|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Ed
[talk]
[majestic titan] 00:49, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
|
Hi Ed,
Could you please - with your admin hat on - look into the mess around the casualty figures in the War in Afghanistan (2001–present) and Civilian casualties in the War in Afghanistan (2001–present) articles?
As a result of a lengthy discussion across multiple boards (disclaimer: initiated mainly by me) there's a very clear consensus that the casualty figures which had been included in these articles are totally unreliable as they'd been calculated on the basis of the contents of Wikipedia articles listing casualty report (and didn't even reflect the actual sum of the casualty reports!). The main location of these discussions is at Talk:War in Afghanistan (2001–present) and Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#War in Afghanistan (2001-Present).
Despite this, users X Nilloc X ( talk · contribs) and 88.104.218.11 ( talk · contribs) keep edit warring these figures back into the articles. They have ignored multiple warnings against doing this on their talk pages and the articles' talk pages, and it's been dragging on for days now. I tried posting a report of this at WP:AN3 a few days ago, but it didn't get actioned (presumably as it wasn't an easy to investigate 3RR breach).
Could you please look into this and take whatever action you regard as being appropriate?
Regards, Nick-D ( talk) 11:17, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Rcsprinter (gossip) 17:23, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Someone really ought to clean out the Signpost delivery list a bit. The MiszaBot/EdwardsBot cycles are a bit silly. :-) -- MZMcBride ( talk) 22:11, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Ed12, FYI.
NickD, there has been a misunderstanding about the listing of units (i.e., carrier, cruisers, destroyers, air wing) assigned to a specific U.S. Navy carrier strike group. You may not be aware, but a previous discussion on listing this information within a separate section via a bulleted format for enhanced readability and to avoid serial linking problems, and a consensus was reached by all interested stakeholders. I have looked the archived peer review for Carrier Strike Group Seven, and I do not see any recommendations to list the assigned units in a serial fashion in the opening paragraphs as opposed to the previously-agreed bulleted format in a separate section. It has been suggested that you are the source of this format change. Can you clarify this situation? Thanks! Marcd30319 ( talk) 23:08, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Ladies and gentlemen, I have heard your call, and in the interest of comity and consensus-building, which I have shown here and here, thus conclusively disproving WP:OWN, allow me to offer the following description for the "exact composition of a strike group" noted to be added as the third and fourth sentences of the opening paragraph of a carrier strike group article: "A carrier strike group is an operational naval formation that deploys together. Permanently assigned units of a carrier strike group typically consists of an aircraft carrier that acts as the flagship, an carrier air wing embarked onboard the carrier, a squadron of destroyers and frigates, and at least one Ticonderoga-class guided missile cruiser." This is a clear explanation of the composition of a strike group," which is the goal of Buckshot06 and Nick-D, while retaining an assigned units section for the specific composition of a specific carrier strike group which is consistent with similar B-Class articles like Leningrad Military District which lists its units under a Subordinate Units section. This approach provides a clear, uncluttered, consistent general overview of the composition of a strike group carrier while retaining the specific information of the units assigned to a particular carrier strike group. This approach can be the basis for building a consensus of this issue, and I have taken the liberty of incorporating this phrasing into the other carrier strike group articles, except Carrier Strike Group Two, pending discussion. Again, as noted, I have addressed previous issues in a constructive fashion, and I think we can do so here. Marcd30319 ( talk) 14:53, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Hi Theed17, just wanted to alert you in case you didn't already know, of this [1]. The link to the story doesn't work - it doesn't appear to exist. Who in wikimedia should one talk to to get the story back up? Sorry for leaving a nasty black line in the story, but I didn't know what else to do. Regards Buckshot06 (talk) 23:27, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
...and wanted to say congratulations again! You'll do great :3 – GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:04, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I have an opinion piece which I have been developing, and it is located here. I am submitting this in response to the statement on your article in which you announced your tenure as the editor-in-chief of the Signpost, and also opened yourself to requests for op-eds. I believe that the one I am sending you fits the categories you allowed for op-eds in your article. If you accept this article, please send me information with which I can improve it to a quality suitable for publication.
Respectfully yours, Wer900 talk essay on the definition of consensus 04:05, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Hi Ed, regarding this edit, I had left the gender ambiguous as Lemurbaby has nothing on the subject on her userpage and I didn't want to out her. She's fixed it now, and I guess she's fine with it, but just FYI. — Crisco 1492 ( talk) 05:38, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
-- Lord Roem ( talk) 11:59, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Ed
[talk]
[majestic titan] 15:32, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Ed, would the Signpost be interested in mentioning this effort to track education program impact? There is also going to be an effort to measure any negative impact from the program, by posting a message to the talk pages of the same set of articles asking for feedback. A draft of that message is here. I am keen to give these efforts higher visibility because of the huge impact the program is having and will have in the future. I don't think a lot of editors realize that thousands of students add a huge amount of content every semester, and I think if they did this program might draw more attention. To be honest, the volume of work being done by the students is so high I think you could justify a regular section in the Signpost, once a month during semesters perhaps, to highlight EP events, issues, and achievements.
Another reason I'd like to see the Signpost mention the assessments is I'd like to recruit more editors to do it -- it's much quicker than a GA assessment; it's more like deciding if an article is a B or a C. If you're interested, let me know; LiAnna is the person who put together the metrics and would be the right person to ask most follow up questions, but I'll help if I can. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 17:09, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Hi Ed, I have a question: should I include Requests for amendment and clarification? The Scientology and Rich Farmbrough rulings are up for amendment/clarification at the moment. I'm not familiar with how this operated in the past so I thought I'd ask. — James ( Talk • Contribs) • 5:36pm • 07:36, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Latest. I got a name wrong on the last one and had to send my bot around after it... J Milburn ( talk) 15:47, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
We're halfway through round 3 (or the quarter finals, if you prefer) and things are running smoothly. We're seeing very high scoring; as of the time of writing, the top 16 all have over 90 points. This has already proved to be more competative than this time last year- in 2011, 76 points secured a place, while in 2010, a massive 250 was the lowest qualifying score. People have also upped their game slightly from last round, which is to be expected as we approach the end of the competition. Leading Pool A is
Cwmhiraeth (
submissions), whose points have mostly come from a large number of did you knows on marine biology. Pool B's leader,
Grapple X (
submissions), is for the first time not our highest scorer at the time of newsletter publication, but his good articles on The X-Files and Millenium keep him in second place overall.
Miyagawa (
submissions) leads Pool C, our quietest pool, with content in a variety of areas on a variety of topics. Pool D is led by
Casliber (
submissions), our current overall leader. Nearly half of Casliber's points come from his triple-scored
Western Jackdaw, which is now a featured article.
This round has seen an unusually high number of featured lists, with nearly one in five remaining participants claiming one, and one user,
Muboshgu (
submissions), claiming two. Miyagawa's featured list,
1936 Summer Olympics medal table, was even awarded double points. By comparison, good article reviews seem to be playing a smaller part, and featured topics portals remain two content-types still unutilised in this competition. Other than that, there isn't much to say! Things are coming along smoothly. As ever, if you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on
Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on
Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from
Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send.
J Milburn (
talk •
email) and
The ed17 (
talk •
email) 23:47, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Ed
[talk]
[majestic titan] 00:49, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
|
Hi Ed,
Could you please - with your admin hat on - look into the mess around the casualty figures in the War in Afghanistan (2001–present) and Civilian casualties in the War in Afghanistan (2001–present) articles?
As a result of a lengthy discussion across multiple boards (disclaimer: initiated mainly by me) there's a very clear consensus that the casualty figures which had been included in these articles are totally unreliable as they'd been calculated on the basis of the contents of Wikipedia articles listing casualty report (and didn't even reflect the actual sum of the casualty reports!). The main location of these discussions is at Talk:War in Afghanistan (2001–present) and Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#War in Afghanistan (2001-Present).
Despite this, users X Nilloc X ( talk · contribs) and 88.104.218.11 ( talk · contribs) keep edit warring these figures back into the articles. They have ignored multiple warnings against doing this on their talk pages and the articles' talk pages, and it's been dragging on for days now. I tried posting a report of this at WP:AN3 a few days ago, but it didn't get actioned (presumably as it wasn't an easy to investigate 3RR breach).
Could you please look into this and take whatever action you regard as being appropriate?
Regards, Nick-D ( talk) 11:17, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Rcsprinter (gossip) 17:23, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Someone really ought to clean out the Signpost delivery list a bit. The MiszaBot/EdwardsBot cycles are a bit silly. :-) -- MZMcBride ( talk) 22:11, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Ed12, FYI.
NickD, there has been a misunderstanding about the listing of units (i.e., carrier, cruisers, destroyers, air wing) assigned to a specific U.S. Navy carrier strike group. You may not be aware, but a previous discussion on listing this information within a separate section via a bulleted format for enhanced readability and to avoid serial linking problems, and a consensus was reached by all interested stakeholders. I have looked the archived peer review for Carrier Strike Group Seven, and I do not see any recommendations to list the assigned units in a serial fashion in the opening paragraphs as opposed to the previously-agreed bulleted format in a separate section. It has been suggested that you are the source of this format change. Can you clarify this situation? Thanks! Marcd30319 ( talk) 23:08, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Ladies and gentlemen, I have heard your call, and in the interest of comity and consensus-building, which I have shown here and here, thus conclusively disproving WP:OWN, allow me to offer the following description for the "exact composition of a strike group" noted to be added as the third and fourth sentences of the opening paragraph of a carrier strike group article: "A carrier strike group is an operational naval formation that deploys together. Permanently assigned units of a carrier strike group typically consists of an aircraft carrier that acts as the flagship, an carrier air wing embarked onboard the carrier, a squadron of destroyers and frigates, and at least one Ticonderoga-class guided missile cruiser." This is a clear explanation of the composition of a strike group," which is the goal of Buckshot06 and Nick-D, while retaining an assigned units section for the specific composition of a specific carrier strike group which is consistent with similar B-Class articles like Leningrad Military District which lists its units under a Subordinate Units section. This approach provides a clear, uncluttered, consistent general overview of the composition of a strike group carrier while retaining the specific information of the units assigned to a particular carrier strike group. This approach can be the basis for building a consensus of this issue, and I have taken the liberty of incorporating this phrasing into the other carrier strike group articles, except Carrier Strike Group Two, pending discussion. Again, as noted, I have addressed previous issues in a constructive fashion, and I think we can do so here. Marcd30319 ( talk) 14:53, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Hi Theed17, just wanted to alert you in case you didn't already know, of this [1]. The link to the story doesn't work - it doesn't appear to exist. Who in wikimedia should one talk to to get the story back up? Sorry for leaving a nasty black line in the story, but I didn't know what else to do. Regards Buckshot06 (talk) 23:27, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
...and wanted to say congratulations again! You'll do great :3 – GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:04, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I have an opinion piece which I have been developing, and it is located here. I am submitting this in response to the statement on your article in which you announced your tenure as the editor-in-chief of the Signpost, and also opened yourself to requests for op-eds. I believe that the one I am sending you fits the categories you allowed for op-eds in your article. If you accept this article, please send me information with which I can improve it to a quality suitable for publication.
Respectfully yours, Wer900 talk essay on the definition of consensus 04:05, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Hi Ed, regarding this edit, I had left the gender ambiguous as Lemurbaby has nothing on the subject on her userpage and I didn't want to out her. She's fixed it now, and I guess she's fine with it, but just FYI. — Crisco 1492 ( talk) 05:38, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
-- Lord Roem ( talk) 11:59, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Ed
[talk]
[majestic titan] 15:32, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Ed, would the Signpost be interested in mentioning this effort to track education program impact? There is also going to be an effort to measure any negative impact from the program, by posting a message to the talk pages of the same set of articles asking for feedback. A draft of that message is here. I am keen to give these efforts higher visibility because of the huge impact the program is having and will have in the future. I don't think a lot of editors realize that thousands of students add a huge amount of content every semester, and I think if they did this program might draw more attention. To be honest, the volume of work being done by the students is so high I think you could justify a regular section in the Signpost, once a month during semesters perhaps, to highlight EP events, issues, and achievements.
Another reason I'd like to see the Signpost mention the assessments is I'd like to recruit more editors to do it -- it's much quicker than a GA assessment; it's more like deciding if an article is a B or a C. If you're interested, let me know; LiAnna is the person who put together the metrics and would be the right person to ask most follow up questions, but I'll help if I can. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 17:09, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Hi Ed, I have a question: should I include Requests for amendment and clarification? The Scientology and Rich Farmbrough rulings are up for amendment/clarification at the moment. I'm not familiar with how this operated in the past so I thought I'd ask. — James ( Talk • Contribs) • 5:36pm • 07:36, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Latest. I got a name wrong on the last one and had to send my bot around after it... J Milburn ( talk) 15:47, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
We're halfway through round 3 (or the quarter finals, if you prefer) and things are running smoothly. We're seeing very high scoring; as of the time of writing, the top 16 all have over 90 points. This has already proved to be more competative than this time last year- in 2011, 76 points secured a place, while in 2010, a massive 250 was the lowest qualifying score. People have also upped their game slightly from last round, which is to be expected as we approach the end of the competition. Leading Pool A is
Cwmhiraeth (
submissions), whose points have mostly come from a large number of did you knows on marine biology. Pool B's leader,
Grapple X (
submissions), is for the first time not our highest scorer at the time of newsletter publication, but his good articles on The X-Files and Millenium keep him in second place overall.
Miyagawa (
submissions) leads Pool C, our quietest pool, with content in a variety of areas on a variety of topics. Pool D is led by
Casliber (
submissions), our current overall leader. Nearly half of Casliber's points come from his triple-scored
Western Jackdaw, which is now a featured article.
This round has seen an unusually high number of featured lists, with nearly one in five remaining participants claiming one, and one user,
Muboshgu (
submissions), claiming two. Miyagawa's featured list,
1936 Summer Olympics medal table, was even awarded double points. By comparison, good article reviews seem to be playing a smaller part, and featured topics portals remain two content-types still unutilised in this competition. Other than that, there isn't much to say! Things are coming along smoothly. As ever, if you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on
Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on
Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from
Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send.
J Milburn (
talk •
email) and
The ed17 (
talk •
email) 23:47, 31 May 2012 (UTC)