailing list discussion on the subject. As you're not an admin you won't be able to see the article or the talk pages (they have all been deleted) so you won't be able to understand the issue fully, but the basic precis is that the article was little more than an attack page, repeatedly recreated by vicious trolls from various joke sites and shock sites. Every time an honest Wikipedian tried to fix the article, or gave people a chance to write a reasonable article, it was soon overwhelmed by said trolls. Finally, Jimbo intervened for the sake of human dignity, and of sanity, and deleted and protected the page.

I realise my stance is unusual, but my objective is to do what I can to limit further drama here for the good of the community, and to that end I really don't care if I'm "stifling" discussion. I urge you to familiarise yourself with the history of this matter before commenting further. --bainer (talk) 01:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to the Military history WikiProject!

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

A few features that you might find helpful:

• Our navigation box points to most of the useful pages within the project.
• The announcement and open task box is updated very frequently. You can watchlist it if you're interested; or, you can add it directly to your user page by including {{WPMILHIST Announcements}} there.
• Most important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you watchlist it.
• The project has several departments, which handle article quality assessment, peer review, and project-wide collaboration.
• We have a number of task forces that focus on specific topics, nations, periods, and conflicts.
• We've developed a variety of guidelines for article structure and content, template use, categorization, and other issues that you may find useful.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask one of the project coordinators, or any experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! Kirill Lokshin 20:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC)