User talk:Roger Davies/Archive 3

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 2 |
Archive 3
| Archive 4 →

Contents

Something for you

For your outstanding work in organizing the 2007 Military history WikiProject tagging and assessment drive, I hereby award you the WikiChevrons. Kirill 14:39, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
For your outstanding work in organizing the 2007 Military history WikiProject tagging and assessment drive, I hereby award you the WikiChevrons. Kirill 14:39, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again for the second award.

Reading and assessing all those articles starts getting tiresome. Every so often I find one that is really nifty and it perks me back up. The feedback really fires me up. --Colputt 22:13, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Would you like your awards as you earn them? If so, just put an ampersand in front of your name of the participants List and I'll sort it. Glad it's not getting you down. By the way, you might want to think about adding task forces into the tags. It's entirely optional but I find it makes it a bit more interesting. --ROGER DAVIES TALK 23:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Assessment

Thanks for the invite [1]. As a current member of WikiProject Military history, I always tag and assess articles for both {{WikiProject Ships}} and {{WPMILHIST}}. However I fully admit that the assessment backlog for Military history is ... dauntingly large. While my primary focus has been wrapping up the Ships assessment drive (we only have a few hundred left in the "Unassessed" category), I would be delighted to help pitch in with the Milhist assessment drive once we finish the Ships one. --Kralizec! (talk) 23:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I look forward to having you on board :))) --ROGER DAVIES TALK 06:38, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately I appear to be having issues getting back on the assessment wagon. If my Excel spreadsheet data array is correct, then I have assessed 1696 articles for SHIPS and/or MILHIST since June 7, with 1325 of those assessments taking place within the past 52 days. --Kralizec! (talk) 13:40, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Good grief! In your own time, whenever you feel you're ready. --ROGER DAVIES TALK 13:45, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button Image:Signature_icon.png located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot 07:30, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Tag & Assess

Just a reminder that we're deleting article listings for military history files. (As you know, tne non-milhist ones are struck through.) This makes it easier for others to which see worklist articles have been processed and which need doing. All the best, --ROGER DAVIES TALK 04:32, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Am i doing it right? -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 04:36, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Not quite :) You're leaving the milhist file listings in the worklist. They should be removed, leaving only struck through files. --ROGER DAVIES TALK 04:43, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
i understand you are talking about the "via ROOT to Military to Military history to Military history...". Right? -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 04:56, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) I'm talking about removing the milhist listings completely from the worklist, thus:

Before
  1. Hugh_VIII_of_Lusignan (talk) via ROOT to Military to Military_history to Warfare_by_era to Warfare_of_the_Medieval_era to Crusades to Crusade_people_(Christians)
  2. A-_(plane) (talk) via ROOT to Military to Military_organization to Types_of_military_forces to Military_aviation to Military_aircraft to Military_aircraft_by_type to Attack_aircraft to U.S._attack_aircraft
  3. .41_Rimfire_Cartridge (talk) via ROOT to Military to Military_equipment to Military_equipment_by_type to Weapons to Ammunition to Pistol_and_rifle_cartridges
  4. Imperial_Remnant (talk) via ROOT to Military to Military_organization to Fictional_military_organizations
After (listings 2 & 3 above are removed from the worklist because they're milhist)
  1. Hugh_VIII_of_Lusignan (talk) via ROOT to Military to Military_history to Warfare_by_era to Warfare_of_the_Medieval_era to Crusades to Crusade_people_(Christians)
  2. Imperial_Remnant (talk) via ROOT to Military to Military_organization to Fictional_military_organizations
--ROGER DAVIES TALK 05:03, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Now it makes sense. Because i was wondering about the reason why i had to keep them there. Thanks for your help Roger. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 05:08, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) You might like to think about adding your total (in the participants list). It's getting impressive and is a good incentive for others :) --ROGER DAVIES TALK 16:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Too late. You've done it! :))) --ROGER DAVIES TALK 16:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Hahahha. I am going for 10,000. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 16:21, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Good luck! Though at the rate you've been going, you'll easily do it by the end of next week :) --ROGER DAVIES TALK 16:52, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
My fingers hurt Roger ;) -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 16:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Mine did too. I now have all the task forces in a notepad file and cut and paste them in. Now it's just my mouse finger that hurts:) --ROGER DAVIES TALK 17:00, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Re:Your Message

Yeah, well; I thought I might just sit back and watch the fun, but then I decided that I really should get involved since coordinators are supposed to do the logistical stuff. (Ok, I admit it, I want the awards too :-) It will slow going for me though becuase I still have school stuff, but as they say every bit counts... TomStar81 (Talk) 06:54, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

[Chuckle] Good luck with the school stuff and thanks again! --ROGER DAVIES TALK 07:04, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Re:WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves

Thank you Roger, I feel honored. Tony the Marine 22:24, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

DELETION, HOW TO AVOID IT

I TRIED TO MAKE A PAGE FOR AN UP AND COMING LOCAL BAND

BU TTHE PAGE KEEPS GETTING DELETED, THE PAGE IS FINE AND MEETS THE GUIDLINES, I DNT GET IT :( —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rob eoh (talk • contribs) 22:25, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. 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 Endurance of Hate was important enough to warrant an article in an encyclopedia. The actual decision to delete was made by an administrator, user:Tone. 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. You need to find material from good sources to base your article on. Wikipedia has specific requirements about verification and attribution and it's important to meet these from the start. --ROGER DAVIES TALK 23:16, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Second Ostend Raid

Thankyou both for your helpful comments at the above successful FAC and for the Barnstar which followed it. Both were much appreciated.--Jackyd101 18:31, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Spelling question?

Hi Roger,

This just reflects my parochial reading, but I've never seen the spelling of "concensus" for "consensus". Is it common in Britain? I was a little surprised and confused, because in Latin concensus would seem to mean "general criticism" (think "con-censure") deriving from con (together) and censeo (I criticize). By contrast, "consensus" derives from con and sensus (sense or understanding). If you have a little time and could shed light on that for me, I'd be much obliged. Anyway, I was just curious, and glad to learn something new, Willow 19:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

It's a typo, I normally type it correctly. In this case, the notion of with+consent (consensual) probably didn't intrude heavily enough. I regularly make typos (missing letters or tripled lettters generally), largely because (professionally) I've always had editors picking these up and it's a long route from draft to print. So, in short, I'm rubbish at proofreading my own stuff but strangely good at other people's stuff. (Oh, I slept through Latin but love Romance languages. Funny, huh?) [LATER COMMENT: concensus is in the OED as a variant, by the way. But that's just coincidence.]
By the way, I've been meaning to contact you about Harold Pinter. That lot needs to be in BrEng. Unfortunately, I imagine that when I mention it I'll hear the shriek of rage all the way here from New York. :)
--ROGER DAVIES TALK 20:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I feel a little silly. :p I should've realized that it was a typo; sorry! I just had that BrE/AmE thing on my mind, and leapt to the conclusion, "Cool — a new British spelling that I've never seen before!"

Umm, regarding Harold Pinter, you can do as you like, but I would really advise you not to set foot on that hallowed ground. ;)

More generally, can I offer some friendly advice? I don't think the whole WP:ENGVAR thing works for you as a person. When I was little, I remember watching the salmon struggling to get upstream, wriggling on the rocks, and this situation kind of reminds me of that. Sure, it's proper and the law and the Thing To Do, but you see how much difficult it is to make progress, and it just doesn't seem worth it for anyone. FWIW, I would advise you to find some sunny, quiet nook of knowledge and devote yourself to writing articles about that. Life is so sweet and full of riches, that it were a shame to fritter our brief time away on unhappy pursuits. Hoping that you see me as a sincere friend, MMMPMMA ;) Willow 03:08, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Without wishing to be in any way contradictory, I think WP:ENGVAR works very well for me. I have for instance written and been published in both major variants, and written TEFL material on the differences. I devote little Wiki time to WP:ENGVAR. When I do get involved, it's generally to de-hybridise here, for example; most people don't see this as controversial. The situation is very different with the LitCrit stuff. What we have here is a small group of editors who work closely together, and who serially and deliberately ignore WP:ENGVAR. They support each other in discussions and this creates a very distorted picture: this, I think, is the picture you've been seeing.
  • This leads me to ask you a question. Might it not be more in the spirit of Wikipedia were you to ask gently at an early stage when you first encounter these articles why they are not in the appropriate national variant? Sooner or later, the message will get across :))
  • Of Pinter. You really have no idea how absurdly parochial it makes Wikipedia look when you have the heading Honors in an article about a British playwright wikilinking to British honours. And, as I've mentioned before, the lower down the educational scale you go, the likelier the person is to reject content as inaccurate if it comes with "spelling errors".
--ROGER DAVIES TALK 13:04, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi again, sorry if my replies are spotty; I'm visiting my sister and can't always get away to a computer. I'm really relieved to hear that the whole WP:ENGVAR thing hasn't spoiled your mood and isn't cutting into your time for making new articles or adding to old ones. I'll confess that I'm rather an agnostic on AmE/BrE, which is probably evident. I spent months of work on Encyclopædia Britannica, and someone took the time to change it over to BrE and my reaction was "Oh, OK, whatever", just as if they had changed from New Century Schoolbook (my fave!) to Arial font. Personally, I suspect that if Famous Academics were to judge the quality of our articles, they would care much more about the factual content, organization, referencing and writing, than they would about the articles' spelling avatar, even were they to contain a mixture of both BrE and AmE. So I think I understand where you're coming from and respect those feelings, but I'm a little mystified by them as well; maybe you can understand? For example, I have this friend who's crazy for sports — he reads three newpapers every day to keep fully informed — I can be happy for him and appreciate his enthusiasm, but I confess that I just don't get it?

Let me to suggest to you that maybe the LitCrit battle need not be fought, at least not right now. Many other articles might be turned to BrE with better advantage and less effort, no? I sincerely fear that a long, pitched battle over Wiki-policies (which I foresee will eventually involve meta-editing the policies themselves) will divert well-meaning people (on both sides) from well-meaning purposes and ultimately diminish the encyclopedia, rather than improving it. Maybe I'm overly fretful over the fragility of Wikipedia, but I sense that to demand conformity to a particular style is to invite disaster, by turning off contributors who by nature would prefer to edit in a different style. Can you maybe empathize with what I'm feeling? In the seven rich years, we should set aside provisions for the seven lean years; so too now we should conserve and shelter good editors, and be flexible (like a willow branch, my namesake) on the rules. Oops, gotta run, everyone else is waking up, Willow 11:58, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

We may be talking at cross-purposes. Given how distantly we really know each other and how impersonal the form of communication ("typing makes the warmest words seem cold" DYLAN THOMAS) that is entirely understandable. I'll try to clear up two possible misconceptions.
Firstly, I too am fairly agnostic (as you put it) about national varieties myself so, to continue the metaphor, I'm not on a crusade. If further clarification is needed, I do not seek out articles for conversion and cannot conceive a more tedious endeavour. Broadly, I'm an Average Joe and my contributions will vouch for this.
Secondly, I have nothing but respect for the work that the LitCrit people are doing; I take issue with the way they are going about it. I know it's convenient and familiar to work in AmEng and that I entirely understand but it's simply not appropriate in a multi-national encyclopedia to be hawkish about keeping articles on blatantly not-American-topics remaining permanently in AmEng. Nor is it appropriate to take over BrEng articles and lock them into AmEng in perpetuity.
You and I are common ground about the encyclopedia. Apart from a current hugely time-sinking tagging drive (I organized it so I am dutybound to lead from the front), my Wiki activities are almost entirely FAC and article-writing. If you follow FAC, you'll see my contributions are varied and far-ranging. (This is how I stumbled across the Wollstonecraft series.) However, I regard Wikipedia as precious, certainly too precious to have whole subject areas monopolized by people with agendas about spelling variants. Yes, we have got to conserve good editors but this does not mean that the tail should wag the dog.
I wasn't trying to be controversial when I asked you to think about mentioning national variants at an early stage; I meant it sincerely. Wikipedia recognises spelling diversity and wider recognition of this will go a long way to eradicate both systemic bias and disputes. The person to ask about respecting national variants is probably not The Famous Academic but Rosa Parks.
Your comment about Famous Academics provoked another thought. In my experience, most FAs will produce material in whatever format (within reason) you ask them to; tailoring it to suit the audience and to comply with house rules. The spelling variant issue is not important as higher educational levels, it's at the lower educational ones where it matters. There is much evidence to show that younger readers reject the content if the spelling is unfamiliar. The logic goes: "if they can't get the spelling right, the facts will be wrong too". Obviously, older or more sophisiticated readers take variants much more in their stride. This is one reason why it is so important for the appropriate national variant for national icons; kids will be referencing the article for homework purposes and we don't want them to reject what we say out of hand, do we?
--ROGER DAVIES TALK 15:17, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi ROGER!

Thanks for your very nice and thought-provoking reply! :) Dylan Thomas is one of my favourite poets. I hope you'll forgive me for thinking that you were working on converting AmE-articles to BrE; it's just that I had seen only that aspect of your editing and didn't think further. I confess, a systematic conversion did seem a difficult task (I’ll not say tedious) and perhaps not so pressing, given all the major gaps in coverage that remain in Wikipedia; but I'm the last person to criticize anyone's enthusiasms, being so odd in my own. ;) You also needn't appeal to the evidence of your edit history; I take your word at face value. My friends complain that I’m a Credulosaur and a Gullibilodon, but I’m mystically serene about assuming good faith. :)

I agree that it's hard to two people to understand one another, even in real life, to say nothing of Wikipedia, which seems sometimes akin to people whispering to each other in a darkened cathedral and, at other times, to two blind people whacking each other with sticks. ;) I promise to make a good-faith effort to understand you, and I hope you like me enough to do the converse.

Based on your latest reply, it seems like you’re concerned about two main issues. First, you’re concerned that schoolchildren will distrust a Wikipedia article if it’s written in an unfamiliar spelling. For me, that doesn’t seem too worrisome, at least based on my own experience. Once a child is old enough to watch for incorrect spellings and to distrust their schoolbooks (maybe 10 years old or so?), they’ll generally have already been exposed to both AmE and BrE spellings and will make allowances. My impression is that the concept that there’s only one right way to spell a word isn’t natural, it has to be instructed; young children accept variant spellings the way we accept variant fonts. I say that even as a former spelling queen-bee and as a girl who would read dictionaries before the rest of her family woke up. Also, if this is the argument, then the preferred spelling variant should be that which has the greatest number of schoolchildren, no?

Before moving on to the second concern, I’m conscious of being about to reveal my own ignorances and muddy thinking, so I hope that you’ll forgive me them in advance, before they’re revealed in all their details. Thanks ever so much! :)

OK, your second concern seems to be that the spelling avatar is "inappropriate" given the nationality of the subject of the article; is that correct? Thus, Mary Wollstonecraft being a British citizen by birth, her article should be written in BrE, etc. At first I found this hard for me to understand since, in my own mind, I group people by temperament and accomplishment; nationality usually seems irrelevant for the people I think about, so there's no question of "appropriateness". For example, two irrascible old misers from London and New York would likely have more in common with each other, don’t you agree, than with young idealistic humanitarian-aid workers from their own city? As a specific example, Albert Einstein seems to me principally a physicist; the details of his nationality paperwork — whether he was labeled as German, Swiss, American or Rwandan — seem as irrelevant to his work as whether he was left-handed or right-handed. So I agree, for example, that Mary Wollstonecraft seems more British than American, but I’m not sure why it matters and why it would help to re-word her article in BrE or why it would hurt to keep it in AmE. I’m sure that I’m showing my ignorance, but I really don’t get it, any more than I understand why I should cheer for this-or-that cricket team over another.

I hope you will help me understand your feelings and perspective better, as you have been doing; thank you! You may laugh, but I’ve been trying to empathize by imagining a world in which Botswana and Iceland each spoke Icelandic but with different spellings and few stylistic differences. If the Wikipedia article about the Laxdœla saga were written in a Botswana style, I guess it might seem strange to students in Iceland. Surely, the medieval saga has closer ties to I. than to B., but both modern societies are alien to the medieval one and such small differences still seem secondary to the task of producing a good article. So if someone were to ask me, I would be at a loss to explain why we should spend time debating or making a switch. My benighted apathy works both ways; I haven’t thought it through, but I don’t see any compelling reason to keep MW in AmE or BrE, beyond the personal consideration that its chief author wants to keep it so. I don't believe that it would take much effort to switch, at least judging from my experience with Encyclopædia Britannica.

Although I doubt it, you might be thinking that WP:ENGVAR should be adhered to, regardless of any reasoning. Yet I think it does not carry the force of community consensus that, say, WP:NOR does, and by itself, seems inadequate to carry the day. So please let me suggest that it might help more to reason with and persuade the others, such as Awadewit, Scartol and NYScholar, of the advantages of switching an AmE article to BrE. If it would help, once you’ve all argued through the issues, I’d be glad to act as an impartial executor for the consensus decision. I hope to be friends with you all, and sometimes a bitter pill is easier to swallow if administered by a friend. Willow 17:29, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I hope I won't be considered rude for jumping in here, but I'd like to say that I agree with Willow that "the concept that there’s only one right way to spell a word isn’t natural" – and I say this as an English teacher. Indeed, the English language has evolved so much over time (read Chaucer) that today's spelling rules seem almost laughably arbitrary to me.
I would also add that context is extremely important when applying any rule, here on Wikipedia or anywhere else. This is why we have cross-examinations and jury trials, yes? I'd love to talk about my take on … oh, I don't know … Chinua Achebe, for example, but I have to go eat lunch and work with students. – Scartol · Talk 17:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Thich Quang Duc

Hello Roger. Thanks for the comments. I think that I have fized up the red links and reworded the hermit sentence so that it is more understandable. Thanks. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:36, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Anaerobic digestion

Hi Roger, thank you for your constructive comments on the anaerobic digestion article. I have withdrawn the article from fac at this stage and will be working on it further following Jeff's suggestion. Hopefully I would like to have the article renominated when it has matured further.

Kind regards--Alex 09:05, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: box

I got the user box from here, but then I used subst: just in case it ever got caught up in one of those mass userbox deletions. Sorry about the whole ENGVAR thing, I didn't realize it was part of a broader campaign. See, I really do think the whole purpose of ENGVAR is to avoid the very discussions you keep starting. In keeping with my belief, I'm just going to go back to writing an encyclopedia. Happy writing to you too! --JayHenry 01:26, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Ay Carmela.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Ay Carmela.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 07:25, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Chinua Achebe

Sorry for not responding to the discussion on Talk:Chinua Achebe. I've been busy with school and other things lately.

As for the FAC, I will repeat here what I wrote there: Your words here are: "it seems churlish to withhold support on WP:ENGVAR grounds for what remains an extremely well-written article." I do not understand why you chose in the case of Chinua Achebe to oppose (not comment, but oppose) the FAC on the exact same grounds. – Scartol · Talk 14:19, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm genuinely sorry if I hurt your feelings as that was not my intention. In a nutshell, {{MoSElement}} on the Chinua Achebe was a line in the sand. Without that, I'd have approached this very differently. That said, though, there is a massive difference between Chinua Achebe and A Vindication of the Rights of Men so they do not bear direct comparison. Mary Wollstonecraft and her works is of much more specialist interest and will not have anything like the same audience. Chinua Achebe is a Nigerian national icon and the article will be accessed many thousands more times. It will be quoted in essays and articles. With flagship articles like this, it is important that the English variety is appropriate, not least for the Nigerian schoolkids will want to read about him with familiarly spelled words and not least because it demonstrates that Wikipedia welcomes diversity. --ROGER DAVIES TALK 14:46, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
As I've raised this on the FAC talk page, I'll copy these across there. 14:46, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
PS As this AmEng thing is clearly important to you, why not leave it as it is for the FAC and the featured article slot and then change the very few words that need tweaking in the New Year? --ROGER DAVIES TALK 15:01, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
It's actually not very important to me at all – if you were to go through and change the items in the article, I probably wouldn't care at all. What is important to me is to be treated with respect, and I feel that a vote of oppose followed by "this is not optional" was a very harsh way of communicating your view. (Especially in light of the quote from VRM above.)
I'm sorry the MoSElement item was a line in the sand; that was never my intention. When writing the article, I included that template for one reason: consistency. I didn't want someone changing it from the style I was using. (Consistency is the only reason I even bothered making that template in the first place.)
I have been leaving this discussion as it is; that's why I haven't been responding either at the FAC page or the article's talk page. I'll be happy to discuss it with you further when I have some more time. Alas, this must be it for now. Thanks again for your attention to detail. – Scartol · Talk 15:10, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank you kindly for the olive branch; I do believe you're operating in good faith, and I appreciate your work to make Wikipedia better. Once my work at school has calmed down a little (should be a week or so), I'll comment on the BrEng thing at T:CA. Cheers. – Scartol · Talk 12:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your thanks :) I also assumed good faith about your indifference to the national variety (hence the barnstar). While I will also assume good faith for the time being about things being busy for you (and will look after your legion of recent adoptees in the meantime if you like) is there actually that much left to discuss? And why is it likely to take up so much time? --ROGER DAVIES TALK 15:00, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for thanking me for your thanks. I do believe there's a discussion to be had, and I'd like to give it my full attention once I've finished with some of the things of which I am in the middle. (I perhaps was hasty in taking on three adoptees; curse my instinct for teaching!) – Scartol · Talk 15:13, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
That should have ended my thanks, I think :) It's funny what you say about teaching ... as the son of two teachers, I can spot them a mile off. Something about the way you framed your messages left a clue :) --ROGER DAVIES TALK 15:35, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

(undent) As I said above, I do believe there is still a discussion to be had. I apologize if I gave the impression that I was going to make the changes you proposed. I was under the impression that you decided you didn't want to stand in the way of the FAC because of (as you put it on User talk:Raul654) "what is essentially a trivial matter". It would appear that we were both misunderstood, and I apologize again for my role in that. – Scartol · Talk 18:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, for an editor's point of view the physical changes are trivial. For a reader's point of view, they are very significant. This article is about Nigeria's greatest living writer. It will be accessed many thousands of times more than say A Vindication of the Rights of Men.For a flagship article, it important that the appropriate spelling variety is used, not least because Nigerian schoolkids who will want to see familiarly spelled words and not least because it demonstrates that Wikipedia welcomes diversity.--ROGER DAVIES TALK 19:34, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Secondly, I changed from oppose to support because I believed we have resolved this on the basis of this diff. I gave you a barnstar on the basis of that (and as a way of saying that I was sorry I wasn't more diplomatic). You now say that this is not a resolution and we should discuss this after the FAC.--ROGER DAVIES TALK 19:34, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, I tried to be clear, but perhaps I wasn't. My point is this: If you want to go through and change it, I would be okay with that (given that I don't WP:OWN the article and it isn't very important to me – whereas clearly it is important to you). However, I disagree that such a change is necessary for it to be a Featured Article (or at all, really). I'm willing to go into more depth about my reasons, but – again – it will have to happen some other time. If you'd like to rescind your support vote, that is of course your right. I apologize again if I inadvertantly gave any erroneous impressions. – Scartol · Talk 19:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
The discussion over whether to respect WP:ENGVAR at all is a much bigger one (with all sorts of POV implications), so let's not go there :) What I will do is copyedit the article back to Commonwealth English spelling (lowest impact possible) in a few days.
Spelling variants (particularly in articles about national literary figures) are important because Wikipedia is multi-national. It is also reader-facing not editor-facing (see my discussion with WillowW above for clarification).--ROGER DAVIES TALK 19:55, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Fine. – Scartol · Talk 19:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
I see you've made the changes, and done some copyediting to boot – cheers for that. I wonder, however, about one instance where the spelling inside a quotation was changed: Achebe described this later as being ordered to "put away their different mother tongues and communicate in the language of their colonisers." WP:ENGVAR says that an exception to consistency is to be made for: "quotations (the original variety is retained);" Doesn't this mean the quote above should be left as "colonizers"? – Scartol · Talk 14:14, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Now fixed :) --ROGER DAVIES TALK 15:00, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. Do you think – now that you've made the changes – it's worthwhile to notify Raul654? The discussion we had on his talk page ended in a truncated fashion; I don't want him to get the wrong idea about the status of the article. (I wish that process were a little more transparent, but on the other hand it's an incredibly demanding job; I don't know how he does it.) – Scartol · Talk 19:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't worry. Just see what happens over the weekend. :) --ROGER DAVIES TALK 19:51, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you indeed for the heads-up. Yay! Now I can send him a letter. Cheers. – Scartol · Talk 08:06, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
I urge you not to contact Achebe. He may not be impressed. He's scathing if he dislikes something and if he thinks there's a patronising-black-writer-finds-his-roots sub-text (or whatever) all hell will break loose. He may also think that his essentially ironic remarks about using the language of the colonisers are being taken out of context.--ROGER DAVIES TALK 09:55, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
PS. About the Italian typo: I will choose to ignore what you've told me, since it means that my entire project is wrong on every page. Besides, it was a translating website that gave me that spelling. Don't blame me – a robot told me to do it. =) – Scartol · Talk 08:08, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
In that case you have a couple of options. If anyone else picks it up, you can either agree that it's incorrect but insist that it is the normal usage in the idiolect of the village of "Senza Grammatica" where you undertook ricerca di campo (field research) or you can allude mysteriously to an hommage to Piero dell'Erudito, a contemporary of Dante Alighieri. --ROGER DAVIES TALK 09:55, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

(undent) Re: Contacting Achebe – I don't really understand what he might object to. How do you know he's scathing and might cause "all hell to break loose" if he suspects there's a subtext he doesn't like? I don't seek to impress anyone, and I can't imagine a person of his stature reacting harshly to an article about himself, using sources to which he personally contributed. – Scartol · Talk 22:34, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


Le Gris

I'm going to stop commenting now, in case it seems like I'm picking on that article. The trouble is that my particular specialist period at university was 1360–1460 (my thesis was on trade relations between England and Burgundy under Henry V; I nominated the article Jogaila at FA, though I don't usually write articles on my specialist period). This means that I can sense the problem a mile off here. I don't intend to deflate Jacky (though I know that is possible and it makes me nervous). What I really hope is that he/she will take the point and go on to write articles from only the best sources in future. If one does that, even a non-specialist cannot go too far wrong. You mention Wiglaf: now there's a case. Mike is not a specialist, and he makes that clear himself. Yet he knows exactly what good sources are, and by sticking to those (and attending carefully to comments at FAC), he writes superb articles. qp10qp 13:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Jacky is conscientious, works hard to produce worthy articles and is, I think, resilient. From reviews I read yesterday the book is faction (I'll be interested to see how it actually describes itself). I was puzzled by the inappropriate vocabulary and, like you, surprised by the detail. By comparison, only three scanty eye-witness accounts survive of Agincourt though, in contrast, much survives about Joan of Arc. Incidentally, is there a link between Jogaila and Anglo-Burgundian trade, other than them being contemporaneous? --ROGER DAVIES TALK
No, no link. I was referring to my larger specialism of 1360–1460. The only link I can think of is that both Burgundy and England often sent "crusaders" to fight against the Lithuanians. Henry V's father, Henry Bolingbroke, took part in one of the sieges of Vilnius. I don't usually edit in this period, because I want to extend my range of knowledge; however, I ventured into Poland and Lithuania because I never really looked further east than Bohemia when I was at university (I might check out late medieval Russia/Muscovy, too, some day).qp10qp 17:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Ah, okay. I usually avoid writing about my, um, specialist areas (such as they are) to avoid Wikipedia becoming a busman's holiday, which amounts to be pretty much the same thing I suppose. --ROGER DAVIES TALK 15:09, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
I think you've said everything (and very well), and I don't want to pile in. After all, this is just a hobby that we do for fun. Wikipedia's a tough learning curve, though. For example, I spent my first few months here adding accurate and sourced material WITHOUT CITING. A total waste of time, in retrospect. But I've gradually caught on. qp10qp 13:58, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XX (October 2007)

The October 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 14:50, 3 November 2007 (UTC)


Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Prince's Palace of Monaco

Thanks for commenting on the above. I have attempted to address you comments on the FAC page. Perhaps you would like to take a look. Giano 17:12, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks [2] my brain just won't see them. Giano 11:54, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
I've had a go at tightening it up and will do more later. Scream if you think it's too extreme :) I don't normally !vote in FAcs I've had a hand in so I'll just leave it as Comment. --ROGER DAVIES TALK 13:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks for all your help. Giano 08:19, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
My pleasure; it's been very interesting. I've spent loads of time in the area (near Grasse) and have always been interested in the military side of things. Thank you for researching and writing this fascinating piece.--ROGER DAVIES TALK 08:47, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Some thankyou spam, glorious spam

Hey Roger, the milhist project has another admin. My rfa was successful closed with 58 supports. If i am honest i am rather humbled by the unanimous support and i hope to live up to everyones expectations! As always if you ever need any help, don't hesitate to ask. Thanks again. Woodym555 15:47, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Article Help

Roger, as a matter of fact, I could use some help in getting started. I haven't been able to figure out how to create a new article. I see some templates available but can figure out how to use them. I could use a tutor. Thanks.--The Founders Intent 17:25, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

No problems. This place is a nightmare at first :))
Anyhow, there are two ways to create a page (article). These example will create two sandbox pages for you to experiment with in your user space.
The first way is to search on exactly the article name you want, in this case "The Founders Intent/Sandbox 1". You'll get a message back saying that that article can't be found but asking if you want to create it. Then just click on the red text and an edit window will appear. You type into that and save. You have now created your first article page.
The second way is to create a link to a future article by typing [[The Founders Intent/Sandbox 2]] on your user page or wherever. When you press the show preview button, the article name will appear in the preview window in red. Click on it and you'll get an edit window. Type text into it and save. You now have a second sandbox page.
You apply exactly the same principles for creating articles in main space (ie the encyclopedia itself).
You can arrange to delete these sandbox pages at any time by typing {{db-author}} into them and saving. these will alert the administrators that you'd like them deleted.
--ROGER DAVIES TALK 19:20, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I missed the obvious as usual.  ;)--The Founders Intent 19:26, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

And so did I! I see you've already created Sandbox pages (blush) --ROGER DAVIES TALK 19:28, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Category:Land, sea and air operations of World War I

Would you happen to remember why we put the category at this name rather than at the typical Category:Military operations of World War I. (I was thinking of suggesting a rename to the standard form; but I vaguely remember that the naming had come up before, and so didn't want to reopen a can of worms if there's some big issue I'm forgetting about.) Kirill 07:33, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, to unambiguously embrace all arms and all operations. (Even US usage distinguishes between military and naval operations.) --ROGER DAVIES TALK 07:56, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

The current structure is something of a mess, in that case, since none of the other categories make that distinction. (And if we try to stretch it further up the tree, we'll run into various non-combat operations and such that need an even broader name.) It's probably best to leave this alone for the time being, but it's something to keep in mind if we ever get to seriously moving forward with all of this "military" to "armed forces", etc. category renaming/restructing that keeps coming up. Kirill 08:05, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Which is why (I think) we left it alone last time :) I suggest we revisit this along with the armed forces discussion after Tag & Assess? (That's going well, by the way. Nearly 20,000 articles tagged.) --ROGER DAVIES TALK 08:14, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Yep, that seems like a good approach. It may be a good idea to draft up something coherent among the coordinators that we can then propose as a starting point for discussion, rather than doing the usual "does anyone have ideas for how to rename things?" bit (which doesn't seem to have led anywhere useful so far). Kirill 17:12, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Hamlet

Excellent work at Hamlet, but just to suggest that you don't concentrate too much on the "Dating" section, yet, because I'm about to propose some changes. AndyJones 14:01, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Andy. Thanks for the message. In that case, I'll plough through the reminder of the untouched stuff this afternoon and leave you a clear path! I was going to give it a second pass but that can wait til other editors have put right any snafus I've introduced. :)))) --ROGER DAVIES TALK 14:06, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Just to let you know:

Haha, don't worry. After all, it's just "words, words, words" anyway, right? :) -- Wrad (talk) 17:05, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Lacan

No, sorry: I've looked into it, but unlike most Wikipedians I'm nowhere near a University so I'm stuck with the sources I have available to me here. The only one I have is Lynn Enterline's Psycholanlytic Criticisms, and frankly she doesn't say anything I can understand.

I think it was Wrad who wrote the phsychoanalytic section of the page, so may be the better person to ask. AndyJones (talk) 17:39, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Ard3 cites Marjorie Garber Shakespeare's Ghost Writers: Literature as Uncanny Causality (1987) on the subject. AndyJones (talk) 19:22, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Hamlet Cites

Can you have a look at the way I've done those first few cites and let me know if that's the right way to lay it out, in your opinion? If no, feel free to adjust and I'll use your alternative. I'm off Wikipedia for a few hours, from now. AndyJones (talk) 13:09, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Copied to the peer review, with comments about other citation possibilities mentioned :) --ROGER DAVIES talk 13:32, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

uncle/father etc.

I don't have a copy with me here, I'm afraid: but don't look too early: I think it's in the scene where Claudius confronts him after he murders Polonius. AndyJones (talk) 13:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

  • PS I'll try to remember to look it up, this evening. AndyJones (talk) 13:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
    • No, I was wrong: I've found it. It's in Hamlet's exchange with R&G at 2.2.312-313: "But my uncle-father and aunt-mother are deceived." AndyJones (talk) 18:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you very much, Andy. Very much appreciated. Would you have time to cast an eye over the newly-created Minor characters in Hamlet and flesh it out a bit please? --ROGER DAVIES talk 10:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Wales national rugby union team

Hi. I have addressed all your comments as best I can (see here), but you obviously want a copy-edit from someone that hasn't been involved in writing the article. I always have heaps of trouble getting people to copy-edit articles, and the League of Copyeditors are always so bogged down I don't like to add to their problems unless absolutely necessary. So was wondering you you be able to copy-edit the article? Hopefully it's not too much work, and you clearly have the skills needed? Just let me know, thanks. - Shudde talk 19:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Dros urddas Cymru :) --ROGER DAVIES TALK 21:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

My googling skills tells me that means "for the honour of Wales"? Correct me if I'm way off! Thanks for the help, really appreciate it. - Shudde talk 21:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. Though my Welsh nationalism (such as it is) is entirely limited to supporting whichever team happens to be playing England. I'll do the copy edit tomorrow morning. Incidentally, this article already has my support. --ROGER DAVIES TALK 22:12, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Done (and incorporated a couple of points arising in the FAC, though some still need your attention). Feel free to revert anything you object to. --ROGER DAVIES TALK 14:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the copyedit. I have made a couple of changes, the main one being the notable players section renamed back again. I've also replied to Buc's comments where necessary. Thanks again. - Shudde talk 09:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Pleasure. --ROGER DAVIES talk 19:59, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand

Could you take a look at the article Assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand and determine if it falls into the military history category? The basis for including the "Causes of World War I" as military history may also apply to it. I think you will find this article much better footnoted. Werchovsky 19:12, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Done. Not quite B-class. --ROGER DAVIES talk 19:53, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

As I read the summary, the only reasons not to meet "B" class is that 1)Coverage and accuracy were not checked, 2)Grammar was not checked, 3) Supporting materials were not checked. How do we go about getting these checked? A copy of the supporting material for almost every footnote is in my computer as either a scanned image or as a word file (usually with the original language and english) if that will help....one of the books is not in the Library of Congress although it is quoted from by other authors such as Albertini. Frankly, I have authored and checked every footnote and gone as far as checking the footnotes to footnotes in the source material and discovered errors in "Documents Diplomatiques Francais III Serie 1911-14" and "The Road to Sarajevo" and made sure those errors stayed out of the article. Werchovsky 22:07, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I've corrected the items you brought up that I understand. There are some corrections you are requesting that I do not understand though and I responded in the discussion section to what you wrote. Werchovsky (talk) 07:30, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Your recent edit to this article was titled: "Recast to reduce iterations of terrorist. Characterized as "youths" - they were picked because youths would avoid capital charges". The word "terrorist(s)" was actually expunged from the article by the edit (although terror and terrorism are used once each quoting Cubrilovic's and Princip's testimony respectively). Was this your intention? Please pass on a reliable page citation regarding selection of the assassins on the basis of their being underage by Austro-Hungarian law; this runs counter to what I have read about the cyanide and Mehmedbasic.Werchovsky (talk) 19:01, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

There are numerous issues with using "terrorist" to characterise the three youths: (1) copyright problems with quoting the testimony (which is of dubious revelance to the article as a whole anyway); (2) doubts about accuracy of translation; (3) issues with significant shifts in meaning; and, most importantly, (4) Wikipedia neutrality questions. You acknowledge much of this on the talk page. You characterised them as "youths", incidentally: I simply used the word you had already extensively used in the article. The word "terrorist" is inappropriate: modern-day connations are completely different. --ROGER DAVIES talk 19:20, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
  • PS I entirely accept the edit summary was clumsy. It was done in haste and severely truncated to fit the available space. The intended thrust was: "They were recruited from youth groups and as youths would avoid capital charges." My apologies. --ROGER DAVIES talk
  • PPS I've just checked and see I didn't take terror, terrorist or terrorism out of the direct quotations. Terror and terrorism are still there. You should also reinsert in the line you removed about funding and terrorism: it seemed entirely appropriate there. --ROGER DAVIES talk 20:45, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

"Terrorist(s)": I take it the short answer to my questino is "Yes."? With regards to the reasons you gave to completely expunge the word "terrorist(s)" in reference to Princip, Grabez and Cabrinovic 1)Copyright problems can be addressed as you had previously suggested by paraphrasing and then just directly quoting key or controversial passages. 2)While one person did question the accuracy of translation of "terrorist", he produced no substantiation and indeed he made a series of false assumptions. Veljko Cubrilović's testimony showed he had a pretty good idea of what the word "terror" meant: politically, ethnically and religion inspired attrocities, destroying people's houses, murdering people's families, terroristic organizations, bombs, fear. Owings and Albertini are credible sources and hardly pro-Austrian. Any accusations of poor translation accuracy with respects to the word terror and its derivatives should be backed up or dropped. 3) If today we had people who intended to throw six bombs at a parade (and actually did throw one) for a political cause, an attack that they planned to commit suicide after (and indeed tried to do so) and were backed by a terroristic organization like the "Black Hand", and terrorized others by threatening to blow up houses, or kill all the males or everyone in people's families and they admitting to being adherents of terror or wanting to carry out terroristic acts to inspire an ethnic group to rise up against their government, they would fall into the modern usage of terrorist. If all that had happened was Princip shooting Franz-Ferdinand I would say the term "assassins" should be used to the exclusion of the word "terrorists" but there is a huge stack of additional acts and statements that define them at least in part as terrorists. 4) With so much evidence that they were "terrorists", to expunge the word "terrorist" represents non-NPOV or political correctness; a history of the victors. I only used the word "youths" twice referring to the three from Belgrade before we started editing together. These references were to events before they started on their journey to Sarajevo. I use "terrorists'" referring to their training and then when they were on their journey. I think unconsciously I made this break point as it has a rough correspondence to the law for when the crime of attempted terrorism would begin, but of course this line is ill-defined in the law and I think imperfectly done by me. The phrase "...modern day connotations are completely different." is an overstatement and as an overstatement it undermines the assertion it was intended to support.

Thanks for the apology. There are still some problems with the alternate edit title. Grabez, Princip and Cabrinovic approached Milan Ciganovic and through him Major Tankosic and put themselves forward to commit an outrage. While it would favor the Austrian position if we could say they were recruited, it is not quite the case. They don't seem to have been formal members of any youth organizations. Avoiding capital charges had nothing to do with the text of the edit. Perhaps you were aiming at the reason they are called youths is because they were not adults under Austro-Hungarian law, the land of their citizenship?Werchovsky (talk) 22:23, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Red Cliffs

Hi Roger — a MILHIST article, Battle of Red Cliffs is currently languishing with little comment at FAC.. If you have some spare time, I would be sincerely grateful if you could take a look and comment at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of Red Cliffs... Feel free to Oppose if you want to; I'm not canvassing for votes. Thanks! --Ling.Nut (talk) 11:53, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I cannot tell a lie

Rupert Clayton did all of the work so far on Boydell Shakespeare Gallery. I was expanding John Boydell yesterday in preparation for doing more on the Gallery today, so I just moved that material to a different page. I will try to rewrite both articles in BE today to actually earn the barnstar you have so graciously given me. (I did change "Thames River" to "River Thames".) Awadewit | talk 20:49, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Whoops:) Well-spotted on the river though (the Thames river is in Australia, no?). I'll give young Clayton some sort of gong to make amends and look forward to reading your Shakespeare pieces. (Talking of which, I must tackle Lacan and Hamlet today, I keep putting it off. It doesn't help when the source I'm following opens by describing him as "impenetrably obscure" and continues by declaring that it's "almost impossible to summarize his work".)--ROGER DAVIES talk 09:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Don't bother reading Lacan himself - for the purposes of this little section of wikipedia, the pain is not worth it. Just read what literary critics say Lacan said. Trust me - it is good enough. No one will agree on what Lacan says anyway! Oh joy. Awadewit | talk 09:48, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks, Roger, for the Invisible Barnstar, which I think I may already have misplaced. Despite my being guilty of the English spellings in Boydell Shakespeare Gallery, the bulk of the John Boydell material was definitely down to Awadewit, so she definitely deserves her gong. Rupert Clayton (talk) 22:33, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  • All of this apologizing back and forth is really amusing, especially in an encyclopedia that is not supposed to have authors! :) Perhaps the author is not yet dead. Awadewit | talk 01:55, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Simmaren and I are preparing to take our Jane Austen timeline live in the next few days. Do you have a few spare moments to check it over for BE? I changed two "governors" to "governours", but I couldn't really see anything else. My eyes must have started to glaze. Awadewit | talk 08:30, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Done and made a few trivial changes for aded BrEnglishness. Nice work and I loved the watercolour. --ROGER DAVIES talk 09:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  • So funny. Governours isn't right! Thanks. It'll be up in a few days. Thanks - I like the watercolour, too. The other portrait we have of JA is kind of, um, unflattering. :) Awadewit | talk 09:48, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Naming convention proposal

Hi Roger. I think it would be alright if you placed your naming conventions propsal for spouses in the MOS, as it is supported by four users (you and I included) and opposed by none. Plus, I could really use it as something to cite my edits to Pat Nixon with. If it's too soon, that's okay, but it's a great amendment. Thanks, Happyme22 (talk) 01:10, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. Happyme22 (talk) 01:51, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

EngVar DIY conversion kit

(copied from my talk, which I'm gonna change to a redirect)..

I know you're busy but I've done a sortable list of common words requiring transmogrification into other English spelling variants. It covers all (plusa some) of the variants I've encountered on Wkipedia so far. It's here. Could you please take a look and add, delete or comment? The idea is to de-mystify EngVar conversion, as I'm sure fear of the unknown is the root cause of many disputes. Many thanks,--ROGER DAVIES talk 13:47, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Most of the ones you've listed are of the -or -our variety. Lists of conversion rules of thumb are all over the Internet & can be googled easily.. e.g. this one. But it is worthwhile to say something on the topic. Later! Ling.Nut (talk) 14:06, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Assessment help

Hi Roger,

Thanks a ton for all the help on the MILHIST assessment. I finished up one list of assessments. There is a small problem.. there are about 10 pages which I'm unable to decide whether they make the cut wrt MILHIST. I've put the list below and the reasons I couldn't decide on them. Tell me what you think of them, and I'll do accordingly. Thanks a ton

Cheers Sniperz11talk|edits 14:46, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

List: from worklist #23

  • Azimullah talk - Do we include all Gitmo detainees or would they be better served under Wikiproject:Terrorism?
  • MH (US=yes)
  • Not MH
  • Comfort items - Again, I dont know if this should be in MILHIST.
  • MH (US=yes)
  • Not very informative, is it? Not obviously MH
  • MH (US=yes)
  • Lü Bu talk - Too much like a chinese opera character. Didn't have many notable military achievements.
  • MH (Chinese=yes) (He's a general, notable.)
  • Haile Selassie talk - Had a big part in the defense of Ethiopia against the Italians, but he is not well known only for this.
  • Agreed. Not obviously MH
  • Gustav Schwarzenegger talk - Arnie's dad. Was a policeman and Nazi member, and served in the Army, but as an MP. I think we shouldn't include
  • Agreed. Not obviously MH
  • White Eyes talk - Was never a military leader, more of a negotiator and tribal leader
  • Agreed. Not obviously MH
  • MH (Biography-yes|South-American=yes)
  • Gerber Legendary Blades [[Talk:|talk]] - Use as a weapon has not been mentioned, nor as used by any Armed forces. Can we consider as a weapon?
  • Agreed. Not obviously MH

Thanks.

Pleasure, --ROGER DAVIES talk 16:02, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a ton mate. Sniperz11talk|edits 17:13, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Assessment Help Redux

Hiya mate,

Part 2 of the help for assessment.. sorry for the trouble. Thanks in advance.

1. RAP4_(Real_Action_Paintball_Marker) - A Paintball marker designed primarily for law enforcement and military training. (My thought - Add)

Agree.

2. John_Jones_Maesygarnedd - brother-in-law of Oliver Cromwell. (My thought - Add)

Agree.

3. Sensitive but unclassified - Info Designation for Homeland use. Not directly military related. (My thought - Dont Add)

Agree.

4. John da Cunha - (My thought - Dont Add)

Disagree. WWII War Crimes & Diplock Court Judge {Biography=yes)

5. Colditz_Castle/Suggested_reading - Sub page of Colditz_Castle, which is eligible for MILHIST. What about this one?

Agree. {German=yes|British=yes|WWII=yes|Fortifications=yes} if nothing else

6. Silco incident - May not be under MILHIST... more suited to Terrorism(My thought - Dont Add)

Disagree. It could be {Terrorism} as well.

7. Peter_von_Danzig_(ship) - More of Piracy related. No military action in wars (My thought - Don't Add)

I've added it and tagged it WPSHIPS & WPMILHIST so you just need to delete it :)

8. Swedish Amphion - Command ship of Swedish King in Russo-Swedish war. (My thought - Add)

Agree

9. United_Nations_Observer_Mission_in_Georgia - Also asked on the Assessment Drive Talk page (My thought - Add)

Agree

10. Massad Ayoob - Asked on Drive Talk page Is a civilian and Police instructor. Should not be MILHIST (My thought - Don't Add)

Agree

11. Benelli Nova - Civilian Firearm (My thought - Dont Add)

Agree

12. U.S._Reaction_to_the_Haitian_Revolution - More political, not really MILHIST. (My thought - Dont Add)

Agree

13. Tharcisse Renzaho - Not sure about it.

Agree. He's more of a politician.

14. FN PS90 - Civilian Variant of the PS90. Have asked on Talk page(My thought - Dont Add)

Agree

15. 506th Fighter Group - has been flagged for copyvio. (My thought - Dont Add)

Agree

16. Roger Q. Mills - Took part in Civil War. Cant decide whether to add or not.

Probably not. seems like a tangential issue

17. Fires on the Plain (film)- Does it qualify for MILHIST? Very similar to Letters from Iwo Jima, which is in MILHIST

I don't think so.

18. James Bernard, 4th Earl of Bandon - (My thought - Dont Add)

I don't think so either.

19. Marinus van der Lubbe - (My thought - Dont Add)

Agree.

Its a long list. Sorry for that. Thanks in advance. Sniperz11talk|edits 12:35, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

No worries. My pleasure. --ROGER DAVIES talk 14:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

But I'm a Cheerleader FAC

Hi, I was wondering if you could revisit the But I'm a Cheerleader article and see if you can see any other issues that need addressing. I have made a request for a copyedit at the League of Copyeditors, currently as a Good Article. If you think that a copyedit is the only thing needed for it to be promoted, then I could relist the request as a Featured Article Candidate. If you think there are other issues, it would be great if you could let me know. By the way, I have added some reviews from the gay press, which was another of your concerns. Thanks, --BelovedFreak 19:48, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. The bulk of my comments have been addressed and you've worked hard on this so I'll happily support. One of my objections to the text was the slightly clunky second paragraph of the intro. Perhaps something like this might work better?
Natasha Lyonne stars as Megan Bloomfield, an apparently happily heterosexual high school cheerleader. The problem is that her friends and family are convinced she's gay and arrange an intervention, sending her to a reparative therapy camp to cure her lesbianism. At camp, Megan soon realizes that she is indeed a lesbian and, despite the therapy, gradually comes to embrace this fact. The supporting cast features Clea DuVall, Cathy Moriarty, RuPaul, Mink Stole and Bud Cort.
Changing this is not a condition for support, by the way, and I'll be editing my FAC comments shortly. All the best,--ROGER DAVIES talk 20:14, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, I think that your version reads better and have changed it accordingly. Thanks for your support. --BelovedFreak 20:35, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks very much for your original comments & support with this FAC. --BelovedFreak 19:13, 28 November 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.