User talk:Roger Davies

ARCHIVES: 1 • 2 • 3 • 4 • 5 • 6 • 7 • 8 • 9 • 10 • 11 • 12

If you post a message on this page, I'll reply here to avoid fragmenting the discussion. So add it to your watchlist.
If I leave you a message on your talk page, it will be added to my watchlist. So feel free to reply to it there instead of here.
Please sign and date your message by typing four tildes (~~~~)

I'm afraid I will not be taking on any new peer reviews or copy-edits until further notice.

If you post a message here, I'll usually respond here
(on this page) unless you ask me to reply elsewhere.

Task force coordinators

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

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

Thank you for your work at FAC during April

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

Archive vs. withdraw

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

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

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

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

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

Naming of Soviet operations

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

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

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

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

Three Things

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

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

Milhist newsletter

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

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

1995 Japanese Grand Prix

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

Re: your awards-related move

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

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

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

Contest

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

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

Authoritarian tone

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVI (April 2008)

The April 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:09, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Something for you

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

Adminship

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

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

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

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

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

Re: A-class review proposal

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

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

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

Checkuser

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Le Quang Tung

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

Task Force for Military of Pakistan

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

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

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

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

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

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

An FAC discussion that you commented on was restarted

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

Re:Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Dreamafter

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

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

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

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

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

Pseudo-proposal of interest

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

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

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

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

More Time

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

WikiChevrons

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

FYI

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

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

Template Problem!

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

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

Re: Template parameters

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

The COOKIE MONSTER ate the cow

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

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

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

Apologies

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

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

Battle of Waterloo for featured article

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

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

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

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

Reviews

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

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

Thanks for the barnstar!

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

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

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

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

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

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

Airco DH.4

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

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

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

My RfA

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

Deva Victrix

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

Re: Special Projects Dept

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

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

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

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

Reviews and FACs

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tag & Assess 2008

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks!

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

Editing on Siege of Leningrad

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Spelling at Waterloo

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

New page for MILHIST copy-editors

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

"My" battles

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

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

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

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

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

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

WP:MILHIST

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

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

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

Re: User rights

Well, perhaps; but I don't think it introduces any real vulnerabilities, since it's meant for creating accounts for other people, not for oneself. Kirill ^(prof) 02:58, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

RE:T&A Issues

I think that in cases where it is clearly evident that the user hasn't looked through his ranges to anywhere near an appropriate standard, then hold back on the gongs until the end of the drive, or until an allocated time. Then, I (or you) will do an survey of ten or 20 articles within the range and work out the percentage of bad reviews. Then deduct it by that amount at the end. If the user really wants his gongs then we can bring forward the review process. I see it as quality control. Before we do that, I would ask the user to again check their ranges to save the embarassment. Woody (talk) 12:49, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Yep, I will keep an eye out and will have a gander through some of the ranges, do a bit of quantitative sampling as well. I have currently become embroiled in one of Mrg3105's campaigns which is a bit of a time-sink.

Yes, I think it best to go to the membership for that, after all, they voted us in. Frankly, I think it is down to however long Kirill wants to put up with it all. I would give him a loose role so that he can do as much or as little as he wants. Woody (talk) 11:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

copyedit

Hey, thanks for the copyedit of Battle of Verrières Ridge. Extremely helpful. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 17:54, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

Please do not vandalize. It's not helpful to Wikipedia. Thanks. Cheers, Kodster ^{(heLLo) (Me did that)} 01:23, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

You'll have to explain that one in a bit more detail :) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 01:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

LOL, really sorry. Used Huggle to revert vandalism, and sent a quick message to the person who was on the screen (supposed to be Frizzle95 but happened to be you). Again, really sorry, you haven't vandalized. Sorry for the misunderstanding. Really. I'm sorry. :) Cheers, Kodster ^{(heLLo) (Me did that)} 01:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Hahaha, thanks!

This totally made my day. Truth is, I saw you give this to somebody else and I thought -- I am going to do anything to earn that Barnstar. I figured it was going to take something epic. I was prepared to do a World War II featured topic or something. Thank goodness I got it so easy :) Saved me a fortune on books! --JayHenry (talk) 03:51, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Very nice :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Nobody says "very tasteful", I notice :) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 07:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Bagh! Missed opportunity there. Can I tempt you with this one - {{Ceci n'est pas un poisson}} - instead? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 07:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, but surely just doing Magritte would qualify me for that. No need to do all the articles in {{World War II}} like I had planned. --JayHenry (talk) 00:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Doing an article on a totally unrelated subject is what makes it so deliciously surreal. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 06:02, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Questia

I'm wondering if you have access to it? Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:35, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 05:45, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

FAC for Civil Air Patrol

Your oppose at the FAC for Civil Air Patrol has been addressed. Please evaluate the article to see if it now meets your standards. —  scetoaux (T|C) 23:10, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 05:45, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Aircraft of the Indian Navy - Needs to come off "Help Needed" List

Hi

I'm a new member of the Indian military history task force. I noticed that the article on the Aircraft of the Indian Navy showed up as needing attention to grammar. The article has gone from this to this. I think it's in good enough shape. So how do I take it off the endangered species list? Just delete it off the list? :)

Thanks! Marathi_Mulgaa (talk) 08:15, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Seems to have been done already. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 05:54, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Fortress

Hi, you left remarks during particular review, could you investigate this progress and state your opinion if your initial concerns are address or there are any additional issues, which should be addressed. Please, if you can, state your opinion on particular sand box talk. All the best, M.K. (talk) 16:57, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

It's better but Ninth Fort should still be merged into it and it needs a copy-edit. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 06:00, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi, actually the article undergone copy editing procedure, if you found some parts not clear or not grammatically correct, please indicate them. Cheers, M.K. (talk) 10:01, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

In case you're interested...

Care to weigh in on a national English variation debate? – Scartol • Tok 19:36, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

my RfA - Ta!

Gwen gleans, wending keen by the wikirindle.

Thanks for strongly supporting my RfA, which went through 93/12/5. I'll be steadfast in this trust the en.Wikipedia community has given me. Cheers! Gwen Gale (talk) 01:11, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Military History disagrees with Good Article

I am the editor who annotated the first half of the Albigensian Crusade article, which Middle Ages assesses as High Importance. In order to verify I wasn't wasting my time and making a mess for everyone, given the status of the article, I then checked with the Good Article ajudicator who was gratuitously rude, despite the congratulations from others in that team. I then asked for ajudication without result, and therefore withdrew from editing. It now transpires that Military History supports my annotations: can you therefore please intervene with Good Article to get them to correct themselves, as they are not specialists in the subject area. Jeremy Main, jelmain arubase skynet.be

The editor in question can sometimes be abrupt but is very knowledgeable. Rather than giving up on this, why not join the new Crusades task force and enlist the help of other editors to work with you? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 04:18, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Battle of Arras

Hi Roger. Noticed your reversion of my changes to the above article. The reason for my (minor) change is that political pressure was not only being applied in London and Paris, but also in Ottawa, Canberra, Pretoria, etc. So, If you'd rather be "specific" rather than "general", you'd have to list all of those locations. Not only the British and French were involved, and I thought "Allied" was the best way to denote that. Cheers, and all comments welcome. Esseh (talk) 01:07, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Interesting points. As the risk of appearing dismissive of dominion contributions, the article's focus is on Anglo-French military and political difficulties and examples of these follow. While there may have been rumblings elsewhere, they were nothing like on the scale or the importance of the Anglo-French problems. The only major players in grand strategy were GB and France and it was their governments that were in crisis. In writing about WWI, the danger of presentism is, erm, ever-present. It was in the nature of empire that, for example, GB declared war on behalf of all her dominions and possessions without asking the dominions what they thought. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 04:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Roger, thanks for the "ping". True, England and France were the major players, but as a Canadian, I am well aware of, for example, the conscription crisis in Canada happening at about the same time. It was massive in scale, and threatened to tear the nation apart. (This, of course would have robbed the Empire of its "shock troops"!) Furthermore, the pressure in Ottawa (and other Dominion capitals) would have been used by the Dominion governments to put pressure on London. In this way, I still feel public pressure on all Allied governments would be more correct, as well as more inclusive. Cheers. Esseh (talk) 16:22, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Need Help - How to change the title of an article

Hi Roger

Sorry to bother you with trivialities again, but how does one change the title of an article and have all links to the old name redirect to the new one?

A few of us plan to [expand] the scope of Aircraft of the Indian Navy to encompass the entire Indian Naval Air Arm. But we don't want to break any existing links to this article. Any pointers on how this can be done?

Thanks much!

Marathi_Mulgaa (talk) 09:34, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

What do you want to change it to? Air arm of the Indian Navy? If so, you can just use the [Move] tab, (see Help:Moving a page for info). This will automatically redirect the links to the new article. If you get stuck, just ask! --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 04:14, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Will do - Thanks much!!! Marathi_Mulgaa (talk) 04:39, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

		The Editor's Barnstar
		For copyeditting the article Montana class battleship I herby present you with The Editor's Barnstar. Given that my sp&g suck, I can only imagine what you found in that twilight zone. TomStar81 (Talk) 10:09, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Tom, but it really isn't as bad as you insist :) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 11:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Help with grammar

Could you please check and proofread the article from my sandbox User:Whiskey/Sandbox. I'm trying to put it in Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Essays. --Whiskey (talk) 10:49, 27 May 2008 (UTC)