Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Outreach/Hotline

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Military history WikiProject
Main project page + talk  → Discussion archives Style guide  → Essays Announcements and open tasks talk  → Articles needing attention talk  → Nominations for deletion talk  → New articles talk Assessment department talk  → New! Tag & Assess '08 talk Contest department talk Logistics department talk Outreach department talk  → Stress hotline talk Review department talk New! Special projects department talk Showcase  → Featured picture gallery Portals talk
Project organization Coordinators + talk Members talk  → Active  → Inactive Awards talk Project banner talk Project category Project history
Templates Infoboxes  → Firearm cartridge infobox talk  → Military award infobox talk  → Military conflict infobox talk  → Military memorial infobox talk  → Military person infobox talk  → Military structure infobox talk  → Military test site infobox talk  → Military unit infobox talk  → National military infobox talk  → War faction infobox talk  → Weapon infobox talk  → Command structure box talk  → Operational plan box talk  → Service record box talk Navigation boxes talk  → Campaignboxes talk Template design style talk
Task forces General topics Fortifications talk Intelligence talk Maritime warfare talk Military aviation talk Military biography talk Military historiography talk Military memorials and cemeteries talk Military science talk Military technology and engineering talk National militaries talk War films talk Weaponry talk Nations and regions African military history talk Australian military history talk Balkan military history talk Baltic states military history talk British military history talk Canadian military history talk Chinese military history talk Dutch military history talk French military history talk German military history talk Indian military history talk Italian military history talk Japanese military history talk Korean military history talk Middle Eastern military history talk New Zealand military history talk Nordic military history talk Ottoman military history talk Polish military history talk Romanian military history talk Russian and Soviet military history talk South American military history talk Southeast Asian military history talk Spanish military history talk Taiwanese military history talk United States military history talk Periods and conflicts Classical warfare talk Medieval warfare talk Early Muslim military history talk Crusades talk Early Modern warfare talk American Revolutionary War talk Napoleonic era talk American Civil War talk World War I talk World War II talk
edit · changes

Contents 1 Firearms in Popular Culture Sections (or lack thereof) 2 Withdrawl syptoms 3 Stalker 4 Was foreign internal defense, but now getting into theories of insurgency/counterinsurgency 5 Editing at work 6 Frustration 7 Anyone know Frank Freeman? Trying to reduce CIA main article size 8 Destabilization of articles is stressfull 9 RAF Tempsford 10 Frustration returns

[edit] Firearms in Popular Culture Sections (or lack thereof)

As we should all be aware, "In Popular Culture" sections in articles are- generally- to be avoided (WP:MILHIST#POP. Now, my understanding is that (and I'm reposting part of a comment I made on the talk page for the Winchester Model 1887/1901 article here) the Pop Culture guidelines were introduced to stop Anime fans from including every. single. piece of obscure anime in which someone had a Mauser Broomhandle, or people adding lists with things like "A character in Randomfilm can be seen holding a Tokarev TT-33 in the scene when Something Interesting happens". It wasn't intended to create a situation in which we all pretend that firearms don't appear in movies or in popular culture, which is what we're veering dangerously close to at the moment, IMHO.

It is (rightly) a given that any given WWII film is going to feature people with M1 Garands, Mauser K98s, or Lee-Enfield rifles, or that people in Westerns will be brandishing Winchester rifles and Colt revolvers, and that this doesn't need to be mentioned. But when people are deleting references to Arnold Schwarzenegger's Winchester Model 1901 Shotgun in Terminator 2 because it's "not notable", or factual references to the Lee-Enfield rifle being mis-used in films (for example, the Turkish soldiers in Lawrence of Arabia and the German soldiers in The Blue Max are shown with Lee-Enfield rifles, despite the fact the Turks or the Germans did not use the rifle in WWI) being removed as being "trivia" I start to get very frustrated. I'm not 100% sure if this is the right place for me to raise this particular concern, but it's been bugging me for a while and I'm starting to feel like I'm the only one who actually cares about it... --Commander Zulu 12:53, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh no! You are not the only one. Be bold and don't forget that your "firearm" is WP:MILHIST#POP. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 16:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

A useful resource in this struggle with well-meaning trivia-deleters could be Wikipedia talk:Article Rescue Squadron. It appears to be inactive for the last week or two, but maybe with a few more posts we could draw in the lurkers. ;-) llywrch 18:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Without touching on the content issue, I agree that it can be a really frustrating experience to continually have the same discussion (sometimes even with the same users). If the case is isolated, a third opinion is often useful. In a broad case like this, it might be useful to clarify the guidelines through discussion on the main talk page. This will give interested users a chance to determine exactly what the purpose of the guideline is, and allow us to reword the guideline to more accurately reflect the intent. Carom 21:27, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Withdrawl syptoms

Has anyone else ever that problem where you know you should be doing work but you end up here and it starts effecting your grade? I'm almost two weeks overdue with an important paper and trying to get it done and all I seem to able to think about is how badly I want to get back on here and edit like there no <omitted> tomarrow. At this rate I am going to end up burned out of another class for my legendary procrastination, and here I am again, logged on at 2:40 in the morning because I can't help myself, the school material is sooooo boring and this so much more invigorating. Its to the point now where I think I am on the verge on burning out, both here and at school :/ TomStar81 (Talk) 08:46, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

As far as cutting back on Wiki-time, some users have asked admins they know to block them for some time so that they can't edit. If all else fails . . . - BillCJ 08:56, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

When I was in school, I used a behavioral approach to help me get tedious schoolwork done. I would promise myself a reward after finishing whatever onerous task I needed to get done. In this case, I would suggest rewarding yourself with a four-hour (or some other arbitrary time length) Wikipedia editing binge after completing the paper you're supposed to write. Cla68 12:51, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Before there was the distraction or time-sink of Wikipedia, there was the Internet & the addiction of following hyperlinks; before the Internet, there was ... well, something. I remember having your exact same problem in college, before you were born. And the problem existed before I was born; during the late Middle Ages, numerous city ordinances included clauses against playing cards because they distracted apprentices from doing their work. (These are our earliest documented references to playing cards, BTW.) Simply put, everyone at one time or another has had the problem of procrstination; most people have solved it. (I'm still working on it here.) The trick is to simply make some kind of progress: if you're still reading this, stop right now and write two sentences on that overdue paper. Don't think about why you can't, just do it. Often just this little trick will break the logjam that is keeping you from finishing a chore. Now excuse me, I have some work that I've been procrastinating over myself. -- llywrch 15:46, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I will try to keep that in mind, it may work better than sensory depravation/solitary confinement, which is what I usually use when I have trouble with work. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:17, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Been there and done that plenty of times (and many of the distractions mentioned by Llywrch in times past, too) :P I had to literally force myself to do unpleasant work I didn't want to do and in the end Wikipedia improved greatly in certain very narrow areas while my work did not. I'd say just keep it up on the work front and treat Wikipedia as a reward for getting x000 words done on your essay or whatever which is what I did (and very similar to Cla68's advice too) Orderinchaos 12:11, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

My friend you are not the only one. I just keep Wikipedia as a goal to reach and my work is obstacles. Especially if its boring.Knowledge is Power 01:22, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stalker

I am posting this anonymously, but have edited Wikipedia for several months now. I currently have a stalker that is harrassing me and editors who help me for a few months now, and the stress is getting to me at this point. This user has been banned because of harrassment and sock-puppeteering, and so has reason (at least in his small little mind) to hate. I'm not asking for help in dealing with him, because the policies on Wikipedia can do NOTHING to stop him as ling as he uses dynamic IPS. Just letting off some steam here. I don't know if he is aware of this page, but since he trolls my contributions, I could not come here under my username as he would continue his harrassment here. How long are regular users of WIkipedia going to put up with this crap before we revolt? As long as Jim Wales' open-editing policies allows this type of harassment to occur, there's no way I'm ever contributing money to Wikipedia. I enjoy the good aspects of the product, but the inmates are allowed to run free, and they know it. THere aren't any alternatives out there right now with similar levels of content, so we're stuck here if we're addictied to editing, and I certainly am! I'll be watching this space, but I my not respond. I've you'd genuinely like to know who is involved and more of the situation, I can e-mail you with the details, provided you're an editor I'm familar with. Thanks for listening! - 172.167.143.90 (talk) 20:29, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know you, I'm a complete newcomer to WPMILHIST (just here to help with the Tag & Assess Drive) - but I saw your note and wanted to drop you a note of support. I don't know if there's anything that anyone can do, but (having recently gone through something similar, although not as hostile, IRL) hang in there! And do whatever you can to protect yourself, because you shouldn't have to put up with it. *hug* Cricketgirl (talk) 01:14, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Was foreign internal defense, but now getting into theories of insurgency/counterinsurgency

Sometimes starting an article is like trying to eat one potato chip. There is a great deal of information in Foreign internal defense, but it needs to be split up, both for size and the ability to do serious editing.

In particular, there is solid, referenced material, still needing work, on several major theories of insurgency and nation-building (e.g., Kilcullen, Eizenstat, McCormick). When I looked at the article Insurgency, I quickly gave up trying to edit into that -- there just wasn't structure.

Thoughts? A separate article on "models of insurgency", and hold FID to history and operations? Although there's lots of US information available, I think I've managed to get a reasonable amount of British and French doctrine into it. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 05:44, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Suggest this at the article's talk page, outline what you think, that's the place to put the things you've mentioned here. Have a great day! --Ouro (blah blah) 07:54, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Editing at work

Who here thinks that it should be OK to edit at work, as long as you stick to articles concerning your business during your idle moments? I've managed to convince a few of my seniors that editing articles about the USMC is OK when I don't have any better tasks to do (though honestly, one of them wouldn't care if I was committing crimes at my desk, so add a grain of salt to that statement). In fact, it seems that the majority of my edits have occurred between 0700 and 1630... when I'm at work! bahamut0013♠♣ 20:38, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm for it! I usually edit at work... because I work from home :) --Ouro (blah blah) 17:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

im all for it too. i take my PSP to work and edit all night long. but i get paid to sleep at a group home so technically as long as i dont leave the house im good to go killkola

[edit] Frustration

This has got to be the single worst new year I have ever experienced in my twenty-someodd years of existance. Half way through January I got hit by truck, this weekend I got very sick and missed out on the superbowl parties, and this morning I discover that some fiend has stolen 1/2 of my hubcaps. I'm almost afraid to see what the rest of the year is like... TomStar81 (Talk) 17:31, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Never been one for American football, much prefer rugby or soccer! Your luck ain't great at the moment is it? They do say though that things can only better!!! Well, you did get the Illinois through FAC (and an AFD), so that has to be a bonus!! I hope you feel better soon, and you catch the hubcab fiends, students seem to have a fascination with them, almost as much as road signs; (he says whilst looking at the cones in his room). Things will get better I am sure! Woody (talk) 17:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Don't allow the situation to take you down, friend! All of us have a bad time now and then, but it usually turns for the better. And it's up to you not to succumb to a few bad days. I usually say to myself, that when the next big concert comes up, next excellent trip or next great photo, then I'll know why I'm still here. Stay positive! --Ouro (blah blah) 17:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

A few bad days are one thing but its been like the never ending beat down: everytime I get clear of one thing something else crops up. Although I did finally get my cast off, which i consider something to cheer about. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:20, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Believe me, you won't notice when it turns around. Just don't ever lose faith. --Ouro (blah blah) 07:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Anyone know Frank Freeman? Trying to reduce CIA main article size

There's been, I believe, a consensus of editors working on the still-huge main CIA article to make it more a place for agency-wide structure, authorizations, etc., and get the details, wikilinked from the main page, into topic-specific article. I've moved, although not fully merged, a large chunk of material from User:Frank Freeman to CIA transnational anti-terrorism activities. In the move, I've split it out by date to correspond with the structure of the subarticle, but haven't changed any content or done any merging.

Does anyone know Frank? I can't revert again without 3RR, but I haven't gotten a response to my requests on the article page(S) or his user page. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 10:52, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Destabilization of articles is stressfull

I've recently improved Armia Krajowa - likely the largest WWII resistance group - to an A-class status, but recently edit warring and other issues have led to article's protection. It is quite stressful to see a good article subject to POV pushing and edit warring. I believe that an influx of neutral editors who would comment there would reduce my and other's editors stress there. Perhaps we should create a section, akin to RfC, where we could list milhist articles in need of such input? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

There is a new project in the German wiki to safe the last good version of an article for display and only allow new edits to appear after censorship by a trusted editor. It will be available here in a few months. Wandalstouring (talk) 10:22, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RAF Tempsford

Could established editors please step in for some help in arbirtrating this dispute? - User talk:Neddyseagoon#RAF Tempsford. For background, I edited the sentence "This barn contained several plaques and memorials to the brave agents (men and women) who were flown from the airfield, many of them to meet terrible deaths at the hands of the Germans." (italics my own, to indicate areas of concern) as I felt it showed possible bias, which has since been disputed and reverted by User:Mark126 and User:Deben Dave. Neddyseagoon - talk 09:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I hope the issue has been solved. Wandalstouring (talk) 10:24, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Frustration returns

I am again and again frustrated by people who insist on using terms and names in articles that have no origin or meaning in actual sources of military history, but are popular, even populist, or even worse, politically correct adaptations by published authors. Lest we forget that Hitrel was also a published author. There is no place for this sort of attitude in a reference work that purports to be define any given entry in it based on sources. A source is where something begins, the beginning, commencement, origin of, a start, etc...Consensus be damned, one can not "write" history based on what the latest trend in language use in any given society happens to be this week, year or decade. Grrrrrrrr--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 23:26, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that if quoting, you can use the original language. However, language is like a constantly flowing stream with nothing set in stone. Wandalstouring (talk) 08:12, 9 June 2008 (UTC)