User talk:Roger Davies/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive 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.
← Archive 1 |
Archive 2
| Archive 3 →


Contents

Contribution

Hello. I am currently trying to contribute to a battle in respect to giving a reason why a Viking force had to withdraw from a native attack, which I think was instrumental to the article itself and since the person in question received her place in history for that act. Its my understanding that Wikipedia is meant for contributions, but the people at that region see fit to leave the situation vague. They have told me that I cannot simply copy and past from references and, in short order, I re-wrote the small addition in my own words. I don't see what the problem here is, however, they simply revert my edits and give me vague conclusion to why they have done so. The site is intended to be used for non-commercial reproduction so we have no problems in copyright infringement. Any advice would be greatly appreciated. InternetHero 23:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator selection

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are looking to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by August 14! Wandalstouring 10:06, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting nine coordinators from a pool of fourteen candidates to serve for the next six months. Please vote here by August 28! Kirill 01:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


Coordinator election

Congratulations! You have been elected to serve as a coordinator of the Military history WikiProject. When you get a chance, please stop by the coordinators' work area and take a look at the various open tasks and ongoing discussions there. Kirill 00:29, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Congrats!

Assistant Cooridinator of the Military History Wikiproject, August 2007 — February 2008
Assistant Cooridinator of the Military History Wikiproject, August 2007 — February 2008

Congrats on your election as an assistant coordinator. In honor of your achievement, I present you with these stars. I wish you luck in the coming term. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:00, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello Roger. Congratulations and thanks for your support at the Military history taskforce elections. I hope our coordination would continue to be for the benefit of the Encyclopedia. - FayssalF - Wiki me up® 01:44, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


  • Congrats to you on your election as an asst coordinator! I look forward to working with you in the future. LordAmeth 13:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  • No thanks neccessary. Out of the list of candidates, I simply voted for those I felt would best serve the project. Hopefully I will never have to ask of you for assistance (other then just general questions on the projectpage), but if I ever do, it's nice knowing that the elected 'council' appears to be a well-balanced and unbiased group. Best of luck! wbfergus Talk 16:42, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Gl. Thx for thxing. Like I said to the few others who got elected, we need you guys b/c "we" are too lazy to do it ourselves. (Wikimachine 01:19, 10 September 2007 (UTC))

Welcome to WikiProject France

Welcome Roger Davies, to WikiProject France! Please direct any questions about the project to its talk page. If you create new articles on France-related topics, please list them at our announcement page and tag their talk page with our project template, {{WikiProject France}}.

A few features that you might find helpful:

  • The project's Navigation box points to most of the pages in the project that might be of use to you.
  • Most of the important discussions related to the project take place on the project's main talk page; you may find it useful to watchlist it.
  • We've developed a number of guidelines for names, titles, and other things to standardize our articles and make interlinking easier that you may find useful.
Wikipedia:France-related tasks
You can help! Vous pouvez aider!
 Here are some France related tasks you can do:
view • edit • discuss • history • watch

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask me or any of the more experienced members of the project, and we'll be very happy to help you. Again, welcome, and thank you for joining this project!

--STTW (talk) 18:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XVIII (August 2007)

The August 2007 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.

Delivered by grafikbot 10:09, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


Thanks for your review!

Thank you for reviewing the article. Your comments are certainly appreciated. One comment that I didn't understand is the following:

  • "Rather too densely written at the moment. Needs to drip-feed information so that it's easier to assimilate."

Can you explain what you mean by that?Bless sins 19:58, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I think you are introducing too much new information in single sentences without explanation. For example, you say "These injunctions were honored by Umar during the early expansion of Islam", without explaining who Umar was, why he was important, what he did or when the expansion took place. If you assume that your reader knows little or nothing about the subject, and take everything step by step, it will be much easier to follow. --ROGER DAVIES TALK 06:54, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: Vimy Ridge

I'm absolutely interested in this project. I had an opportunity to do some background reading over the summer, but I'm now fairly busy (graduate school and all that), so I maybe a little slow responding , etc. Carom 00:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Hello Roger Davies. Thanks for your support at the Military history elections. With your aid I was able to commision this ship to help plunder the coast of Military history. Na, just kidding. If you ever require any astance all you have to do is ask and you will see my ship on the horizon. Kyriakos 03:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Thankyou

Thankyou for the chevrons and don't worry about the typo!! It is always good to have that nice orange bar at the top of the page. Also, i was happy to support you in the elections. Your work on the assessment drive already seems to have vindicated my decision! :) Good luck with it all and thanks again. Woodym555 09:48, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Georgia Tech

Hey, not that I'm complaining, but why did you tag the Wikipedia:WikiProject Georgia Tech/Articles page under the scope of WikiProject Military history? We can use all the help we can get (heck, we welcome it), but aside from some strong military ties in our early history which might put just a handful of our pages under you scope, I don't see a connection to our whole project. But again, who am I to argue with some extra help? :) LaMenta3 13:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Whoops! I tagged this by mistake and can provide no rational explanation, though I suspect brain rot exacerbated by loss of concentration (the phone kept ringing while I was working through a huge list of potential candidates). Sorry, and good luck with your project! --ROGER DAVIES TALK 06:27, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry if that came off as WP:OWNish, but the only military ties I know of are our ROTC program, and in some parts of Georgia Tech's history. I didn't mean to turn down any support that you or anyone else in WP:MILHIST would like to contribute :) —Disavian (talk/contribs) 17:15, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. It was a balls up on my part, for which I apologise. I was trying to do too many things at once and tagged it in error. I can't meaningfully contribute to the Georgia Tech project, I'm afraid, but if you'd like to help with our assessment drive we only have around 153,000 articles left to include or exclude. :-))) --ROGER DAVIES TALK 06:35, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


Austrian generals

My French is not brilliant; would you be able to check and correct the one I've done - Frederick Bianchi, Duke of Casalanza? The relevant sections in French are still embedded in the article. If you can do that I'll fix up the other cleanup things afterwards. Thanks Buckshot06 17:11, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

No worries, I'll do the cleanups, though my real period is elsewhere as well (things like Russian Ground Forces). Sitting in your coordinator's seat, do you have any thoughts or advice for making the Rus & Sov TF part of the Russian wikiproject as well? Cheers Buckshot06 17:58, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I asked Kirill as promised. Here's the exchange:

On a related note, User:Buckshot06 asked me earlier how best to integrate the Rus & Sov TF with the Russian wikiproject. Thoughts? --ROGER DAVIES TALK 19:09, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Would be easy enough to do; but the reason we haven't done so in the past is because we weren't sure which project (i.e. Russia, SU, or Russian history) to work with. If we could get a clear answer on how those projects interact, we could go ahead and make the task force joint with whichever one was best. Kirill 16:39, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

the best way forward now is probably to raise it on the Milhist noticebaord, answering Kirill's questions. --ROGER DAVIES TALK 11:02, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Jackie Fisher, 1st Baron Fisher

I have put the following message on User talk:Proteus

Please desist from reverting the edit made by User:Roger Davies at 12:39, 15 September 2007. What Roger has done is to put in a useful footnote and a few minor corrections. If you know of a good reason for the article to not have these, please explain your point on the talk page, instead of reverting.

--Toddy1 20:48, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. I have added this article to my watchlist and added copious references to the talk page. --ROGER DAVIES TALK 09:32, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Roger - you have been doing good work on the article today. Fisher did a lot of important jobs; a man who had done any one of them would merit a good-size biographical article in Wikipedia. Do the sources you have at hand provide enough information to write a few paragraphs on what he did as Controller? And if so, do they mention the Leander's refit?--Toddy1 12:26, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Good idea! I was thinking it might be fun to get this up to FA. I've long been interested in Fisher and there's no shortage of material. User:Carom is interested in the Royal Navy and he could be roped in too. (We did the Battle of Arras (1917) together and are currently working on another project.} --ROGER DAVIES TALK 12:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I would be happy to participate in this.--Toddy1 12:52, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Roger, I've had a quick look and all the books I have checked use Jacky rather than Jackie. I did wonder if this was a UK / USA spelling difference but I don't think so. MacKay 'Fisher of Kilverstone' uses Jacky (US Author);), Hough which I have under 'Admiral of the Fleet' the US title - it was published here (UK) as 'First Sea Lord' - Jacky. Roskill's Beatty which I am reading at the moment. He quotes from various letters that Beatty wrote. Beatty spelt it 'Jacky'. I expect Chalmers volume of Beatty would confirm this. Marder (US author) in the preface to Vol 1 of From the Dreadnought to Scapa Flow - Jacky. So there are quite a number to support Jacky as the correct spelling. I had a quick look at The Fisher Papers (Navy Records Society) but can't see any refs to either Jacky or Jackie in there. They may be in there but couldn't see anything obvious. As I say Roskill is quoting from Beatty's orginal papers anyway. Incidentially I checked the London Gazette re the of Kilverstone thing and from 1909 to 1920 all the references to him seemed to include 'of Kilverstone.' SirLancelot 19:32, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

MacKay, I see, in quoted correspondence, has Jackie as well. Morris' Fisher Face uses Jacky. Perhaps you could transfer the info to Toddy1's useful table? --ROGER DAVIES TALK 10:35, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

No it is not a UK/US thing. Virtually all the books I have use neither Jacky nor Jackie. However one that did is "The Jellicoe Papers" Volume I, edited by A Temple Patterson, pub Naval Records Society 1966. This uses 'Jacky' - however I only found 'Jacky' in parts written by A Temple Patterson. I admit that I have not checked every single reference.

Most books I have prefer to call him Sir John Fisher. Though "Naval Tactics", the pamphlet he published for private circulation in 1871, calls him J. Fisher.

Incidentally, every person I have met who calls themselves 'Jackie' is a girl.--Toddy1 22:04, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. the table, by the way, was very helpful. I'll start filling it in later. Perhaps you could do likewise with your refs.--ROGER DAVIES TALK 10:35, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Waterloo edits

Thanks for your tidy up of my edits. There are two things which I propose to change. 2 Juncture - Replace "at the juncture between the area where Wellington's allied army was cantoned to his north-west, and Blücher's Prussian army that was dispersed to the north-east" with "at the road junction between Wellington's allied army to his north-west and Blücher's Prussian army to his north-east".

I did not mean the road junction I meant the juncture OED "The place at which, or structure by which, two things are joined; a joint, jointing, junction." There was no specific road or junction there were several different methods by which members of the two armies could reach other -- which is why the word point was not IMHO the best word to describe the seam between the armies that Napoleon wished to pick apart.
But Napoleon didn't pile into the middle of two joined armies, he pushed his men between them to prevent them joining up. For road junction, I was relying on Naylor: "The Emperor's order had been categoric on the need to capture the intersection of the roads" ... "leaving the road junction in the hands of the allies created totally unnecessary difficulties for the French" ("Waterloo" (1960), p65.) In any event, my prime objective was to simplify the complexity of the sentence. It seemed a bit clunky. --ROGER DAVIES TALK 14:35, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
To imply that there was one road between then and one road junction leads to the implication that both armies were concentrated which they were not. Therefor there was more than one route between the dispersed armies. --Philip Baird Shearer 15:16, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
I imply nothing of the sort. A road junction is always an intersection of more than one road. There were two main roads and Napoleon took the road junction at the intersection of them. But this is a side-issue: the real problem is the tangled complexity of the sentence. One way round it is to refer simply to "between the dispersed armies of Wellington to his north-west and Blütcher to his north-east". The article has already explained the composition of them.
--ROGER DAVIES TALK 16:20, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
I think we will have to agree to differ on this one. --Philip Baird Shearer 19:47, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Indeed. I've had a look at the sources and will probably expand this section a bit in the light of that. I shall try to avoid contentious words :)) --ROGER DAVIES TALK 10:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

2 Cannon - Replace "Napoleon had 80 of his cannons drawn up in the centre to form a grande batterie. These opened fire between noon and 13:30" with "Napoleon formed a "grande batterie" of 80 cannon in the centre, opening fire between noon and 13:30". Comments? --ROGER DAVIES TALK 11:16, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Drawn up is a technical term for artillery think of "horse-drawn artillery" I do not see why you wish to replace it with words like massed or formed (although the OED suggests that it should be drawn-up). --Philip Baird Shearer 13:50, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
The OED and the more up-to-date SOED equally suggest "mass", which to my mind conveys the idea of the "grande batterie" more vividly - that's just my take on it. :)
Please understand that there is no element of squaring up in this. I made the changes in absolute good faith. If you don't like them, feel free to change them back. --ROGER DAVIES TALK 14:35, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
I've just seen your edit note. I'm sorry that you're taking this personally. --ROGER DAVIES TALK 14:46, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
I think drawn-up is a better word because it is a more accurate description of what happens with field artillery of that era. "Massed" does convey size, but it also has connotations of disorder. Of the examples given by the OED only "Thirty massed regimental orchestras" does not in my opinion have that connotation. --Philip Baird Shearer 15:16, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
You're looking in the wrong place: that's "massed" adjective/participle not "mass" verb. OED, "mass", verb (2), will give you:
  • 1861 Musgrave By-roads 305 Instead of dispersing their force in brigades.. they massed them in phalanx form.
  • 1878 R. B. Smith Carthage 116 His infantry he masses much more closely together and in much deeper formations than was common among the Romans.
  • 1885 Manch. Examiner 10 Nov. 4/6 Austria is massing troops in Herzegovina.
  • 1974 Times 8 Mar. 9/4 (caption) Syrian troops are massing opposite Israel positions on the Golan Heights.
  • 1990 Vanity Fair (N.Y.) Nov. 156/2 Saddam had massed first 30,000, then 100,000 troops on their frontier.
The grande batterie link which you removed also uses the verb "mass" for cannon.
Consolidating the two sentences also gets rid the concordance problem. The first sentence talks of one grand battery (singular) and the second sentence talks about a plural (referring to the guns not the battery). My ", opening fire at ..." sidesteps this.
--ROGER DAVIES TALK 16:20, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
I think we will have to agree to differ on this one as well because I read the example you have given the same way as the others and I still think that drawn-up is better than massed because that is what was done to the guns. --Philip Baird Shearer 19:47, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough. The world would be a dull place if we all agreed. I think it will benefit the reader, though, if this is clarified and I will do so, suitably referenced, later. Plus, I have an exceedingly cunning plan that will keep us both happy choice-of-words-wise. --ROGER DAVIES TALK 10:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Causes of World War I

You recently downgraded the military history rating of the article "Causes of World War I". Was this because of some changes to the article, or simply the result of inadequate prior review? If you have some specific guidance to improve the article please pass it on. The topic is quite wide and controversial and therefore many have contributed making it hard to maintain high standards. I personally try to stay focused on the July Crisis. I am unclear why this is a military history article; its not intended to be of that character.

Werchovsky 17:20, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

It has all the makings of an excellent piece but it was rather generously assessed before. Adequate citations are a requirement for B-class. The article is at best sparsely referenced and at worst not referenced at all. On your other point, most people regard the political background to a war as part of its military history. Fighting is generally the physical expression of political activity and wars are usually fought with political objectives in mind. --ROGER DAVIES TALK 21:09, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

HMS Donegal

Precognition is just another one of my amazing powers. Good work with the Fisher article. If it doesn't get FA status then there's no justice! Benea 13:52, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I had half a mind to do so. Give me a bit and I'll knock something up, no problem. Thanks, I was pretty taken with his story and thought it worthy of commemoration. pip pip, Benea 15:25, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
HMS Donegal (1858) as requested. Benea 19:01, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Ta very much for the barnstar! HMS Valorous (1851) written up. I also changed HMS Northampton into a disambiguation page since that ship already existed at HMS Northampton (1876). I made a few tweaks to HMS Valorous but nothing much, though I did add another ship. I also fixed the links at Jackie Fisher's page, and fixed the style a bit. Hope this is all ok? ttfn, Benea 14:28, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Not a problem, happy to help! Benea 15:49, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

It's nice to know that someone appreciates that drudgery. Thanks :) Maralia 14:14, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

As an occasional drudgee myself, I feel your pain :) --ROGER DAVIES TALK 16:00, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Fisher

Yes, i was about to leave a note here asking what name you think the template should use. Given the ongoing discussion on the Fisher talk page i was pondering whether to change it. In the end i did and i tried to maintain consistency with the other names by using the "Knight" title. What i see now is that it should really be called Baron Fisher of Kilverstone in line with Cunningham. I think the highest title in the Order of Precedence should be used. Thoughts? Woodym555 16:16, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Your call entirely but (I think) we have consensus on the talk page, that though doesn't make it bullet-proof :) --ROGER DAVIES TALK
Gone with the old Baron Fisher of Kilverstone. All the others use the highest order of precedence although MPs seem to be noted over the top of hereditary titles. Amend as you see fit, looking at it, it might need "The" to be consistent with the other names. Woodym555 17:20, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Seems sensible. I'll leave it all to you, you've clearly got a better grip on the historical First Sea Lords than I have. --ROGER DAVIES TALK 17:25, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

My RFA
Thanks for your support in my request for adminship, which ended with 58 supports, 1 opposes, and 1 neutral. I hope your confidence in me proves to be justified. Addhoc 18:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Issy Smith

Apologies for my unresponsiveness last weekend. I've essentially been on a break within a break, interrupted only by a single comment at MILHIST. Your additions have been smoothly integrated into the article's admittedly rigid structure; however, the gold watch passage appears awkwardly placed in parenthesis. Perhaps it could be incorporated into note6? As said, your edits have enhanced the quality of the article and its comprehensiveness. Indeed, the final paragraph of the WWI section contrasts glaringly with his initial post-war difficulties. Oh, I noticed that you nominated Issy Smith as a candidate for FA status. I'm genuinely honoured that you believe it merits elevation and really appreciate your decision to act "unilaterally" (that's almost tantamount to WP:OWN ;-). Regards and happily continue your editing. SoLando (Talk) 15:20, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. The gold watch does not sit well there (and was even worse without the brackets). I've moved it so it fits in better chronologically. Okay?
That's not ownership :) All the best articles have parents to love and care for them during at least part of their lives.
Let's see how it gets on in FAC
All the best, --ROGER DAVIES TALK 18:32, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Hey Roger, thanks for fixing my little mistake with the article history banner. I wonder where i copied and pasted that from? ;) (You didnt actually fix it correctly, so i have done it now. Thanks for being observant and clearing up after me!!!) Woodym555 15:00, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Poo! Did the id need updating too? (The link worked when I tested it.) [Wanders off muttering: "damn fiddly all this technical stuff. Best left to the boffins."] --ROGER DAVIES TALK 15:06, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
You changed it to Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Issy Smith, it should have been Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Issy Smith! as it was the A-Class review. I had done all the hard stuff like the oldids etc but neglegted to change the blindingly obvious mistake of Andrew Cunningham, 1st Viscount Cunningham of Hyndhope!! Oh well, fixed now and it should pass FAC soon. It was a very well written article by SoLando. Woodym555 18:08, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey there, again! Thanks to both of you for your invaluable assistance and support. I still feel obliged to cross my fingers. This form of editorial collaboration epitomises the redeeming spirit of Wikipedia that represents an unflicnhing rebuke to the.... destructive and disruptive elements that contribute to the project :-). Apologies for that quasi rant ;-). Oh, great work on initiating a stub that concisely details the Aliens Act. I'm quite tempted to expand, but I've neglected the still incomplete King's Regiment (Liverpool) and unwritten British West Indies Regiment for far, far too long. Not to mention Ian St. John. SoLando (Talk) 21:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Worship of Hitler

Deleted with extreme prejudice per WP:CSD#A7 and WP:CSD#G3. Sorry it took so long. If it gets recreated give me the heads up and I'll salt it. Thanks for your help. Pedro :  Chat  14:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Presumably "with extreme prejudice" means hitting the keys very hard while you're doing it? :)))) --ROGER DAVIES TALK 15:01, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
:) Yes, bash the delete button with a mallet. And also because I could have crammed it into at least 3 CSD categories as non-notable, nonsense, vandalism and the favourite one that apparently admins aren't allowed to use ........ WP:IDONTLIKEIT Pedro :  Chat  15:35, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

[Chuckle] --ROGER DAVIES TALK 15:55, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Operation Battleaxe feedback

Much appreciated on the feedback for the Operation Battleaxe article. I'll try to get your suggestions in as soon as I can. Thanks! Oberiko 20:00, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

capitalisation

Roger—thanks for your note. My brain turns to jelly when it comes to this. I was hoping others would work through the issues. Tony (talk) 03:43, 28 September 2007 (UTC) PS Like your signature.

Thanks for coming back to me on this. I've proposed a fix to the text. One man's meat is another man's jelly, huh? I read your comments in MOS with interest, always pertinant and well-informed. Good stuff! --ROGER DAVIES TALK 08:39, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

James and Joe

Please read WP:COI and don't misinform new editors about this policy.[1] WP:COI does not say that "it is unacceptable to create articles about yourself." It says, "editors are strongly advised not to edit articles" about themselves. (Emphasis mine in both quotes.) That the article must come from reliable third party references is WP:NOR. That it's often a rather awful article when people have a COI, and especially when autobigraphical, is just one of the issues that comes around where "anyone can edit." KP Botany 17:13, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. You make an interesting point. To me, unacceptable doesn't mean "prohibited" it means not welcome, "not accepted". Perhaps, I'm gilding the lily a tad but in no sense is creating articles about your own business on Wikipedia "acceptable".--ROGER DAVIES TALK 17:33, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Here are links to AfD reasons for deletion, and to Speedy criteria for deletion. COI is not a reason for deletion. Again, in this sense, it is acceptable to create an article about yourself. If you disagree you can always attempt to change the policy, but you should not misinform news users of the policy just because you disagree with it--changing it, or attempting to, is the way to deal with your disagreement.
Also, it might be nicer just to advice people that if they're notable enough someone else will want to write and edit their article. KP Botany 17:46, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
PS, love the pin on my user page to alert me of your response. I've never seen it done that way before. KP Botany 17:47, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm. I never said COI was grounds for deletion. It was tagged for notability. I agree with suggesting that if you're notable enough someone neutral will get round to writing about you soon but I didn't have the time to explain all that succinctly and clearly enough. I may do so. Then we can get it turned into a template. Good idea?
I'm glad you like the ping! (I forget who I nicked it from:))))
--ROGER DAVIES TALK 18:14, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Actually a template gently explaining that if you're notable enough someone else will write your biography and maintain it for you might be a good idea. I shouldn't be the one writing the template because my tendency is to say, "Good grief, how can you possibly be notable or a success when you wrote such a piece of crap about yourself?" Which is not conducive to welcoming someone to Wikipedia. KP Botany 18:26, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


Killer Mailbox

I just found your comments about what I was about to post on my talk page which is below.

I have also reinstated the updated Killer Mailbox in the Postmaster talk page, and perhaps a redirection from a new KILLER MAILBOX article to or from that full text might be appropriate, I leave this to oour good understanding., in any event an explanation of the puspose of the new article appears below.

Thanks for your attention.

Claude Kagan I am far from adept at working with WIKIPEDIA, I will honestly concede that the guidance and instructions are very comprehensive and very detailed, which due to my vision problem, makes it very difficult for me to either comply and or react appropriately to the comments and guidances offered by the "robots" and only when a human intervention takes palce I am able to seek and get valuable help. I listened to all of the material dealing with the deletion process and am more confused than ever. I am sure it is thus to protect the original author as well as Wikipdeia. I can make and send an audio recording of that process and you will understand what I mean.

Currently I am in the throes of a topic which I call "Killer mailbox,"and suffering with the ownership of such a mailbox I have tried to document the situation and not quite understanding some of the details of self identification managed to post a well composed version in the "Postmaster" talk page. I tried to replace it by enhancing the article and posting into a new article "Killer Mailbox" and apparently ran afoul of a variety of rules which were evidenced with the deletion of the new article twice before I understood why I could not find it after posting. The explanation was "nonsense". I hope that this was a robot talking because I would hardly wish to have my writing characterized by a human member in Wikipedia with such a comment.

The issue is not "nonsense" it is a real life situation which occurs when a minor official of the U.S. postal service assumes the responsibility of insisting that a mailbox be left where it can cause real physical harm to its owner. These risks did not exist fifty years ago and only come into being through modernization of roads, and vehicles, and emergency services. I am hoping that I can do what is necessary, with help of human wikipedia people and add a really Encyclopedic article which meets the criterai and standards of this publication.

Claude A. R. Kagan 14:24, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I read after I added something under the bottom of your talk page so I will not repeat this again here. I did head my addendum with the four tildes. Claude A. R. Kagan Sorry for not reading the stuff at the top of your page eefor charging full speed ahead. Claude

Hi Claude,
Yes, understanding the "rules" here does take time. However, there are a few things to bear in mind in relation to your proposed article. Firstly, Wikipedia is not a soapbox so here is not an appropriate place to bring campaigning issues. Secondly, the neutral point of view means articles must balance both sides of an argument: in this instance, perhaps balancing the hazards with the practical issues (public convenience, ease of mail collection etc). Thirdly, the article needs to be based on verifiable independent sources and be properly attributed. If you can achieve these in your article, it will find a place on Wikipedia. All the best, --ROGER DAVIES TALK 14:41, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Re:6,000+ edits

Thank you very much for the barnstar, Roger. Kyriakos 12:35, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

You thoroughly deserve it. Your considerable efforts require recognition. :))) --ROGER DAVIES TALK 12:40, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, :) Kyriakos 12:44, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Marion Harding Entry

Dear Roger

I am not sure why the page was deleted or what to do about it. I can only think that I missed Marion's cousin Peter M. Libas's middle initial out or that somehow I need to sign the entry and/or have sent supporting documentation to yourselves. Both can be arranged but I cannot even find the article now.

Sincerely

Ruan Joshua Harding

UserId: Ernstblumberg email:yeshuaruah@yahoo.ca —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ernstblumberg (talk • contribs) 17:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I nominated the article for deletion because it did not "assert the notability" of the subject. In English, this means it didn't explain why Marion Harding was important enough to warrant an article in an encyclopedia. The actual decision to delete was made by an administrator, Redvers. Many administrators will often restore a deleted article to your talk page so that you work on it to get up to matching Wikipedia's requirements. See Wikipedia:Five pillars for more information. --ROGER DAVIES TALK 17:47, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Gavin Drake

You have nominated my first article, Gavin Drake for speedy deletion. Can you tell me why this meets the criteria for speedy deletion? I have quoted multiple verifiable sources, including BBC News. I had intended to do a rewrite of the Walsall F. C. article and thought I'd try a couple of my own before I attempt to edit others. This one was easy to research because there's quite a bit about him in the press around here. Fooey-fooey-flop-chops 17:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Simply put because it didn't assert his notability (i.e. explain why he was sufficiently notable to warrant his own article) and the references seemed to be generic rather than providing biographical material on him. In other words, you need to find biographies of him from good sources that you can base your article on. Wikipedia has specific requirements about verification and attribution and it's important to meet these from the start. I've removed the tags. If you'd like some help, just shout! --ROGER DAVIES TALK 17:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
I've given the article a quick copy edit and re-written the intro slightly to emphasise his claims to notability. I've also taken the liberty of removing most of the section heads: the white space they were creating tended to make the article look insubstantial. The main problem here is establishing why he is notable. While he's clearly effective, this is not necessarily a claim to encyclopedic fame. You need better sources. --ROGER DAVIES TALK 18:12, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


PROMI (PROfile analysis by Mutual Information)

Hello, I am one of the scientists that developed PROMI and would like to know why you marked the article about PROMI for deletion! You stated it would be an article about a company but it is not. I would like to hear a thorough explanation. nimini 20:57, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I nominated it because Wikipedia has basic entry-level requirements and the article didn't assert the required notability; attributing statements and citing reliable independent sources is the best way of doing this. Wikipedia also strongly discourages articles from editors with a conflict of interest because they are rarely able to detach themselves sufficiently to present a neutral point of view. I hope this helps, --ROGER DAVIES TALK 21:12, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! :D

Thanks Roger Davies/Archive 2
I would like to thank you for your participation in my successful RfA, which passed with a tally of (44/10/5)[1]. Whether you supported, opposed or were neutral in my RfA, I appreciate your participation and I hope that we can continue to work together to build a stronger and better Wikipedia.

Regards, nattang 04:34, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Belarus

I think I got everything you wishes, especially on "why the area is called White Russia." User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 03:54, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Mary Wollstonecraft

Is it really necessary to reignite this very tedious spelling debate in the middle of the FA nomination? I think it would be more pertinent for us to concentrate on the content issues right now. Kaldari 19:37, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XIX (September 2007)

The September 2007 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.

Delivered by grafikbot 10:23, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Islamic military jurisprudence

I have edited the article since our last discussion regarding it (User_talk:Roger_Davies#Thanks_for_your_review.21). It seems, to me atleast, easy to follow. When you have time, I'd appreciate if you took another look at it, and tell whether its still difficult to follow or not.Bless sins 16:17, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Military

I came across a minor error you made in Military, stating that the Soixante-Quinze was first fielded in the 1970s (diff here). I'm not sure what date you had intended, so I just modified to "late 1800s." Feel free to put a more precise date in.

--KNHaw (talk) 22:03, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Sonnet 117

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Sonnet 117, and it appears to be a substantial copy of http://www.larrygleason.com/sonnets/sonnet_117.html. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot 05:59, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Sonnet 121

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Sonnet 121, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://shakespeare.about.com/library/blsonnet121.htm?p=1. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot 06:12, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Busted for ripping off Shakespeare! You dog!! :-) -Agyle 09:24, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Thou callest me a dog before thou hast cause. But since I am a dog, beware my fangs. :))) --ROGER DAVIES TALK 09:29, 11 October 2007 (UTC) (Merchant of Venice)
LOLeth! (You better watch it, or your Talk page will be removed for plagiarism too!) -Agyle 09:39, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Oh, the shame of it! That had better be Our Little Secret then. --ROGER DAVIES TALK 10:01, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Sonnet 122

I see you deleted this a day or two back. I'm proposing recreating it, along with Sonnet 117 and Sonnet 121 to complete the set. I'm just laying down the structure now, and will add commentary later (honest!). Any problems with me recreating it? All the best, --ROGER DAVIES TALK 06:16, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, it's back. You can go ahead and make it purdy like the rest of them. By the way, I only deleted that because it was tagged as a speedy by somebody else. I didn't realize we had a whole collection. I was thinking maybe it would be better posted at Wikisource, but I'm no expect in that area, and that's nothing we have to resolve today. Happy editing!! -- But|seriously|folks  06:33, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, dude :))) --ROGER DAVIES TALK 06:38, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Question on UK newspaper reliability

Hi, you made some comments in the talk page of MOS regarding some British newspapers. I live in the U.S. and have little feel for which of those are considered reliable on questionable facts or biographical information, and which are considered kind of suspect about detailed fact-checking. I was wondering if you could give me your rough opinion of the Guardian, Telegraph, and Independent, as I encounter their web-published articles pretty regularly in Google news searches. (I don't care about their political biases for my purposes.) Best regards, -Agyle 05:09, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. The "quality" press - The Independent/Independent on Sunday, The Guardian/The Observer, The Times/The Sunday Times, The Telegraph/The Sunday Telegraph, and the Financial Times - all are reliable sources. The formal news/reporting sections are impartial and factually accurate; the informal/editorial/letters sections are partial but factually accurate. Each has its own strengths. It's in the nature of publishing that errors creep from time to time. UK Press Code requires that factual errors are corrected swiftly. (As an aside, The Guardian was famous in the 1960s for its silly typos, earning it the nickname The Grauniad! This has long been resolved.) As you are aware, the accuracy of British tabloids (the "red tops") is questionable; the facts are buried in sensationalising or editorialising. You didn't ask about it, but many regional UK papers - especially the long-established ones- are very reliable and good sources for background facts. Here's a useful link. All the best, --ROGER DAVIES TALK 08:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Your info and the link were very helpful. I was unfamiliar with the term "red tops," but it's immediately understandable from my passing familiarity with the genre. :-) (Who can resist an occasional click to a salacious Sun article?!) I'm not sure that U.S. media are regulated so closely, though abusive inaccuracies about people can be remedied through civil lawsuits. Some of the accuracy issues I come across are the precision with which something is phrased. An example came up the other day as I was working on an article on "George Duboeuf". A Telegraph article said Duboeuf personally was found guilty and fined by a court, while other sources said his company, also commonly referred to as George Duboeuf, was found guilty and fined. I evaded the issue by saying the court found fraud had been committed, as I wouldn't want to make a mistake on that sort of a point. If it were the New York Post, I'd probably disregard what they said as unreliable, and if it were the New York Times, I'd probably accept it as reliable in spite of some differing, less-reliable sources, but with the Guardian, I wasn't not sure how to weigh their reporting. It sounds like I shouldn't disregard it out of hand. Thanks for the info! -Agyle 09:21, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the links. I think the Telegraph is inaccurate accurate. I looked for confirmation from a French source. Most of the news sites' free access has expired (30 days) but I did find a press release/newsletter here. Here's the text:
La société Georges Duboeuf
La société Georges Duboeuf a été condamnée à une amende de 30 000 € pour “tromperie et tentative de tromperie sur l’origine et la qualité des vins” par le tribunal de Villefranche-sur-Saône. Sylvain Dory, l’ancien directeur du site de vinification, a également été condamné à trois mois de prison avec sursis et 3 000 € d’amende. Des peines bien moindres que celles requises par le Parquet contre le négociant et son employé, accusés d’avoir mélangé des raisins issus de plusieurs parcelles, en violation de la législation sur les AOC. Sylvain Dory avait reconnu des erreurs à mettre sur le compte de la fatigue et non d’une volonté délibérée de tricher et Georges Duboeuf avait rappelé que ces vins n’avaient pas été commercialisés. (FH) Wines, Spirits & Drinks Press Agency
That's clear enough. It says that the company was fined 30,000€ and a former manager/director, Sylvain Dory, received a three-month suspended prison sentence and a 3,000€ fine. Nothing about Duboeuf in his personal capacity. It adds that the fines were to be paid personally by the wine merchant and his former employer.
PS: If you think the Sun is salacious, you should see the Daily Star. :)
--ROGER DAVIES TALK 09:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Hm, I didn't read it that way, but my French comprehension isn't that great; I thought "la négociant" was ambiguous as to whether it meant him or his company, and even if it did mean him, that kind of contradicts the first sentence that said the company was fined. In any case, the Telegraph said Duboeuf personally was found guilty of attempting to defraud, while this article says the company was fined for fraud and attempted fraud. I also just noticed that the Telegraph article said the fine was £20,000, an imprecise approximation of 30,000€...that seems like sloppy journalism. A BBC article stated it as "30,000 euros (£21,000)", which while not a precise conversion, is clear from context that it's an approximation. The BBC article, by the way, seems to stick with the company being fined for fraud and attempted fraud, without mentioning anything about Duboeuf personally. An SFGate article says "30,000 euros ($38,370)", in addition to other fines, and seems to mean the company exclusively. Anyway, no big deal; with contradictory sources, and none really explicitly clarifying possible misunderstandings, it's just one of those things WP shouldn't take a position on - either mention neither, or mention both. I just mentioned it as an example of the sort of confusion I have weighing the input from sources like the Telegraph. :-) -Agyle 12:22, 11 October 2007 (UTC
The bit about paying personally isn't in that press release. Here's a translation: Georges DuBoeuf [Inc] have been fined 30,000€ for deception and attempted deception over the origin and quality of wines by a court in Villefranche-surSaone. Also, Sylvain Dory, former manager/director of [their] wine-making plant, was given a three-month suspended prison sentence and a 3,000€ fine. The fines are the lowest demanded by the public prosecutor against the wholesaler and its employee, accused of having mixed grapes from various sources, in violation of AOC regulations. Sylvain Dory said the errors were down to tiredness and not deliberate; the company stated these wines were not sold. Now where did I read it? (This is bothering me now.) Yes, I agree about the Telegraph piece. --ROGER DAVIES TALK 13:39, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I've had a look round and can't find it (I wish I'd linked it). The piece basically said that that both Duboeuf and Dory additionally had to pay a symbolique one euro to the AOC control body, and contribute to the costs of the prosecution. It was practically the same text as the VSB piece. While the Telegraph might be sloppy about the figures, I'm not sure they're wrong about Georges Duboeuf paying. --ROGER DAVIES TALK 14:40, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Which I have now found it. According to my cousin (French attorney), French criminal law regards companies as without physical entity for trial purposes. Therefore the company head is tried/indicted as the physical manifestation of the company. If guilty, the individual is also convicted on behalf of the company. Thanks for raising this, I have learned something :))) --ROGER DAVIES TALK 15:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the added research. :-) I had surmised that the French corporate/legal system must be pretty different from what I'm familiar with in the U.S., but that's even more radically different than I thought...so foreign! I didn't see this article explicitly saying Duboeuf the person had to pay anything, but it would apparently be implied to French readers by saying he represented his company; it's so obvious that it wouldn't warrant explicit mention. ("Les deux condamnés" seems like it could still mean the Duboeuf company and Sylvan Dory, since it earlier said the company was condemned.) I assume you're right that he had to pay the fines, as that's consistent with differing press accounts as to whether he or the company was fined - saying either would be correct. I've learned too...particularly not to open a controversial business in France. :-) -Agyle 20:19, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Florida Atlantic University FAC

Thanks for the suggestions. I fixed the first two issues and for the third moved a sentence down a little to fix the flow of the paragraph. What do you think?

Thanks, KnightLago 17:28, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Fixes it. Changed to support. --ROGER DAVIES TALK 17:33, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! KnightLago 17:40, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Archive 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.