A quick note (quick since I'm at work): no, the Speedy notes are intended to be there -- see my note in the FAC, but per that note still move it if you feel it should be moved. More tonight if necessary. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:06, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi, back from work so a more detailed note. The idea of posting to the FAC talk page was to cut the volume of the discussion on the main FAC page. My original post to the FAC page gave some background to why I was doing this. If you don't mind, could you let me know if you moved the notes back without seeing that original post, or if you moved it back despite the post? It's experimental so I'm trying to understand if it is harder for nominators to work with comments on the talk page. Thanks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:23, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Sorry for the egregious delay. I may have to reconsider doing FACs now that I'm raising a child! I have responded to your concerns about Brown's activities during the Civil War. Please see if my changes address them sufficiently. Acdixon(talk • contribs • count) 13:57, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
The FAC failed, but please see if you think the footnote is accepable now in case I decide to make another run with it. Thanks. Acdixon(talk • contribs • count) 16:41, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Erasing the Timeline of events leading to the American Civil War article is in violation of Wikipedia rules. User Kirk has repeatedly erased the entire article, but that is not allowed under Wikipedia copyvio rules. Furthermore, given the "fair use" provision of Wikipedia there are no copy vios there in the first place. Any further attacks will be reported as deliberate vandalism in violation of WP rules. (the rule is if you have strong reason to suspect a violation of copyright policy and some, but not all, of the content of a page appears to be a copyright infringement, then the infringing content should be removed) but Kirk is erasing everything. Rjensen (talk) 14:16, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Timeline of events leading to the American Civil War
Kirk: I have worked with you in the past and would like to be able to do so in the future. However, I must object to your statement that I have ignored your charges of plagiarism (at first) and copyright violations (recently) in this article. I have been working on this article in response to your comments over the past several days and have done many revisions. There are quite a few entries in the article and I think it took about six weeks of steady work to bring it to the current version. So this is a review and editing process that can not be done instantly within a day or two. You recognized this yourself in an early comment. Also, the copyright violation question only arose a day or two ago and adds a new wrinkle to revisions and work on the article.
I am not sure how the copyright review process works but it seems that it may be independent of the original editors. If I should make some comments on this, I will. Otherwise, I will let the process run its course. I may or may not work further on the article before then. I have other articles that I would like to work on and have to devote some time outside Wikipedia editing to other things over the next month. If you have any comments or advice on the process, please let me know.
I did not set out to create the article, only to improve it because it dealt with matters that led up to the Civil War (both years before and immediately before) the war started. If I did not accomplish that, I am sorry, especially since I spent more time on it than I have on many other articles which I have edited. I certainly did not want to cause busy people to divert their time to a controversy. In retrospect, I made another mistake by submitting this for assessment before it was truly ready. I was going to be "offline" for over a week and thought I would submit this article for assessment during the March B class drive. I thought I could make any changes in response to comments by the end of the month but in the event the task was too large and got away from me. I should have recognized that more editing and review was needed before the submission.
I have not been the only editor working on the project. I think we have similar views on the substance but have approached the revisions a little differently, although I would not deny that I agree with some of his comments. Your debate has been with him - while I have been trying to work on the matter. I also would like to be able to work with him in the future if he shows an interest in the same articles I work on. He is a retired history professor and author, knows a lot about military history - more than I do - is a good writer, and has made many contributions to Wikipedia. I am sure from his past work and comments on his and other user talk pages that he would not deliberately undermine an article or the project in general. I think his comments and contributions added much to the article and were well written. I think his arguments were more in defense of some of my entries than of his, so I am a little chagrined at the progress of this. I assume his good faith. I do not want to get in the middle of a controversy, especially when I was trying to work on the matter rather than to debate it, but I will express my views if and when necessary regardless of which person I agree with. Also, I did place a note on the assessment page explaining some differences in my view of some your comments but I clearly indicated that I was in the process of revising the article further in response to them, that I did not want to spend time in a disagreement and so would make changes and that the article was not yet ready for re-assessment even though I had already made some of the changes. I think this shows my good faith and attempt at cooperation.
So I would appreciate if you would recognize my efforts to work with you on revisions, understand that I have made efforts and it is a long article and not to consider that I have ignored you. This was a particularly difficult article in which to avoid slipping into use of similar language since it consists of many short items, many only one sentence long, and many are simple statements of fact. I will be careful about working on similar articles and, in fact, I doubt I will attempt to work on very many such lists in the near future. The Wikipedia policy is to assume good faith and I think I have proved mine by trying to work on this over the past few days. Whatever the outcome on this particular article, I would appreciate your reconsideration of your comment that I have ignored your comments and warnings. I also hope this will not affect our cooperation and work together on other articles in the future. I want to work amicably. There are many articles that can be expanded or revised and even some that can still be written from the beginning. I would like to continue to do that and not to spend my time and other people's time on other matters that do not contribute to additions or revisions to articles. Donner60 (talk) 19:19, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
I have moved your notice and comments from my user page to the user talk (discussion) page where I think it is more appropriately located.
I should have pointed out that Dr. Jensen made some changes in items in response to your comments, as well, and although he debated some points and took a somewhat different approach, he did not ignore your comments either. He just debated them because he did not agree with most of them. He quietly also made some changes. While I noted the differences in approach I was not trying to shift any responsibility. As I noted, I am chagrined that he felt he had to spend time making some of his comments in support of some items that I had included. Finally, thanks again for your work on Wikipedia and I hope we can get past this and work together if or when our paths cross again regarding articles of mutual interest. Donner60 (talk) 19:55, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
I added this response to your further comments on my user talk page. I put it here to be sure you see it, although I think you are monitoring all the relevant pages. I think it gets a little confusing, at least concerning whether all comments are received and read, when a subject is discussed across several different pages. I don't necessarily have a better way to do it, although I think participants sometimes agree to put all further messages on a subject on the same page. That may or may not be the best way for each case. Comment: That would certainly be preferable to wasting the work already done. Is this supposed to be done on a temporary page since the original page is blanked or does it need to wait until a review? Can the page be released in whole or in part after the review so that it might be better to wait for the outcome? Does the copyright review process affect this and should comments be made as part of that process or do the reviewers simply look at it without further comment? Donner60 (talk) 21:29, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
I have added the following comment to the copyright violation page and hope you will agree. Thanks. The two editors who have worked on this article most recently have reviewed the entries and checked them against the citations; and added additional citations and a few entries. We believe there should now be no objection to restoration of this article. Donner60 (talk) 23:23, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Hello! In response to the FAC comments, I have revised the article in several locations where problems were pointed out. Could you please re-review it? Thanks in advance. Constantine✍ 17:01, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Hello again! Thanks for the prompt reply. I've added an explicit reference to the fact that this is "most likely" a legend (per the reference used), and tried to clarify the second concern on the division of spoils and slaves. To simplify matters, as time is pressing, could you please summarize the main objections you still have? If it is a phrasing issue, you could propose a rewording or make the change yourself, and then I can see if it fits the references. Best regards, Constantine✍ 16:22, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
To begin or stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:57, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Milhist FA, A-Class and Peer Reviews Apr–Jun 2011
Thank you for contacting me about the Shipmaster move. I moved the article to its current title because Wikipedia's disambiguation guidelines about the naming of specific topic articles states that when "an adjective describing the topic [is] used... it is usually better to rephrase such a title to avoid parentheses." If you disagree with the article's current title, you are able to move it back yourself. Still, unless you are able to convince me that the guidelines support the title "Captain (nautical)" more than they support any other title, I will likely initiate a move discussion soon thereafter. Great job with the Midshipman article! It would be good to see it up on the main page at some point.
I chose "Shipmaster" because it was the only alternate name already included in the lede that could be a title unique to this article; no other topics covered by extant articles on Wikipedia can be referred to as "Shipmaster". There is ample precident for the term in the literature, but I would be equally pleased to see a different title used so long as no parenthetical disambiguator is required. "Ship's master" or "Sea captain" are valid alternatives. "Sea captain" is probably a better option because it is the more common name. What do you think?
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 08:22, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Hello Kirk, Could you please expand upon your comments in this review? I don't think that you've given the nominator (who has an excellent track record) much to work with, and you seem to be mistaken about other articles not linking to this one. Nick-D (talk) 04:53, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Kirk, I've replied to your latest comments, and look forward to hearing more of your thoughts. —Cliftonian(talk) 14:50, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject has started its 2012 project coordinator election process, where we will select a team of coordinators to organize the project over the coming year. If you would like to be considered as a candidate, please submit your nomination by 14 September. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact one of the current coordinators on their talk page. This message was delivered here because you are a member of the Military history WikiProject. – Military history coordinators (about the project • what coordinators do) 09:21, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
A midshipman is an officer cadet or a commissioned officer of the junior most rank, in the Royal Navy, United States Navy, and many Commonwealth navies. In the 17th century, a midshipman was a rating for an experienced seaman, and the word derives from the area aboard a ship, amidships, where he worked or was berthed. Beginning in the 18th century (pictured), a commissioned officer candidate was rated as a midshipman, and the seaman rating began to slowly die out. By the Napoleonic era (1793–1815), a midshipman was an apprentice officer who had previously served at least three years as a volunteer, officer's servant or able seaman, and was roughly equivalent to a present day petty officer in rank and responsibilities. After serving at least three years as a midshipman, he was eligible to take the examination for lieutenant. Midshipmen in the US Navy were trained and served similarly to those in the Royal Navy, although a midshipman was a warrant officer rank until 1912. During the 19th century, changes in naval officer training in the Royal Navy and the US Navy replaced apprenticeship aboard ships with schooling in a naval college, and "midshipman" began to mean an officer cadet. (Full article...)
I've reverted your changes to the blurb. The limit is 1,200 characters of displayed text (including spaces) because if it is bigger than that, it messes up the balance of the various sections on the main page. The blurb I wrote is 1,198. The blurb after your changes was 1,413 characters - over 200 characters too long. Feel free to try again, but you can only add new words or sentences if you take away an equivalent amount elsewhere. The blurb doesn't have to mention everything in the lead section of the article. And please leave the "pictured" in there, otherwise the picture doesn't make much sense. Hope this is understandable - let me know if you want me to try again with the blurb. Thanks, BencherliteTalk 21:09, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
I believe that I've fixed all of the issues that you raised in your comments on this ACR and would be appreciative if you could take a look at it again. I'm having difficulties with one reviewer and would appreciate your comments on the issues that he raises.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:12, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for catching that. I don't know why it didn't occur to me that someone who died in 1879 couldn't possibly have been around and kicking in 1908. I blame sleep deprivation. Parsecboy (talk) 20:06, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm trying to wrap up the FAC and I wonder if I can trouble you for your formal comments on the article? Also, if you have the time, my ACR for the carrier Hiryū needs reviewers.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:50, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for August 28
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Peasants' Revolt, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Ball (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:59, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Hello, Kirk. I noticed your comment "You should always aim for zero notes in a FA article" in the FAC of The Peasants' Revolt, and I wondered about that. I like to add a handful of notes to my FA articles, mentioning interesting things not central to the narrative. I'd be most interested to hear your thoughts agin notes. Tim riley (talk) 20:09, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
WikiProject Military history coordinator election
Hi Kirk. Why did you add the paragraph on design and construction? It is 80% redundant in that it simply repeats in words what is already in the shipbox and therefore doesn't seem to add value. I didn't revert it or trim it as I am open to argument. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 20:25, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
The review of Hiryu is languishing for lack of reviewers. If you have time, I'd appreciate it if you could look it over and add any comments that you feel appropriate. Thanks in advance.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:35, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
On behalf of the WikiProject Military history coordinators, in recognition of your commitment in reviewing 12 Military History good article nominations, peer review requests, A-Class nominations and/or Featured Article candidates during the period July to September 2013, I hereby award you the Content Review Medal. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 06:12, 10 October 2013 (UTC)