User talk:Ieuan Sant

Monty the Field Marshall by Nigel Hamilton ISBN 0-340-40985-9 PUBLISHED 1986

To my mind the existing Wiki article on the Battle of the Bulge is a very poor article and reprsents some poor scholarship by existing editors. One glaring omission is the the box showing the command structure of the allied generals, all but Monty have thier division listed opposite their name except Montgomery. At the height of the battle Montgomery commanded two armies consisting of 11 British and American divisions almost three times that of any other American general. Although General Eisenhower was the supreme allied commander he took only one important decision and that at the prompting of the British, i.e. The British Prime Minister at that time and the British CIGS and that was to separate the command structure North (Montgomery) and South (Bradley) Bradley commanded 3 divisions and Patton 3 divisions. In his book Nigel Hamilton points out the vital and battle winning contribution of Montgomery, admitted by American Generals under him and German Generals, opposing him. Montgomery is universally acknowledged to have been one of a small number of generals from the 2nd World war who made a vital and war making contribution, this does not show in any article about Montgomery in my opinion.

For example p.283 of Hamilton's book explains that Field Marshal Montgomery was was commanding 21st Army group and that group contained 9th US army. No mention of this is made in the command box, yet all the other US army generals are allocated their commands. Unless any one complains I shall add to that box that Montgomery commanded 21st Army Group during this period of the war.

A Memory Guide to Help me Remember how to Treat Newcomers with Friendliness and Patience

New members are prospective contributors and are therefore Wikipedia's most valuable resource. We must treat newcomers with kindness and patience — nothing scares potentially valuable contributors away faster than hostility. It is impossible for a newcomer to be completely familiar with all of the policies, guidelines, and community standards of Wikipedia before they start editing. Even the most experienced editors may need a gentle reminder from time to time.

Contents 1 Please do not bite the newcomers 2 How to avoid being a "biter" 3 What to do if you feel you have "bitten" or have been bitten 4 Common newcomer errors 5 Ignorantia juris may excuse 6 See also

[edit] Please do not bite the newcomers Understand that newcomers are both necessary for and valuable to the community. By empowering newcomers, we can improve the diversity of knowledge, perspectives, and ideals on Wikipedia, thereby preserving its neutrality and integrity as a resource and ultimately increasing its value. In fact, it has been found that newcomers are responsible for adding the majority of lasting content to Wikipedia (i.e., substantive edits); while insiders and administrators are responsible for a large bulk of total edits, these often involve tweaking, reverting, and rearranging content.[1] Remember, our motto and our invitation to the newcomer is be bold. We have a set of rules, standards, and traditions, but they must not be applied in such a way as to thwart the efforts of newcomers who take that invitation at face value. A newcomer brings a wealth of ideas, creative energy, and experience from other areas that, current rules and standards aside, have the potential to better our community and Wikipedia as a whole. It may be that the rules and standards need revising or expanding; perhaps what the newcomer is doing "wrong" may ultimately improve Wikipedia. Observe for a while and, if necessary, ask what the newcomer is trying to achieve before concluding that their efforts are substandard or that they are simply "wrong." If a newcomer seems to have made a small mistake (e.g., forgetting to put book titles in italics), try to correct it yourself: do not slam the newcomer. Remember, this is a place where anyone may edit and therefore it is in every sense each person's responsibility to edit, rather than to criticize or supervise others. Do not use bad manners or swear at newcomers, or they may not want to contribute to this website again. Ieuan Sant (talk) 10:26, 29 August 2010 (UTC) Ieuan Sant (talk) 10:28, 29 August 2010 (UTC) Ieuan Sant (talk) 10:29, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Abuse of process Abuse of process is related to gaming. It involves knowingly trying to use the communally agreed and sanctioned processes described by some policies, to advance a purpose for which they are clearly not intended. Abuse of process is disruptive, and depending on circumstances may be also described as gaming the system, personal attack, or disruption to make a point. Communally agreed processes are intended to be used in good faith.

Ieuan Sant (talk) 10:38, 29 August 2010 (UTC)