This Military history WikiProject page is an archive, log collection, or currently inactive page; it is kept primarily for historical interest. |
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 25 | ← | Archive 29 | Archive 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | Archive 33 | → | Archive 35 |
Given that the project discussion about moving or restructuring MILMOS seems to have ended due to a general lack of enthusiasm, I think we need to consider what, if anything, we need to do from our end to resolve the MILMOS status/location issue.
As far as I can tell, the folks running the MOS reorganization appear, for the moment, content to let MILMOS retain its nominal status and remain where it is. However, I'm not certain whether this state of affairs is going to last or not. In particular, due to the reversions of the location change, MILMOS appears to have ended up outside the new MOS category structure; if we look at Category:Wikipedia Manual of Style, MILMOS sticks out like a sore thumb, which is likely to provoke further attempts to "fix" the problem.
I see several options we can pursue here:
Thoughts? Kirill [talk] [prof] 02:35, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
I thought we covered this earlier, or was that something else? Anyway, if I am reading this right, the idea being put forward is to spin out those points of merit from our mos into the main mos and then retool our current mos into a non-mos. Is that more or less correct? TomStar81 ( Talk) 03:27, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm in the process of verifying the results of the contest for this month. Would someone mind verifying the status of my articles, please? The link to follow is here:
Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Contest/Entries. Cheers.
AustralianRupert (
talk)
03:58, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Hey guys, it's 1 July, so we need to get the newsletter together! I'm willing to write an op-ed, but two of the three sections in Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/News/June 2010/Project news are not started. Also, is there anything else we want to include now that we have additional room? — Ed (talk • majestic titan) 07:45, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
With the exception of the editorial, everything looks to be in good order. I think next time around perhaps we can see about getting the TFs or the special projects to write a few lines about how things are going with their efforts. In the meantime, since all appears to be in order, I'm prepared to give the green light to Cbrown to send the letter out once the editorial is done. TomStar81 ( Talk) 21:41, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
I did some copyediting on the essay page and Tom copied it over to Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/News/June 2010/Editorials. Don't worry about the typos, at least they are easily fixable :) — Ed (talk • majestic titan) 07:49, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
I don't know if this is suitable for the newsletter, but here it is. Just subjectively, SHIPS seems to get more efficient at cranking out high-quality articles every day; in particular, Parsecboy and Sturmvogel can crank out FA-quality articles like nobody's business. I'm seeing an increase in the number of people who are reviewing our articles at FAC ... which is fantastic ... but the problem is these FACs are turning into very long conversations, and the delegates (Sandy and Karanacs) don't like long conversations at FAC, and I don't like them either. I'm wondering if there's a way to get the message out that, while we absolutely encourage as many people as want to read our articles to comment on them at FAC, we encourage them even more to do the same thing for these articles for our A-class review, in a more reliably collegial atmosphere without so many deadlines or rules. - Dank ( push to talk) 15:35, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
I went ahead and created the red link for feedback; if there are no further comments on what needs to be added then I will send Cbrown a message to get our newsletter out this evening before i go to bed. TomStar81 ( Talk) 22:25, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
I left a message with Cbrown just now, so look for this to go out sometime in the next 24-48 hours. TomStar81 ( Talk) 23:49, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
You better hide before I KILL YOU. ;) No worries, Cbrown changed it partway through, so most members got the right version! — Ed (talk • majestic titan) 05:07, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
If anyone has a bit of free time, there's a discussion going on about how the new "Strategy Think Tank" should be organized that could use some opinions from more than just the three of us currently involved. :-) Kirill [talk] [prof] 03:24, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm currently involved in setting up a Wikimedia/SI collaboration, and I think that MILHIST could potentially play a significant role in the effort; I've started a discussion at WT:MILHIST#Collaboration with the Smithsonian Institution, and any comments there would be very welcome. Kirill [talk] [prof] 18:02, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm aware that its only in its trail stage, but I was wondering if I might start a discussion on the matter of flagged revisions to establish two important points:
I for one feel that flagged revisions are not worth implementing in any respect; I think they dilute the already diluted interpretation of "The free encyclopedia that anyone can edit", but mine is but one opinion in this matter, and having a sense on where everyone else stands would be appreciated as well. On the matter of guidelines for the use of flagged revisions, I think that if flagged revisions must be used they should be limited to the military BLP articles within our scope. For all other articles, I think that semi-protection should be used instead. How about the rest of you? Where do you stand on the matter? TomStar81 ( Talk) 02:45, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
So, Spain has officially won the World Cup. As per my personal policy, this calls for beer!
Also, my condolences to Team England (and Team USA), except not really.
From your friend and former fellow coordinator, Cam ( Chat) 03:43, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
I can see where this heading now:
In all seriousness though, cricket is not a game I understand, so I couldn't evaluate its position as a 'real sport'. The only cricket I am familiar with is the kind that makes that soothing chirping noise at night, and that is always been good enough for me :) TomStar81 ( Talk) 09:02, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I was quite happy to give up on this and leave it well alone in the hope it might slowly die, but the great Blablaaa wikidrama shows no signs of abating. It is now spread across no less than 2 wiki talk pages ( Neutral POV Noticeboard and our own talk page, which has the longest continuos thread I think I've ever seen), at least one article talk page (at length on Talk:Operation Charnwood) and about half a dozen user talk pages.
The list of people who have fallen out with this user is long (and rapidly lengthening). I believe that most of these users have been able to look after themselves, but it has quite obviously been a stressful ride for most, which is evidenced in many of the posts (ok, I don't know this for definite, but it would certainly stress me out). I gave up on trying to help him a week or two ago, and really couldn't be bothered to have any more to do with it (despite his sudden switch to attacking me), but now User:Chaosdruid, who has spent a very long time trying to reach a compromise, is suffering more and more attacks, and Blablaa's forum shopping is now starting to make User:EnigmaMcmxc appear as if he is some sort of anti-German revisionist historian. I think this has come to a point where enough is enough; there really has been too much systematic abuse of other editors (several of whom have genuinely tried to resolve the dispute amicably and have given Blablaaa far too much of their time), too much forum shopping (cleverly trying to dress the same point up in different clothes) and too much bitching, whining and woe is me on the various talk pages ( he just claimed that Chaos Druid is harassing him). I'm sure that this will quickly endear me even more to Blablaaa, but I can only remain neutral for so long in front of such disruptive behaviour.
I know that several people have now had way more than enough of this issue, so I'm sorry to bring it up again, but I felt it was worth raising here. I'm not into wiki dramas, but Blablaaa's effect on the project as a whole is starting to have some fairly negative connotations that I don't think we should ignore. I'm worried we might start losing editors because if it, and certainly any sort of "fact checking" benefit that Blablaaa might have is easily outweighed by the endless effort that editor's need to go to to work with him. Does anyone have any other opinions on the matter? Ranger Steve ( talk) 19:01, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Actually it did also go to ANI in July. Anotherclown ( talk) 14:36, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
(od) I've completely washed my hands of Blablaaa and have no interest in contributing to anything he's involved in. I'll make an exception for ANI/RfC though. EyeSerene talk 08:05, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
maybe a good step would be talking directly to me because i said i could stop edting. But you prefer to ignore me, ^^ how matured... I am willing to stop participating until i reported my case in full detail to a comittee. And by the way if you finally do this RFS stuff would it be possible that a german editor takes part this would make conversation muhc more fluently and i would be able to explain the issues very detailed and short in my nativ language. Blablaaa ( talk) 17:33, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
(od) I think it would be unfortunate if this page turned into yet another extension of the wider dispute. If no-one else has done so, I'll try to find the time to file an RfC/U later today. Can I respectfully suggest that we save further comment for that venue? EyeSerene talk 07:31, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
@Ed. "See through your hatred, anger, or whatever it is, and read what people (and you) are writing, dude..." Please do not attack me. I have read what Nick said and I responded honestly without the allegations you've made. I want a fair RFC/U to be filed. Is that too much to ask for? I do not deserve to be abused by you for asking. Caden cool 08:35, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
My apologies to Caden, but I think your understanding of RfC/U requirements is faulty. I'd rather not be doing this - I've got far better things to do with my time - but I really think we've reached a point where there's no choice. I've started to put together a draft at User:EyeSerene/Sandbox/RFC draft. I haven't done one of these before so any input is welcome (especially to the "Evidence of disputed behavior", "Applicable policies and guidelines", "Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute" and "Users certifying the basis for this dispute" sections). However, please bear in mind that the purpose of a draft is more to ensure the RfC is formatted and presented correctly rather than to start the actual dispute resolution process itself. EyeSerene talk 09:09, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
But I honestly did not attack Nick. I'm sorry you misunderstood me.
is this draft open now ? can i reply somewhere? Blablaaa ( talk) 11:12, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
(od) I'll leave this note here, but the draft talk page might be a better venue from now on just to keep everything central :) I think the basics are now in place, although please see my note on the talk page. Blablaaa, I don't think it matters if you take a day or two to post your response because RfCs are usually open for quite a while. You don't need to feel rushed. Thanks all, EyeSerene talk 18:44, 21 July 2010 (UTC) people will read it they will start to get opinions. Established opinions are harder to change. Thats why i would have prefered to show enigmas ( and yours ) bias and the systematic bias before the thing started. But now people will read the wrong accusations and see no respond of me because i want to respind later. I explained my point and you choose to ignore it. Its ok we will see, good luck Blablaaa ( talk) 19:39, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Now that this is live, I'd like to leave the above coversation at arm's length. I have points related to the current RFC I would like feedback on:
Perhaps the best thing for now is simply to let the RFC run its course, keep all comment peripheral or otherwise to that page, and turn instead to other Milhist matters? Roger Davies talk 22:00, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
In an attempt to keep things from slipping through the cracks, here are—to the best of my recollection—the outstanding matters that we ought to deal with in the near future:
Any thoughts on these items would be appreciated. If anyone recalls anything else that we need to deal with, please feel free to bring it up as well. Kirill [talk] [prof] 01:38, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the milmos split, I was not opposed to it and I'm glad to see this moving forward. On the matter of the academy, some discussion among members concerning the questions of formatting and the difference between a course and an essay may help us grasp which way the members want to move this thing. As the for the SST: like all new things I think there is some reluctance to use it since no one is sure exactly how it is supposed to work. To borrow a little for an illustrative example, when I launched OMT it was with working groups, then that evolved into a userspace drive since using working groups seemed to tedious, then that evolved again into a special project since it was felt to be too big for the userspace or working group concepts but not big enough for a task force. Since then, three other special projects have come about since the framework for the usage of the term has been established. I suspect a similar approach here will occur, where people will refrain from using the SST until its niche is properly discerned through some manner of trial and error.
In response to your suggestions above Kirill, I think moving forward with all of those ideas would be a good idea, and we could probably cover the SST in the bugle with an interview or two from project members involved in setting it up to help drum up interest in the matter. Eventually, I would like to see the bugle evolve to the point where a once a month story concerning these somewhat lesser known areas/groups/teams that we operate are covered to help better advertise their existence to the members. TomStar81 ( Talk) 21:38, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Items 1 and 2 from the list above have now been implemented; I'd appreciate it if people could take a look at the changes I've made and make sure that everything is as expected. Kirill [talk] [prof] 02:44, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
I have an idea for an addition to the Notability guideline. It relates to the notability of military units and formations. I've started it in my Sandbox, if you want to take a look. It will probably need tightening and is really just a rough draft. AustralianRupert ( talk) 11:12, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Ok, I've added a section at the STT talk page. Apologies if I've formatted it badly. Please feel free to tweak if necessary. Please add any further comments over on that page. Cheers. AustralianRupert ( talk) 10:42, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Now that we've moved the list of needed Academy articles into the STT, I'm wondering if we should simplify the associated talk page structure as well. At the moment, we have three relevant pages:
This is probably not ideal, since (a) the "work area" for the Academy now doesn't have a dedicated talk page and (b) Academy matters are now split among both the STT and the Academy page itself.
What I'd like to do, in some form, is to pull the discussion from the Academy page into the STT as well, and leave the main page as simply the list of finished courses (similar to how our showcase is set up). At the same time, mixing Academy discussions in with the brainstorming sessions on the main STT talk page will probably be a bit confusing. In light of that, I'd like to suggest that we create a "training division" within the STT and collect all Academy activities there. This would leave us with:
This would effectively mean that the STT training division would be the only page that people working on the Academy would need to really keep track of; the Academy page itself would just be a reader-facing one.
Thoughts? Kirill [talk] [prof] 13:22, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm currently writing an article on article creation for The Bugle (draft here) and in doing so it occurred to me that one way to raise the profile of the existing academy articles would be to highlight one or two of them in each edition of The Bugle. This could involve including a short (one para or so) summary of the article and a link to the remainder. Nick-D ( talk) 06:12, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
By now, if you haven't noticed it, the wikileaks group just unleashed nearly 100,000 papers on or relating to the afgan war to the public. At the moment (IE, as I am tying this) the article seems to be stable, but I expect that will change over the next 48 hours. Of particular note at the moment is that the issue of the article name is still up in the air, so I would ask that everyone keep an eye on this and if necessary move-lock the article at a particular name until we have the need weeklong consensus for retention of the article at its current name or a consensus to move it to a new name.
On an unrelated note, it appear that the next GRE test date will be August 17, so I am shooting to have my test on that day, and then I should be back with full force (I hope). I dislike dumping on other people what I feel I should be my part of our workload, but hopefully it will end soon. TomStar81 ( Talk) 10:56, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
With August now upon us (how fast the time flies!) We need to see about getting the July Bugle out there for the readers. The above links still need work, and I am open to ideas on what our editorials for the month should be on. I would also suggest that we consider interviewing Parsecboy since he has received only the second A-class medal with swords to be issued. A few words of encouragement for students may also be worth including being as how over the next eight weeks most students will be marching back to the classrooms for the new school year. TomStar81 ( Talk) 23:48, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm sending this out on Sunday, so this is the last call for any news related matters and copyedits before the newsletter ships. If it ain't in the letter when I email Cbrown1023 it gets left behind. TomStar81 ( Talk) 18:04, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Am I right to think that there are (many) more than normal edit wars and heated content disputes going on within Wikipedia's military history articles at the moment? They seem to be springing up all over the place. Incidentally, I'm surprised that there isn't a Campaign season article given the central importance of the topic to warfare throughout human history. Nick-D ( talk) 02:30, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
By chance I happened to have located Wikipedia:Picture of the day/Unused, which displays a very limited number of images that are featured but have not appeared on the mainpage. I take a quite pride in having the only explicitly designated milhist photo to be disbarred from the mainpage on grounds of being "too gruesome", however there is another image, File:Butt, Baden-Powell, Taft, Bryce2.jpg, that is listed there simply because there is insufficient information on the meeting in question to use the image on the main page. We can fix this problem if we could get some information on the meeting up and running here on site, and I for one would like have such a high res photo up for all to enjoy. According to the photo information, one of the men depicted in the image is Robert Baden-Powell, 1st Baron Baden-Powell, a lieutenant general in the British Army, that would probably be a good place to start if anyone would like to take up the challenge. TomStar81 ( Talk) 02:58, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
The article on the decreasing number of RfAs at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2010-08-09/Admin stats is well worth a read. Any current or former coordinators of this project and most editors who've taken the lead with an FA would have no difficulties passing a RfA, and the more admins around the better... Nick-D ( talk) 10:54, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
From the position of the milhist coordinators (past and present), the candidates for adminstratorship (excluding those already admins and those who have departed or edit irregularly for the past six months or more) would be:
Of these candidates, some already have rollback/reviewer rights, some have had rfa's, and in one case, the user was an admin but was demoted such as it were after an incident. Members listed below Skinny 87 are members of the current admin coordinator tranche. Note that this list may not reflect the presence of an "I do not wish to be an admin" template or disclaimer, this is merely intended to be a snapshot of coordinators who we could approach to see if they held any interest in being admins.
TomStar81 (
Talk)
23:53, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi all, the number of articles sitting in the unassessed and without task force category has risen dramatically the past few days. I'm trying to do a few (and I think some other editors are working on this too), but we seem to be losing the battle. If anyone is looking for some gnomish work, I'd appreciate the help. Even if every co-ord just did 5 a day, we'd make a bit of a dent and it doesn't take much more than a minute or so to add the task forces, although it can take a little longer to assess, of course. Just a thought. Cheers. AustralianRupert ( talk) 06:35, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
This Military history WikiProject page is an archive, log collection, or currently inactive page; it is kept primarily for historical interest. |
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 25 | ← | Archive 29 | Archive 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | Archive 33 | → | Archive 35 |
Given that the project discussion about moving or restructuring MILMOS seems to have ended due to a general lack of enthusiasm, I think we need to consider what, if anything, we need to do from our end to resolve the MILMOS status/location issue.
As far as I can tell, the folks running the MOS reorganization appear, for the moment, content to let MILMOS retain its nominal status and remain where it is. However, I'm not certain whether this state of affairs is going to last or not. In particular, due to the reversions of the location change, MILMOS appears to have ended up outside the new MOS category structure; if we look at Category:Wikipedia Manual of Style, MILMOS sticks out like a sore thumb, which is likely to provoke further attempts to "fix" the problem.
I see several options we can pursue here:
Thoughts? Kirill [talk] [prof] 02:35, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
I thought we covered this earlier, or was that something else? Anyway, if I am reading this right, the idea being put forward is to spin out those points of merit from our mos into the main mos and then retool our current mos into a non-mos. Is that more or less correct? TomStar81 ( Talk) 03:27, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm in the process of verifying the results of the contest for this month. Would someone mind verifying the status of my articles, please? The link to follow is here:
Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Contest/Entries. Cheers.
AustralianRupert (
talk)
03:58, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Hey guys, it's 1 July, so we need to get the newsletter together! I'm willing to write an op-ed, but two of the three sections in Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/News/June 2010/Project news are not started. Also, is there anything else we want to include now that we have additional room? — Ed (talk • majestic titan) 07:45, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
With the exception of the editorial, everything looks to be in good order. I think next time around perhaps we can see about getting the TFs or the special projects to write a few lines about how things are going with their efforts. In the meantime, since all appears to be in order, I'm prepared to give the green light to Cbrown to send the letter out once the editorial is done. TomStar81 ( Talk) 21:41, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
I did some copyediting on the essay page and Tom copied it over to Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/News/June 2010/Editorials. Don't worry about the typos, at least they are easily fixable :) — Ed (talk • majestic titan) 07:49, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
I don't know if this is suitable for the newsletter, but here it is. Just subjectively, SHIPS seems to get more efficient at cranking out high-quality articles every day; in particular, Parsecboy and Sturmvogel can crank out FA-quality articles like nobody's business. I'm seeing an increase in the number of people who are reviewing our articles at FAC ... which is fantastic ... but the problem is these FACs are turning into very long conversations, and the delegates (Sandy and Karanacs) don't like long conversations at FAC, and I don't like them either. I'm wondering if there's a way to get the message out that, while we absolutely encourage as many people as want to read our articles to comment on them at FAC, we encourage them even more to do the same thing for these articles for our A-class review, in a more reliably collegial atmosphere without so many deadlines or rules. - Dank ( push to talk) 15:35, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
I went ahead and created the red link for feedback; if there are no further comments on what needs to be added then I will send Cbrown a message to get our newsletter out this evening before i go to bed. TomStar81 ( Talk) 22:25, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
I left a message with Cbrown just now, so look for this to go out sometime in the next 24-48 hours. TomStar81 ( Talk) 23:49, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
You better hide before I KILL YOU. ;) No worries, Cbrown changed it partway through, so most members got the right version! — Ed (talk • majestic titan) 05:07, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
If anyone has a bit of free time, there's a discussion going on about how the new "Strategy Think Tank" should be organized that could use some opinions from more than just the three of us currently involved. :-) Kirill [talk] [prof] 03:24, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm currently involved in setting up a Wikimedia/SI collaboration, and I think that MILHIST could potentially play a significant role in the effort; I've started a discussion at WT:MILHIST#Collaboration with the Smithsonian Institution, and any comments there would be very welcome. Kirill [talk] [prof] 18:02, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm aware that its only in its trail stage, but I was wondering if I might start a discussion on the matter of flagged revisions to establish two important points:
I for one feel that flagged revisions are not worth implementing in any respect; I think they dilute the already diluted interpretation of "The free encyclopedia that anyone can edit", but mine is but one opinion in this matter, and having a sense on where everyone else stands would be appreciated as well. On the matter of guidelines for the use of flagged revisions, I think that if flagged revisions must be used they should be limited to the military BLP articles within our scope. For all other articles, I think that semi-protection should be used instead. How about the rest of you? Where do you stand on the matter? TomStar81 ( Talk) 02:45, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
So, Spain has officially won the World Cup. As per my personal policy, this calls for beer!
Also, my condolences to Team England (and Team USA), except not really.
From your friend and former fellow coordinator, Cam ( Chat) 03:43, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
I can see where this heading now:
In all seriousness though, cricket is not a game I understand, so I couldn't evaluate its position as a 'real sport'. The only cricket I am familiar with is the kind that makes that soothing chirping noise at night, and that is always been good enough for me :) TomStar81 ( Talk) 09:02, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I was quite happy to give up on this and leave it well alone in the hope it might slowly die, but the great Blablaaa wikidrama shows no signs of abating. It is now spread across no less than 2 wiki talk pages ( Neutral POV Noticeboard and our own talk page, which has the longest continuos thread I think I've ever seen), at least one article talk page (at length on Talk:Operation Charnwood) and about half a dozen user talk pages.
The list of people who have fallen out with this user is long (and rapidly lengthening). I believe that most of these users have been able to look after themselves, but it has quite obviously been a stressful ride for most, which is evidenced in many of the posts (ok, I don't know this for definite, but it would certainly stress me out). I gave up on trying to help him a week or two ago, and really couldn't be bothered to have any more to do with it (despite his sudden switch to attacking me), but now User:Chaosdruid, who has spent a very long time trying to reach a compromise, is suffering more and more attacks, and Blablaa's forum shopping is now starting to make User:EnigmaMcmxc appear as if he is some sort of anti-German revisionist historian. I think this has come to a point where enough is enough; there really has been too much systematic abuse of other editors (several of whom have genuinely tried to resolve the dispute amicably and have given Blablaaa far too much of their time), too much forum shopping (cleverly trying to dress the same point up in different clothes) and too much bitching, whining and woe is me on the various talk pages ( he just claimed that Chaos Druid is harassing him). I'm sure that this will quickly endear me even more to Blablaaa, but I can only remain neutral for so long in front of such disruptive behaviour.
I know that several people have now had way more than enough of this issue, so I'm sorry to bring it up again, but I felt it was worth raising here. I'm not into wiki dramas, but Blablaaa's effect on the project as a whole is starting to have some fairly negative connotations that I don't think we should ignore. I'm worried we might start losing editors because if it, and certainly any sort of "fact checking" benefit that Blablaaa might have is easily outweighed by the endless effort that editor's need to go to to work with him. Does anyone have any other opinions on the matter? Ranger Steve ( talk) 19:01, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Actually it did also go to ANI in July. Anotherclown ( talk) 14:36, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
(od) I've completely washed my hands of Blablaaa and have no interest in contributing to anything he's involved in. I'll make an exception for ANI/RfC though. EyeSerene talk 08:05, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
maybe a good step would be talking directly to me because i said i could stop edting. But you prefer to ignore me, ^^ how matured... I am willing to stop participating until i reported my case in full detail to a comittee. And by the way if you finally do this RFS stuff would it be possible that a german editor takes part this would make conversation muhc more fluently and i would be able to explain the issues very detailed and short in my nativ language. Blablaaa ( talk) 17:33, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
(od) I think it would be unfortunate if this page turned into yet another extension of the wider dispute. If no-one else has done so, I'll try to find the time to file an RfC/U later today. Can I respectfully suggest that we save further comment for that venue? EyeSerene talk 07:31, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
@Ed. "See through your hatred, anger, or whatever it is, and read what people (and you) are writing, dude..." Please do not attack me. I have read what Nick said and I responded honestly without the allegations you've made. I want a fair RFC/U to be filed. Is that too much to ask for? I do not deserve to be abused by you for asking. Caden cool 08:35, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
My apologies to Caden, but I think your understanding of RfC/U requirements is faulty. I'd rather not be doing this - I've got far better things to do with my time - but I really think we've reached a point where there's no choice. I've started to put together a draft at User:EyeSerene/Sandbox/RFC draft. I haven't done one of these before so any input is welcome (especially to the "Evidence of disputed behavior", "Applicable policies and guidelines", "Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute" and "Users certifying the basis for this dispute" sections). However, please bear in mind that the purpose of a draft is more to ensure the RfC is formatted and presented correctly rather than to start the actual dispute resolution process itself. EyeSerene talk 09:09, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
But I honestly did not attack Nick. I'm sorry you misunderstood me.
is this draft open now ? can i reply somewhere? Blablaaa ( talk) 11:12, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
(od) I'll leave this note here, but the draft talk page might be a better venue from now on just to keep everything central :) I think the basics are now in place, although please see my note on the talk page. Blablaaa, I don't think it matters if you take a day or two to post your response because RfCs are usually open for quite a while. You don't need to feel rushed. Thanks all, EyeSerene talk 18:44, 21 July 2010 (UTC) people will read it they will start to get opinions. Established opinions are harder to change. Thats why i would have prefered to show enigmas ( and yours ) bias and the systematic bias before the thing started. But now people will read the wrong accusations and see no respond of me because i want to respind later. I explained my point and you choose to ignore it. Its ok we will see, good luck Blablaaa ( talk) 19:39, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Now that this is live, I'd like to leave the above coversation at arm's length. I have points related to the current RFC I would like feedback on:
Perhaps the best thing for now is simply to let the RFC run its course, keep all comment peripheral or otherwise to that page, and turn instead to other Milhist matters? Roger Davies talk 22:00, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
In an attempt to keep things from slipping through the cracks, here are—to the best of my recollection—the outstanding matters that we ought to deal with in the near future:
Any thoughts on these items would be appreciated. If anyone recalls anything else that we need to deal with, please feel free to bring it up as well. Kirill [talk] [prof] 01:38, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the milmos split, I was not opposed to it and I'm glad to see this moving forward. On the matter of the academy, some discussion among members concerning the questions of formatting and the difference between a course and an essay may help us grasp which way the members want to move this thing. As the for the SST: like all new things I think there is some reluctance to use it since no one is sure exactly how it is supposed to work. To borrow a little for an illustrative example, when I launched OMT it was with working groups, then that evolved into a userspace drive since using working groups seemed to tedious, then that evolved again into a special project since it was felt to be too big for the userspace or working group concepts but not big enough for a task force. Since then, three other special projects have come about since the framework for the usage of the term has been established. I suspect a similar approach here will occur, where people will refrain from using the SST until its niche is properly discerned through some manner of trial and error.
In response to your suggestions above Kirill, I think moving forward with all of those ideas would be a good idea, and we could probably cover the SST in the bugle with an interview or two from project members involved in setting it up to help drum up interest in the matter. Eventually, I would like to see the bugle evolve to the point where a once a month story concerning these somewhat lesser known areas/groups/teams that we operate are covered to help better advertise their existence to the members. TomStar81 ( Talk) 21:38, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Items 1 and 2 from the list above have now been implemented; I'd appreciate it if people could take a look at the changes I've made and make sure that everything is as expected. Kirill [talk] [prof] 02:44, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
I have an idea for an addition to the Notability guideline. It relates to the notability of military units and formations. I've started it in my Sandbox, if you want to take a look. It will probably need tightening and is really just a rough draft. AustralianRupert ( talk) 11:12, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Ok, I've added a section at the STT talk page. Apologies if I've formatted it badly. Please feel free to tweak if necessary. Please add any further comments over on that page. Cheers. AustralianRupert ( talk) 10:42, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Now that we've moved the list of needed Academy articles into the STT, I'm wondering if we should simplify the associated talk page structure as well. At the moment, we have three relevant pages:
This is probably not ideal, since (a) the "work area" for the Academy now doesn't have a dedicated talk page and (b) Academy matters are now split among both the STT and the Academy page itself.
What I'd like to do, in some form, is to pull the discussion from the Academy page into the STT as well, and leave the main page as simply the list of finished courses (similar to how our showcase is set up). At the same time, mixing Academy discussions in with the brainstorming sessions on the main STT talk page will probably be a bit confusing. In light of that, I'd like to suggest that we create a "training division" within the STT and collect all Academy activities there. This would leave us with:
This would effectively mean that the STT training division would be the only page that people working on the Academy would need to really keep track of; the Academy page itself would just be a reader-facing one.
Thoughts? Kirill [talk] [prof] 13:22, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm currently writing an article on article creation for The Bugle (draft here) and in doing so it occurred to me that one way to raise the profile of the existing academy articles would be to highlight one or two of them in each edition of The Bugle. This could involve including a short (one para or so) summary of the article and a link to the remainder. Nick-D ( talk) 06:12, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
By now, if you haven't noticed it, the wikileaks group just unleashed nearly 100,000 papers on or relating to the afgan war to the public. At the moment (IE, as I am tying this) the article seems to be stable, but I expect that will change over the next 48 hours. Of particular note at the moment is that the issue of the article name is still up in the air, so I would ask that everyone keep an eye on this and if necessary move-lock the article at a particular name until we have the need weeklong consensus for retention of the article at its current name or a consensus to move it to a new name.
On an unrelated note, it appear that the next GRE test date will be August 17, so I am shooting to have my test on that day, and then I should be back with full force (I hope). I dislike dumping on other people what I feel I should be my part of our workload, but hopefully it will end soon. TomStar81 ( Talk) 10:56, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
With August now upon us (how fast the time flies!) We need to see about getting the July Bugle out there for the readers. The above links still need work, and I am open to ideas on what our editorials for the month should be on. I would also suggest that we consider interviewing Parsecboy since he has received only the second A-class medal with swords to be issued. A few words of encouragement for students may also be worth including being as how over the next eight weeks most students will be marching back to the classrooms for the new school year. TomStar81 ( Talk) 23:48, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm sending this out on Sunday, so this is the last call for any news related matters and copyedits before the newsletter ships. If it ain't in the letter when I email Cbrown1023 it gets left behind. TomStar81 ( Talk) 18:04, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Am I right to think that there are (many) more than normal edit wars and heated content disputes going on within Wikipedia's military history articles at the moment? They seem to be springing up all over the place. Incidentally, I'm surprised that there isn't a Campaign season article given the central importance of the topic to warfare throughout human history. Nick-D ( talk) 02:30, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
By chance I happened to have located Wikipedia:Picture of the day/Unused, which displays a very limited number of images that are featured but have not appeared on the mainpage. I take a quite pride in having the only explicitly designated milhist photo to be disbarred from the mainpage on grounds of being "too gruesome", however there is another image, File:Butt, Baden-Powell, Taft, Bryce2.jpg, that is listed there simply because there is insufficient information on the meeting in question to use the image on the main page. We can fix this problem if we could get some information on the meeting up and running here on site, and I for one would like have such a high res photo up for all to enjoy. According to the photo information, one of the men depicted in the image is Robert Baden-Powell, 1st Baron Baden-Powell, a lieutenant general in the British Army, that would probably be a good place to start if anyone would like to take up the challenge. TomStar81 ( Talk) 02:58, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
The article on the decreasing number of RfAs at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2010-08-09/Admin stats is well worth a read. Any current or former coordinators of this project and most editors who've taken the lead with an FA would have no difficulties passing a RfA, and the more admins around the better... Nick-D ( talk) 10:54, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
From the position of the milhist coordinators (past and present), the candidates for adminstratorship (excluding those already admins and those who have departed or edit irregularly for the past six months or more) would be:
Of these candidates, some already have rollback/reviewer rights, some have had rfa's, and in one case, the user was an admin but was demoted such as it were after an incident. Members listed below Skinny 87 are members of the current admin coordinator tranche. Note that this list may not reflect the presence of an "I do not wish to be an admin" template or disclaimer, this is merely intended to be a snapshot of coordinators who we could approach to see if they held any interest in being admins.
TomStar81 (
Talk)
23:53, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi all, the number of articles sitting in the unassessed and without task force category has risen dramatically the past few days. I'm trying to do a few (and I think some other editors are working on this too), but we seem to be losing the battle. If anyone is looking for some gnomish work, I'd appreciate the help. Even if every co-ord just did 5 a day, we'd make a bit of a dent and it doesn't take much more than a minute or so to add the task forces, although it can take a little longer to assess, of course. Just a thought. Cheers. AustralianRupert ( talk) 06:35, 13 August 2010 (UTC)