User talk:MarcusBritish

RE:Peer review issues

Hi MarcusBritish, hopefully I can help explain it. The B-Class assessment stays on the talk page until it gets a higher assessment rating. (In reality you don't have to remove it as using FA/FL/A/GA will override the B-Class criteria.) So, no need to touch the B-Class. Now, on to the Peer Review, the main issue here is that the Peer Review is still open. Given the paucity of reviewers around at the moment I would suggest opening an A-Class review (ACR) rather than a new peer review. I think you have got all you can out of a peer review, the next logical step is an A-Class review. If you do open an ACR then the PR needs closing. You can do it yourself or you can take the easier option and ask one of the coordinators (like me) to do it. ;) Hope this helps. If you want to open up an ACR I can talk you through that if you like as well. Woody (talk) 20:00, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I've made a few tweaks to the table just now so that it is more in line with "wiki-formatting" rather than standard HTML. I've also used {{dts}} for the dates, it saves all of the "display:none" formatting. Given that the Peer Review is currently open, I don't think there is much to be gained from putting it through PR again. I think it best to keep pushing the article forwards and up the assessment scale: go to ACR. Opening it is fairly easy, the instructions are at WP:MHR#A-CLASS. The key points: Add A-Class=current to the {{WPMILHIST}} project banner, then click on the "currently undergoing" link that appears in the template. This will open a page pre-formatted for the discussion of the status of the article. Then you write your nomination page listing your reasons for nominating, link to the peer review here for example. Then you add the transclusion to the WP:MHR#A-CLASS page. I can deal with the PR for you if you would like. Woody (talk) 21:01, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Whoops, I didn't notice that there were date ranges used there otherwise I wouldn't have used it, I've reverted myself on that one. You do need the full length for the dates though, so you need to do that. On the wikitables though, I have to disagree with you. Frankly, I don't think it will get through the assessments, particularly FLC with non-standardised formatting. You can force the column widths to help with your padding issue though. On a personal level, I find the wikitables much easier to look at and more intuitive. The html version looks dated. If you have an accessibility issue with the styling, you can try and attain consensus to get the style amended but it is the basis of all wikipedia tables and so a lot of thought has gone into making it accessible and usable and it is widely accepted across Wikipedia. Woody (talk) 21:48, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry again about the dates thing, just wasn't looking what I was doing. I know all about the issues surrounding sorting etc for wikitables, my current FLC List of Victoria Cross recipients (A–F) was a labour of love getting the rank column to sort how I wanted it to. I'll offer my comments on the ACR in the next couple of days. I've done all the admin stuff relating to the PR and the ACR so that is all set now, you've just got to wait for the reviews. By the way, you are a trailblazer in the sense that there are no other similar lists currently at FL status. Good luck. Woody (talk) 22:25, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

It is an error to think that simply because one reviewer hasn't brought up doesn't mean that it isn't an issue. Some reviewers concentrate solely on one specific area eg images, citations, prose and won't look at other areas. Reviewers, particularly in assessment processes, have the right to offer suggestions and offer demands for their support ie I suggest X or my opinion is Y... but this is a policy and I oppose promotion if Z remains in the article. It is then for the person closing the review to judge the merits and weight of this oppose.

Reviewing is always about opinions and when doing it over the web and in plain text the nuances of language and face-to-face contact is lost. The way comments are made can be easily misinterpreted by the person reading them and this always has to be taken into account when reading the reviews. You need a particularly thick skin sometimes, FAC in particular. Incidentally, that is what I think has happened here, comments have been misread and wires have been crossed.

Wikipedia in general is suffering from a dearth of reviewers so anything you can do to help will be gratefully received. There is no MOS of reviewing no, but there have been a number of rules of thumb drawn up. The signpost came up with this and MILHIST's Academy offers a number of suggestions. A few editors have offered their opinions and pearls of wisdom on reviewing for the Bugle (MILHIST newsletter) and these can be found here. Often it helps to just get stuck in and learn from any mistakes. If you have any questions after that, feel free to ask away, Regards, Woody (talk) 17:35, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

You misquote me, I said "dearth" not death! All of the review processes are suffering from a lack of reviewers be they within or outside of the MILHIST project. Our ACR and PRs are lacking as well as the main PR/FAC/FLC etc. Incidentally that is part of the reason why we (Coordinators) are going to merge our PR into the main PR system. As a project, Milhist is one of the most active and productive of Wiki-projects, the talk pages are congenial, active, and very productive. Our backlogs are miniscule compared to other projects so it is something many other projects look to for inspiration. It's fine being frank, you've just got to be careful as to how your comments could be construed by someone else with a different viewpoint. Woody (talk) 11:04, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

A Class review

I got your request for an A-class review. I've submitted many articles, including many assessed as B-class, but so far I have no GA or A-Class articles (to my knowledge). The only article I ever submitted began the process, but only one editor ever looked at it and it "timed out". So, I'm going to decline your request on the grounds that I don't know how to do an A-class review, having never written an A-class article. I try to be a good sport and do a lot of B-Class reviews to "return the favor", so if you ever need a B-Class review please ask. I did look at the Wellington article and believe that the Second Siege of Badajoz was a defeat (see also Digby Smith or David Gates). Overall, your article is beautifully cited and well-written. Djmaschek (talk) 02:34, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi MarcusBritish, thanks for your message. You can count on me contributing to an A-Class Review. I am able to contribute on issues related to content mostly; I went through most of the article and I have 4-5 remarks. I have to say that I am not very good though at "procedure"; I only know my history, that's all. Do let me know if you proceed with an A-Class Review. Best,--Alexandru Demian (talk) 21:02, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Wellington ACR

I saw it was closed as no consensus, I think it was always going to suffer after the tête-à-tête that occurred early on. Hopefully this second review can pass this time. I think it is an excellent list but everyone has a different way of looking at things. I've headed on over there and re-offered my support.

On another note have you seen Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Strategy/Self-assessment‎? As someone new to the MILHIST project I think it would be great if you could offer your opinions and viewpoints on the MILHIST project. How do you see it at the moment? Thanks, Woody (talk) 11:06, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

That's fine, if and when you feel up to commenting then please do so. You don't have to offer an opinion in all sections just the ones where you feel you have something to offer. Where to improve? seems a good place for a newbie to offer their opinions. I saw the peer review you gave and it was very thorough, just what is needed. Keep up the good work. Woody (talk) 14:03, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I have to say your responses on the ACR page haven't been particularly helpful. Eyeserene was simply doing what I had asked them to do which was to copy over what they saw as the outstanding issues. My reply to his comment should have sufficed. I have added {{CN}} (though I personally despise them) for clarity over where the text is missing a citation (or it might not be clear where the citation is for that bit of text).

Reviewers are offering their opinions on where the article doesn't meet Wikipedia's or their own standards. That is the idea of a review, to lambast reviewers for offering their opinions is to misunderstand the whole point of reviews. They are a collaborative exercise, ACR is a very tame one when compared to the featured content processes where you are far more likely to butt heads with established egos. I don't see Eyeserene or anyone else in that review "flashing their badges" in any sense, they are only offering their opinions which are informed by being involved with reviews for some years now. They will know what passes and what doesn't. They understand where reviews often fall down. The point of reviews is to highlight where the article doesn't meet the requisite standards and if they don't then of course they will oppose. These standards aren't avoidable or negotiable, they must be met to acquire A-Class or FA/FLC. As eyeserene explains below there are policies which are non-negotiable and guidelines which generally have to be followed. This review is becoming far more hard work than it needs to be. You have to give a bit and you will get a lot back. Correct me if I'm wrong, but in my eyes you seem to have become more pre-occupied with the reviewers rather than the review. There is an adage on Wikipedia that you should "comment on content not on contributors. I honestly believe that AR and Eyeserene have acted in good faith in these reviews and if you can believe that and acknowledge that, then the reviews will go through a lot more smoothly. Woody (talk) 10:03, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

He also ordered countless other remote engagements, mostly whilst serving in the Napoleonic Wars during which Britain played a major role in securing Europe against French occupation between 1803 and 1815. This isn't backed up by the table or anything else that is in this article. It needs a reference and it isn't a case of WP:BLUE (which is an essay/advice and not a policy). Any material in the article that [is] challenged or likely to be challenged needs to be cited. That sentence is something that could easily be challenged by a reader of the article. Take someone who doesn't have any background knowledge of Wellington/Napoleonic era, they would read though and think to themselves, oh, really, who says that. You need to prove it. Basing it on your own conclusions is original research. You are coming with an original conclusion from the text that you have read. It might be true but unless you can verify it with a source that states the same, then it will have to be removed. Woody (talk) 09:45, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Perfect. Woody (talk) 12:02, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Re your response to my comments on Battle record of Arthur Wellesley

I'm responding here to avoid detracting from the focus of the review. It appears that you've misunderstood the nature of my comments, so I'll expand on them here.

• As I mentioned on the review page I was posting from the viewpoint of an ACR closer looking at the previous review, not as a reviewer reviewing the article. It's not the closer's job to review the article but merely to review the review, if that distinction makes sense. From that perspective there were a number of issues that appeared to be open; Woody asked me to list those and I did. You shouldn't take that as a review on my part because I haven't actually looked too hard at the article wrt the A-Class criteria.
• To give you one example of an unaddressed comment, paragraph four of "Generalship" still lacks a citation. Your response to this point may be satisfactory or it may not, though generally any criterion-based objection is enough to prevent article promotion regardless of the number of 'support' comments, and verification to reliable sources is indeed an A-Class requirement.
• It's not really correct to say that "Everything is negotiable. Wiki has standards, and guidelines, not iron-clad rules". WP:CIVIL is a site policy, and all policies are to all intents and purposes iron-clad rules. That doesn't mean they are immutable - when community consensus changes, the rules change - but don't be misled by the word "standards" into thinking that there is more flexibility in some areas than there actually is. Essentially anything that's marked as a policy can be viewed as non-negotiable and anything marked as a guideline generally has some wriggle-room but nevertheless reflects widely accepted community practice that will be enforced in most circumstances. Attempting to manoeuvre one's way around perceived gaps in phraseology while ignoring the spirit of policies and guidelines is seen as wikilawyering and tends to be viewed rather dimly.
• Your assessment of "my personal opinion of you" has required you to leap to some rather large and unsafe conclusions based on a few snippets of text. For example, you assume I'm "disappointed" because you make the initial assumption that I'm out to get you in some way by adopting objections that weren't my own, which you further assume is evidence of "sycophantic" behaviour on my part. I've partly covered this in my first bullet point, but perhaps it's worth saying explicitly that you couldn't be further from the truth - I very much enjoyed reading your article and I hope it does pass the ACR. Much of my early work here related to the Peninsular War and it's great to see more quality articles being developed in that area. However, I do have general concerns over maintaining the collegial and collaborative atmosphere that milhist is known for. You can't really attribute your "frankness" (or incivility in Wikipedia-speak) towards me to any history of difficult interactions on our part as you did with Australian Rupert, so the unfortunate conclusion is that you may have difficulties operating within Wikipedia's rules. It's disappointing that you saw my comments as some sort of attempt to put you in your place. I was simply pointing out site policy, as I would to any editor who overstepped the mark and as I hope any other editor would to me. That has nothing to do with any meaningless positions I have here, other than that as an admin I have the means to enforce policy when the need arises (and for which actions I'll be rightly held to account).

I hope the above helps you to appreciate some of the problems with writing things like "I won't be rebuked by anyone based on their personal opinion of me so please, don't bother, you would only cause a fuss", both in the impression it gives of your approach to working here and in the mistaken idea that you might somehow be exempt from the expectations that apply to everyone else. The reason I'm spending some time over this is that I've seen many quality content writers end up leaving Wikipedia, voluntarily or otherwise, because they were ultimately unable to adapt to the way the site operates. What's perhaps more distressing is that in the process they took other good editors down with them due to the aggravation they caused. As you rightly say we're all volunteers and no-one in their right mind would choose to seek out an environment that's being made unpleasant for them. I believe you have made, and are making, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia, and I sincerely hope that you can appreciate that in many ways being able to operate smoothly in a collaborative community environment is as important as producing quality content; the two can exist apart but in my experience the divorce is not a happy one and doesn't tend to last. Best regards, EyeSerene^talk 09:08, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your note - replied on my talk. EyeSerene^talk 11:57, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXIV, June 2011

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; medal recipients; contest results Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at Finland and Spitfires Op-ed: Fifelfoo and hunting for plagiarism

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 go to this page. BrownBot (talk) 23:29, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Wellington ACR

You're not listening to what I said. You do not request your own article to be closed. When the time is up or consensus seems apparent, it will be closed. And no, you did not say you had decided the article was finished being reviewed, but announcing that you will no longer be taking reviews differs only semantically. Reviews take a long time for everyone; the second Wellington ACR has been up for barely 2 weeks; that's half the prescribed time. My current ACR has been up since 4 July, with only three reviews. As you have said elsewhere, you can't force anyone to do anything here - we're all volunteers, and reviewers will come when they do. Parsecboy (talk) 17:05, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh really? Does that just apply to me, or everyone. I seem to notice that I placed my request under someone elses ACR-closure request heading, which was done. Did you rebuke them, or is is "do as I say, not as I do". Hypocrites. Your ACR instructions says they can be closed after a minimum of 5 days - if you're not going to honour requests made after 5 days, but before the 30, I suggest you get it edited and cease attacking people who do with your malicious bull. Barely 2 weeks, plus the 5 weeks before that due to pig-headed abuse of the ACR system. You speak of semantics - is that admittance that you're only willing to accept your interpretation of things? Ma®©usBritish ^[talk] 17:23, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Coordinators are typically the only editors to list ACRs for closure; Ian is a coordinator, and he did in fact make clear that he was listing his own, without colorful commentary about how he would not consider further reviews. Do you honestly think your arrogant behavior does not rub people the wrong way and make them less likely to help you? Parsecboy (talk) 17:38, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Arrogance is subjective - and once again, you're making a mountain out of a mole-hill - I consider you arrogant and belligerent. As YOU reiterated, we're all volunteers, if I no longer wish to expand or edit the article, that is MY choice. ACR doesn't help me, if you want to get smart - the MH Project benefits from more high-level articles, than the editors who write them - except those aiming for cooord/admin status - sycophants mostly. Storm in a teacup - you keep riding it, if you wish, I prefer to sip. ;) Ma®©usBritish ^[talk] 17:47, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Abuse

I will allow you to apologise for this edit summery [1] if not I will have to report it as unacceptable.Jim Sweeney (talk) 17:57, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Subjective nonsense. Ma®©usBritish ^[talk]

Please do not attack other editors, as you did on User talk:Jim Sweeney#Abuse. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. I understand that you're angry, but this sort of personal attack is not acceptable. – Quadell ^(talk) 18:34, 3 August 2011 (UTC)