|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.|
- 1 Whats wrong with administrative "tools"
- 2 thank you
- 3 Congrats!
- 4 Battle of West Ukraine (1944) assessment
- 5 re: Sept newsletter
- 6 AVFC stats&records
- 7 MILHIST task forces
- 8 First Sea Lords, again
- 9 The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXI (September 2008)
- 10 Usernames
- 11 Olympic poll
- 12 Nova Scotia Arm Wrestling Association
- 13 FACR
- 14 Peer review
- 15 I'm Back
- 16 VC Portal?
- 17 ISI Emerging Markets
- 18 FLC: New Zealand VCs
- 19 Curtis Davies fee
- 20 FLC
- 21 Clarance Smith Jeffries ACR
- 22 William II de la Haya
- 23 Copyeditor
- 24 VC stuff
- 25 Main Page redesign
- 26 More on VCs
- 27 William II de la Haya, ready for moving?
- 28 about dt23
- 29 William de la Haya; third followup to your comments
Whats wrong with administrative "tools"
This  is the reason I oppose any participation of administrators in article content editing. I spent a better part of an hour editing a section in a list which is otherwise a barren collection of wikilinks, to be reverted because it didn't agree with the other editor's idea of what a list is, without prior discussion, and to top it all off, an administrator, without contacting me, or without any evidence of a request for administrator intervention, or even an established edit dispute (i.e. at least two reverts!) slapped a protection on the article, restricting it to administrator-only editing. This is precisely why Buckshot06 is looking for this sort of "ability", and how Wikipedia's content will ultimately be decided by the more networked administrators rather than any reliance on sources to give it greater authority as a reference work. So much for the "reference work that can be edited by anyone" myth--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 00:15, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Milhist Coordinator elections
|Thank you very much for your much appreciated support in the recently concluded September 2008 Military History Wikiproject Coordinator Elections. I was thoroughly surprised to walk away with a position of Coordinator. Thank-you for your support, and I assure you that I will do my best to serve this spectacular project well. Esteemed Regards, Cam (Chat) 00:52, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Notre Dame de Lorrette Cemetary - Arras, France
Congratulations on your election as Coordinator of the Military history Wikiproject. In honor of your achievement, I present you with these stars. I wish you luck in the coming term. -- TomStar81 (Talk) 01:10, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
|The WikiProject Barnstar|
|In gratitude for your coordination services to the Military history WikiProject, from February 2008 to September 2008, please accept this barnstar.-- TomStar81 (Talk) 01:10, 1 October 2008 (UTC)|
Battle of West Ukraine (1944) assessment
Woody, this article is barely Start! Joe is still getting some books for it, and I am still trying to convince others that it was not named as it is now. This operation was in scope every bit as large as Kursk--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 10:04, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for doing the contest dept. I hope things are easier with you and that it didn't encroach too much. Sure I'll do the BSS though I'm not sure how much variety my sig will add. (Thought: doesn't this mean that Bellhalla in line for another A-Class review medal? Or two!?) I was going to hold fire on the newsletter until a replacement is found. Your input at WT:MHCOORD#Coordinator vacancy would be appreciated. Incidentally, if he turns us down, I'm not suggesting we invite the three in tied 11th place instead. I'll explain more thoroughly there. Anyhow, I am very pleased you're back for another term. --ROGER DAVIES talk 11:33, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
- PS: Inspired use of magenta for the Awesomeness BS! It defeats the purpose somehow to do it in black :) --ROGER DAVIES talk
- I was waiting for Buckshot's RfA to close. The newsletter is all ready to go. Have you time to CE it and do the honours? If not, don't worry :) --ROGER DAVIES talk 15:40, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks :) As you'll have seen en passant, I'm trying to get the Soviet Naming Question definitively resolved. This will probably involve, in the end game, a WP:RM for twenty or so articles. WP:MILMOS should probably also be amended. Just thought I'd mention it as a tantalising foretaste of the delights to come :) --ROGER DAVIES talk 16:13, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- You would prefer I shut up, and just do as I'm told?
- Was the vote already taken on the RM for articles and the amendment to MoS off-Wiki, or is it going to be done in public space to again invoke the "consensus"?
- 32 articles will need renaming
- (bet I'll be banned from here also for this)--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 01:37, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- You won't be banned, of course not; I don't ban people from my talkpage. I just won't read what you have to say, especially if it is in huge verbose monologues decrying 60 years of world history. As I have said before, unless you start acting under the rules of Wikipedia, you will be more and more marginalised even if your opinion has some semblance of validity. Woody (talk) 10:06, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- I was thinking of civility and general common decency, a willingness to listen to others. Or, just read Roger's link or Wikipedia:Key policies and guidelines. By definition, there must be rules to ignore, if there is a policy called ignore all rules. You should only ignore a rule if it is preventing you from improving the encyclopedia; standards of civility do not stop you from improving the encyclopedia. As I have said before, please don't come here with your ideological issues, I will only fix technical/maintenance issues. Woody (talk) 11:16, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Hey, there's too many AVFC articles on my watchlist ;-( so I noticed your revert of the Milner thing. I've read the FLC discussion on fees for Milner and Davies, but if you look at the references, the BBC ref you use to cite undisclosed fee actually says £12m, and the Telegraph one says £12m in the headline and first sentence of the article and £10m only in the table below it. Also, Newcastle United more than once say £12m. I'd argue that if one of the clubs involved disclose the fee, then it isn't undisclosed. Davies is a different matter, as neither club disclosed the fee and there's no media agreement on what they think it was. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:53, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
MILHIST task forces
I'm not sure if you saw my question to you just above the adoption table, so I'll ask it again here. Would you have any reservations/qualms/misgivings about giving your TF coordinator slot at Maritime warfare up to me since that is my expressed area of interest for MILHIST? I'd understand if you'd like to keep it since I believe that you've also dabbled with a few articles in the spectrum. -MBK004 02:39, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
First Sea Lords, again
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXI (September 2008)
The September 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) 00:19, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Hiya Woody. Got an admin-related question for ya: I blocked an account on grounds that the username was inappropriate (took a moment to decipher it, when I final got it I noticed the guy had included bodily waste fluids in his name). I left a hand typed message on the talk page explaining the reason for the block, but was wondering if there was a template somewhere that I could use in such situations. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:12, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Woody, you posted at one or more of the recent discussions of short FAs. There's now a proposal to change the featured article criteria that attempts to address this. Please take a look and consider adding your comments to the straw poll there. Mike Christie (talk) 23:25, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Woody! Thanks for your comments here. I'm kind of busy in real life these days, so I won't be focusing much on improving BTR-90 (or any other article, really) for some time to come. I'll make a note of your suggestions and use them if I get round to it some time later, and if somebody else hadn't already done it by then. BTW, I think it would be best to withdraw the peer review, right? How do I do that, or is it not necessary? Thanks again, and here's a cookie for the suggestions and advice :)
Hello my friend long time no speak! How are you? I guess you could say I'm back I want to get back into the swing of things so to speak the last 6months etc has been a bit tough really just starting back at uni now, so should have sometime on my hands! How's everything going I see you've been busy without me ;)!
All the best Andy.
I sthere any mileage in setting up a VC portal. I know we have the Featured Topic for the variants of the medal itself, but a portal would give more flexibility to cover both the medal and the recipients.
The other random thought which occurred to me, is there any precedent for identifying in the recipient lists which articles hold GA or FA status? Bryce has been doing a lot of work bringing the Aussie recipietns up to higher statuses, and it might be good to acknowledge this a bit more visibly - a portla would also allow this to some extent. David Underdown (talk) 11:35, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
My article for ISI Emerging Markets has been rejected, variously because it was too short, too commercial, not enough context....coudl you send it to me please so I can fix it and stop thinkiing about it? The sense of failure is crushing!
Well, i've just excelled myself. I closed your FLC review as promoted. I've undone this now so this is by way of explanation. The
excuse reason is that Wikipedia went very slow and soggy on me and the wrong transcluded file opened. I realised when I went to the article. All the best, --ROGER DAVIES talk 09:56, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Curtis Davies fee
I noticed that the club records section of the WBA official website has now been updated to show the Curtis Davies transfer, quoting the fee at £8.5m. As this is the official club website, do you think we can take this as the official, disclosed figure? Cheers. --Jameboy (talk) 22:05, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
- Also... the Chairman's statement (published this month) talks about an "initial £8.5m" from the sale, implying there were add-on clauses but not saying what they were. --Jameboy (talk) 22:12, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Hello, the FLCon is currently running and unfortunately part of the problem with it is that most of our current regular reviewers are entrants. I would hate for people to lose in the contest solely because of a lack of reviewers, so could you please take a look at some of the following FLCs if you have time?
- List of Honorary Fellows of Jesus College, Oxford
- List of acquisitions by Hewlett-Packard
- List of universities in Nova Scotia
- List of Governors of Arizona
- List of St. Louis Rams head coaches
- List of Vancouver SkyTrain stations
- List of Soul Eater chapters
Clarance Smith Jeffries ACR
Hi Woody, I was wondering if you would be able to comment on the A-Class Review for the article Clarence Smith Jeffries if you have the time? I normally wouldn't go around requesting comments from an editor, but the review has been quite slow thus far and you have provided me with some helpful and insightful comments previously in reviews. Please don't feel obligated to do so if you do not wish to, or do not possess the time. Thanks which ever way, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 03:46, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks mate; I appreciate it. I have amended the issues raised, and left comments to that effect in the review. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 05:15, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
William II de la Haya
I have now completed the text on my second article, William II de la Haya, (the first being Ranulf de Soulis, with which you helped me) and now am trying to get it to conform to Wikipedia format, with partial success, as you can see in my sand box.
- First, I don’t understand why the (Table of) Contents appear before the main title of the article.
- Second, I note that certain sections, Early Life, Hostage for King William the Lion, Grant to Coupar Angus Abbey have not made the transformation from “editing” format to the final, Wikipedia, format.
- Third, Inline references and footnotes. This is what I am working on now and have completed to the end of Early Life.
- (Note that I have included a working list of the notes and references, labeled “For author’s use” at the bottom of the sand box. This is only temporary and I shall delete it when I finally get the article finished.)
Balfour, 1906 is OK, This is supposed to be Reg. of Coupar, but is not listed as such. This is what in my pre-Wikipedia days I would have called a foot note. It has not appeared in the list. Townsend, 1970 is really No. 4, but is listed as No.3.
I think that I better stop working on the inline references and footnotes until I hear from you as to what I have done wrong. If we solve the problems on those that I have already done, then I think that I can do the rest. Of course, the next, related step will be the References and, no doubt I can get into trouble there, but that’s in the future. I really appreciate the help that you have given me previously.Thanks. Inver471ness (talk) 18:46, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
- followup to your comments
Thanks, Woody, for being so prompt and helpful.
How did you (a) get the Content to be in the right place and (b) to get those three sections to look right? Just as important, what did I do wrong?
You are right. We should combine the two granting of lands into one section. I intend also to combine Pincerna, Hostage for King William and Ambassador to England into a section called Service to the King.
Re: Inline References.
What I was trying to do was to make 3 explanatory footnotes as you did in Aston Villa FC #3s 8 and 11 and you did for me in Ranulf de Soules #s 5and 7. The three explanatory footnotes are in the temporary section, “For Author’s use” At the moment, the intended footnote, “The evidence for Wm II…charter” is part of the text and one result is that that part of the text does not make sense.
I don’t want to impose on you; I’d rather learn how to do things myself. If you could show me how to handle the first explanatory footnote, I’ll do the other two. My current aim is to get the page correct down to the end of Early Life, and understand how we did it. I'll go on from there.
Two more questions.How did you get the reference to Reg of Coupar to work? I thought that I did it correctly. When I work in my sandbox, I end up with a long history for very minor changes. Can I get rid of this history when I am finished? Cordially,Inver471ness (talk) 04:51, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
- William de la Haya; second followup to your comments
I'm hoping to take 11th Airborne Division to FAC soon for a second try, but I really want to make sure the prose is up to scratch this time. I've looked it over, but I think I'm too close to it. Do you know where I can find a copy-editor who could look it over? EyeSerene is busy with other requests, and the League of Copy-Editors seems to be defunct now. Any help would be appreciated, thanks! Skinny87 (talk) 07:10, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
You mention that WP is not the place for hero worship. It is rather difficult to mention these guys without seeming as if they are heroes - as they are. The articles are (still) rather bland, to my mind. The Americans are better at promoting their own MOH recipients. Every word of the MOH winner Douglas MacArthur spells out hero, even though he was a high up who was never exposed to too much actual danger. It seems that we have to understate things, as these events happened a long time ago. Modern people are widely acclaimed on Wikipedia for doing far less, for example, David Beckham and Angelina Jolie. The same rules should apply for everyone. Wallie (talk) 13:50, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Main Page redesign
The Main Page Redesign proposal is currently conducting a straw poll to select five new designs, before an RFC in which one will be proposed to replace the Main Page. The poll closes on October 31st. Your input would be hugely appreciated! Many thanks, PretzelsTalk! 09:22, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
More on VCs
re: Please see Talk:Victoria Cross#Recent changes which discusses how we can restructure the VC article. I hope that I have not come across as abrasive in anyway, and I apologise if this is the case. I am only trying to maintain the featured status of the article and maintain its quality, this has been a problem in the past, particularly after its mainpage appearance. If you have any queries or disagreements with my edits, please don't hesitate to leave a note on my talkpage. Regards. Woody (talk) 15:22, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
- No, Woody. Feel free to always talk directly. As you know, I sometimes make as you would say "bold edits". If anyone changes them or the style for the better, that's OK with me. I have noticed that the "British understatement" comes through sometimes. As I mentioned, the Americans tend to treat their people more favourably. The ideal is probably somewhere between the two. Also, the Australians tend to lean more towards the American style - New Zealanders are learning this too. If you see the Chavasse article, it is definitely more understated than Upham. To my mind, these guys are at the same level. Perhaps Chavasse is more "noble" as he saved life and did not just take it. In summing up, I am very flexible, and always looking for new ideas. I do get on my hobby horse sometimes, like in the WW2 article continually bad mouth Germans calling them nazis etc. I had quite a fight there, and eventually won. To my mind with war, there is good and bad on both sides, and things need to be looked at objectively. This happens over time anyway, as the events become more disentangled with the present. Wallie (talk) 17:35, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
William II de la Haya, ready for moving?
Hello Woody, I think that my article, presently in my sandbox , is now ready, thanks in a large part to your guidance. Do you agree?
I think that I now understand most of the process.
A couple of points.
1. The one part that I had trouble with was putting references in the "explanatory notes". Have I handled it correctly? I have left my original versions of these notes at the bottom of the article so you can see what I was trying to do, but will remove them before I move the article into Wikipedia proper, something I have to figure out how to do.
2. It seems to me that the list of notes is long, but that may be the nature of the beast. Any comments?
3. The history part of my sandbox contains many,many changes, most of which are very minor.To avoid clutter, I would like to remove them. Can I do this?
Thanks for your patient help!
Hate to bother you but i was just noticed that a member wikipedia that raised a sourcing question about the page "list of battles by casualties" asked the he be blocked upon his entering into mlilitary service in afghaninstan. now im not sure but isnt that against the rules when someone asks you to block them for semingly no reason and you actually do block. The admin actually did it.shouldnt they have simply asgined a wikibreak. the members name is Dt23 . I thought an admin should check it out.--Sharpterov (talk) 19:15, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
William de la Haya; third followup to your comments
Hello Woody, I have moved the article to the mainstream.
I found a way to work the first explanatory note into the text proper, so now there are only two explanatory notes.
Thanks for all your help.