User talk:Mr rnddude/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

Your GA nomination of Pyramid of Nyuserre

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Pyramid of Nyuserre you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Iazyges -- Iazyges (talk) 14:41, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Stop including the image of the suspect

Please read the rational in: 2017 Laws Vegas shooting! If you want to use the image, create a separate article about the suspect and link to it. Thanks! --My-wiki-photos (talk) 22:25, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

• My-wiki-photos, no. There, most probably, will not be an article on the shooter. He is a non-notable BLP1E character in the same way that Adam Lanza is. We don't create articles for every mass shooter because after a week, nobody gives two shits about any of them. Mr rnddude (talk) 22:30, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

What's your rational for including it in the first place? No images of the victims are included. Show some respect dude! --My-wiki-photos (talk) 22:34, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

• My-wiki-photos, I'm going to give you a heads up that you're at 3RR. I didn't add the image originally, but the rational for including it is that he's notable in the context of the event, I.e. in the article on the shooting, and not as a person. Use the article talk page to discuss contested changes to the article. If you get a consensus to remove the image from the article, then go ahead and remove it. Mr rnddude (talk) 22:40, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Maybe I should ask the victims too dude. Oh wait. They are dead! Incredible! We had the same discussion in 2017 Las Vegas shooting! This is no different! --My-wiki-photos (talk) 22:44, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

• You'll achieve nothing here. My talk page is not the location for this discussion. I am not the only person who has taken issue with your removal. Mr rnddude (talk) 22:52, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

I really don't have time for this nonsense. Do what you want. What you do will stick to yourself! --My-wiki-photos (talk) 22:56, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

I'll withhold the report for the moment, since you seem to have given up on edit-warring. You are free to take it to the article talk page. I will not respond further here. Mr rnddude (talk) 23:00, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Pyramid of Nyuserre

The article Pyramid of Nyuserre you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Pyramid of Nyuserre for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Iazyges -- Iazyges (talk) 15:02, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Updating Ancient Egypt wikiproject

Dear Mr rdnddude, every time one of your Ancient Egypt article becomes GA or FA, could you write it the article name under the relevant section on the Wikiproject Ancient Egypt page here? It is just to keep track of what is FA, GA etc. Congrats on your work! Let me know when the Pyramid of Nyuserre goes to FA.Iry-Hor (talk) 13:14, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

• Iry-Hor, wilco. Pyramid of Nyuserre added to the GA list, will update Neferirkare when the FA is over. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:43, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Pyramid of Neferirkare

Congratulations on getting the Pyramid of Neferirkare to FA. I look forward to more FACs from you in due course. Tim riley talk 17:39, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, and thank you for your review. I'm very pleased with how the article has turned out. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:14, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Re-ping due typo: Tim riley. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:16, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

• I'm very much looking forward to reading this tonight. It looks fascinating. Cassianto^Talk 07:34, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

ygm

Hello, Mr rnddude. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

 Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 09:04, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

• I've just sent you a short yet dramatic article: Tinker "forgotten march" Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 08:48, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

We

are both too long in the tooth to fall out over this, so I also apologise for not WP:AAGFing  :) but if I sounded hostile {not intentionally: "robust" was the style being attempted), it's because I've only commented on that bloody page five times (excl. my original !vote)—and three of those were responding to Iry-Hor pinging me—! Take care, —SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 13:37, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

• Serial Number 54129, I am on friendly terms with both you and Iry-Hor. So in as far as I am involved here, it's two of my close wiki-colleagues bickering at each other. I understand some of your frustration with Iry-Hor, but I also understand some of Iry-Hor's frustration with the keep respondents. I have struck the AGF violating comment and I apologize to you again. I would not want to lose a wiki-colleague over a silly AfD. Consider my comment an annoyed outburst lacking in merit. I'm still on the fence with regard to the article. Take care, Mr rnddude (talk) 13:42, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Pending changes reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.
  

Widr (talk) 00:06, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

• Widr, that was quick. Thank you very much. Mr rnddude (talk) 00:16, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

April 2018 Milhist Backlog Drive

G'day all, please be advised that throughout April 2018 the Military history Wikiproject is running its annual backlog elimination drive. This will focus on several key areas:

• tagging and assessing articles that fall within the project's scope
• adding or improving listed resources on Milhist's task force pages
• updating the open tasks template on Milhist's task force pages
• creating articles that are listed as "requested" on the project's various lists of missing articles.

As with past Milhist drives, there are points awarded for working on articles in the targeted areas, with barnstars being awarded at the end for different levels of achievement.

The drive is open to all Wikipedians, not just members of the Military history project, although only work on articles that fall (broadly) within the scope of military history will be considered eligible. This year, the Military history project would like to extend a specific welcome to members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red, and we would like to encourage all participants to consider working on helping to improve our coverage of women in the military. This is not the sole focus of the edit-a-thon, though, and there are aspects that hopefully will appeal to pretty much everyone.

The drive starts at 00:01 UTC on 1 April and runs until 23:59 UTC on 30 April 2018. Those interested in participating can sign up here.

For the Milhist co-ordinators, AustralianRupert and MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:53, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Mention and request for help

Hi Rnddude, Just letting you know that you were mentioned here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:RickinBaltimore#relist_and_respond_to_topic_ban

I know you were involved in a previous discussion which may prevent you from assisting me if you are going to participate in a future discussion but I really need some assistance getting my topic ban relisted so I can appeal as I don't really know how to do it properly. Thanks in advance, JohnVr4 71.47.109.12 (talk) 14:42, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

I can post it to AN (not AN/I as RickinBaltimore suggested) for you, and notify all of the individuals involved in the discussion (I can either notify everybody, or nobody; as required by canvassing policy), but you'll have to write your appeal in full yourself. You should submit that appeal from your account btw. Doing it from IP will cause confusion, and reduce the likelihood that an appeal will be accepted. I have to note that in the discussion for a TBAN there were 7 supports and 0 opposes (excluding yourself) after 11 days. Some secondary comments: keep your appeal succinct and provide evidence (diffs need to work). I can't ping you to this comment as "anonymous users" don't receive them. Mr rnddude (talk) 21:56, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the prompt response and offer to assist. I tried here and I have some appeals on my talk page where I've tried to explain what happened-with all the links but they were rejected because they were apparently too long. I've tried to whittle them down but that seems to make them more confusing... If I could trouble you to critique them so I can fix any broken or confusing links, trim fat and add anything else you feel is necessary. Nearly every voter is 'an involved party' in some way and there are a few ringleaders who were warned about this behavior and tagged in every single discussion regarding this matter. After my repeated warning's to BS06 about sourcing (going back literally years) and chastising Nick-D for allowing BS06s failure to review sources to continue, [Nick-D appears to be where the WP:Nothere issue took off following BS06's similar request to BrownHairedGirl] (there are several threads in this archive on this matter). I'm not sure what to focus on at this point.

1. Do I relist the 6-mo. old one that I never got to complete or start a completely new appeal thread. It seems everything in the original posting is relevant to the appeal.
2. Is my interpretation of those diffs correct? (Like, am I right and everyone else really is wrong per se? And are they actually as damming as I had claimed)
3. Where additional sources were necessary after discussions (if any), did I add them correctly and did any content I added require removal by BS06 as evidenced by the diffs?
4. Do Buckshot06s excuses on my talk page mesh with the diffs of his edits and his statements in discussion?
5. Do I focus on the content dispute or the behavior that led to it.
6. Do I quote or respond to previous statements of editors who supported me?
7. Do I put any focus on involvement of other editors or their willingness to support BS06 edits or POV in the content dispute.
8. Were the statements made by the editors involved in the MfD of may sandbox draft untrue? (Buckshot userfied an old article that that I bungled as years ago as a noobie and I've been correcting all issues in my sandbox for years. While userfied, and despite my complaints, he repeatedly created a POV article that ignored all the major points in the sources he used and then nominated my (newest version) sand box and (oldest version) user space as stale literally TWO hours after my last update to it with more sources that fixed concern by another involved editors and went on to falsely declare that I wasn't doing any of the things suggested by editors that I AND HE had asked for advice!)

As you can imagine I'm sort of mad about it but I'm trying to remain calm, objective, and factual. There is an entire history with that editor and 2 or three of the others (like Moe) ever since I've been on WP. I just want it to stop and to restore and finish putting draft content my from by sandbox into the proper user pages without him mucking up literally everything I try to accomplish on WP.

I greatly appreciate all assistance and concern- more than you'll ever know. Johnvr4 (talk) 18:28, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

You should also be aware of these diffs with regard to battleground editing and the appeal of my TBAN which began on Sept.18. Johnvr4 (talk) 18:58, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Johnvr4, I would advise that you are taking the wrong approach. You have to decide what's more important to you: getting back to working on things that interest you, or getting back at Buckshot and others for the sleight that has been committed against you. Things that I expect the community will look for: 1. Evidence that you have moved past the dispute that led to the TBAN, 2. A plan to avoid further such disputes in the topic area of the TBAN, or if unavoidable, how you will respond to them and 3. What you've been doing since the TBAN (usually onwiki, but "taking a break" is sometimes fine). I wouldn't advise trying to relitigate the previous discussion. You can reference it, but don't make your appeal about it. Those involved would have looked at your diffs about the dispute and come to their own conclusions about them already. That should cover questions 1 to 3. In your appeal you should focus on your behaviour; you can mention contributing factors, but keep them to a minimum. I note that you haven't been editing since the time of the topic ban, or at least not from your own account. So the question will be "what have you been doing?". To clarify, this is only advice. You can write your appeal however you want to. If you want to restart the discussion that led to the TBAN and see whether or not the decision will be upheld with new evidence, you can do that. Don't relist the archived discussion though, start a new thread. Mr rnddude (talk) 23:07, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure which approach to take other than presenting the evidence. Why are so many involved editors making false opinion statements without examples or merit (I say false because the opinions are contrary to to the diffs and actual evidence). The nominator of the TBan stated "he did not look into the complexities of my situation" and then similarly everyone just agreed to skip all the facts along with him...

I see no way to Make anyone read diffs or sources but they won't really look into what is very obviously a content dispute that is being handled in a forum that was never meant to deal with content. We are in the forum because neither BS06 nor any other editor realize or will admit that this is a simple content issue (MANY of them) and there is overwhelming and insurmountable evidence of that already. The other editors need to understand the editing they are supporting and explain why they support it. Clearly, either I am wrong or he is wrong regarding all of that sourcing and content and other then small differences in interpretation, I feel there is not a lot of grey area in between. I don't feel there is evidence of my bad conduct for me to apologize for given his edits and my sources and my attempts to correct it as evidence by dozens of diffs and literally the entire talk page where each of BS06s questionable edits were posted and discussed at length. That should be the end of all of the arguments! Everything he has said to the community about me has been disproved by the diffs from the MFD and onward. His statements somehow gained consensus despite all evidence presented. That is sort of why I am asking you what the heck did I miss? I would like to move forward and focus on topics I enjoy such as military and Japan which is what my sandbox draft was about and needed to be split. I also need to write about WWII US storm/assault boats. I cannot do that with BS06 repeatedly sabotaging my EVERY effort including multiple deletions of my sandbox with lies that I have thoroughly disproved! I really hate to say this but I feel I can't ever work with him at all and in order to move forward I will need either to go through him and over his apparent cohorts with strong undeniable evidence. I was unable to edit for the last six months because BS06 implemented a six month block on my editing after the topic ban. Upon restoration of my power and internet long after the hurricane, I commented by answering a question from another editor that was left for me during my outage regarding restoration of the page in questions creation, editing, and talk pages. I responded both before and a few minutes after I found out about the topic ban. I am at a loss as to what else to say about it or apologize for except for purposely violating the 'ridiculous' Tban on my talk page and that punishment is over. I'm not perfect but what Do you feel I need to apologize for or what is the specific behavior to change? This seems to be a catch-22 as each of the unresolved content disputes remain and will need to be resolved and all my well sourced edits have been removed over the last six months by BS06 during my block and ban. I could provide more examples but don't want to violate my Tban as the page is not directly related to my appeal yet it's another page created from my sandbox about biological anti-crop agents which BS06 recently changed the title to indicate an article that was only about herbicides-- which I'm not sure the term encompasses. Had my Ban/block not been implemented, it would have been questioned. Johnvr4 (talk) 00:06, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Address whatever you think needs addressing; my comments above were just advice. I was only involved in the discussion in as far as the NOTHERE indef block proposal was concerned. I don't know anything about your and buckshot06's history. In fact I don't know anything about either of your editing histories at all. I only know what was presented at AN/I and what the outcome was. I looked into a few of the diffs, and things didn't add up for me. I don't know what anyone else looked at, nor what their thinking was. I can't tell you what you did wrong. That is sort of why I am asking you what the heck did I miss? - My answer to this is going to be unsatisfactory, but it's things that I noted (or am noting). (1) I see no way to Make anyone read diffs or sources. I mention above that you need to be succinct. You lose readers attention with your long posts. It's not a matter of evidence provided, but how easily accessible and quick to analyse it is. Your original unblock appeal was rejected on the basis of excessive length alone. (2) Justice is not served. The issue is not whether punishment is handed out justly, but whether restrictions will curtail disruption. This means that you being right or wrong is a lesser issue, at least as far as other involved editors are concerned. Work out what you think needs to be addressed, write the appeal and let me know. I am only slightly active currently – my last 50 edits span the period 23 March to 7 April, or two weeks. Though, as I said, I can offer to start the process for you. Keep the appeal to about 500 words, as would be required in an arbitration case. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:32, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Johnvr4 - I neglected to send you a ping. (talk) 10:39, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Mr rnddude One million thanks. I really appreciate the advice and did not mean to appear to put it aside in any way. I am just unsure how it applies to my situation. I did ignore the TBAN so I'll be apologizing for that. I understand no one has the kind of time that would be required to understand that history. Our history is linked in the original ANI. Every bit of it is about bogus content disputes and it had already gone way too far long before the Tban. If you had looked into the assertions at the MfD or appeal of the MfD, I think your jaw would drop. That being said, How do I resolve these ridiculous content disputes and show that the Conduct issue is coming solely from BS06s faulty edits if no one will look at content to realize who is at fault?

Last, are the series of diffs of BS06s edits as damning as I've indicated? I don't want to make a mistake and say something derogatory if it is not 100% accurate. I think there is strong evidence that BS06 purposely lied at MfD and I do not want to be even slightly inaccurate in what I say here- ever. Being right is very important to me regardless- despite the community view. Primarily this is because I need to be able to explain that my being right in these unfounded and utterly ridiculous content disputes is critical to determining who is causing the WP conduct disruption. It really is a lot of history and Edit diffs that are way over 500 words. I believe those incompetent edits and subsequent talk page discussions will speak for themselves. I just need to confirm they are as damning as I perceive. Once done, the weight would then be on the editors and administrators who support/ have supported each these edits to explain why they allowed it and then banned me for trying to prevent it. Once the community understands what BS06s faulty "editing" sans competent sourcing is all about, I can pick apart every other assertion he's ever made about me-including about my MfDed sandbox draft. That's my ultimate goal after I can get the rest of the community to look into each content issue. I just do not know how to do that or how many dozens of times it would take for each one of these disputes to be resolved or why anyone would need to repeatedly go though that effort to prove to the remainder of the community (who to date won't read source content) that the one disputed word is in our damned source!

I'll try to put something more succinct together. Is the length requirement an actual rule or just good etiquette? Thank you again!! Johnvr4 (talk) 16:28, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Johnvr4 - just a quick comment for the time being: the length comment isn't a rule at AN/I. It's an approximate of how long an appeal should be. I took it from ARBCOM which does have that rule. If you need more words use them. Mr rnddude (talk) 23:41, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Mr rnddude. You have new messages at Redalert2fan's talk page.
Message added 22:08, 10 May 2018 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thanks for your notification Redalert2fan (talk) 22:08, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Module:Hockey team color

Module:Hockey team color has been nominated for merging with other sports color modules. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 18:12, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Guns

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Slatersteven (talk) 11:40, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

I'll deal with this some time when it isn't 2am. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:13, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Junkers Ju 87

Hiya.

I found the spelling 'ageing' grated; and in general I don't like people changing spellings that are considered acceptable alternatives.

On the other hand, I don't like getting into disputes that amount to spelling pedantry.

As far as I can see, both spellings are OK, on both sides of the Great Pond. In the UK, apparently it is preferred to include the 'e'. However I am from the UK, and I prefer no 'e'.

I won't interfere again. MrDemeanour (talk) 16:01, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

MrDemeanour: ... I don't like people changing spellings that are considered acceptable alternatives - So then why did you? Not an attack, but that is what you did. The spelling was originally "ageing", it was changed to "aging" by the IP, and I changed it back to "ageing" for the reason that I was under the impression that "aging" was erroneous. You gave me a link and I followed it. From what I've read on American and British English spelling differences#Dropped "e" (first link on Ageing), wikt:ageing and online: Ageing is BrEng and Aging is AmEng. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:37, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Yeah.

So I didn't know it was an acceptable alternative until I checked it (after I made the edit). It's evidently used both ways in BrEng and AmEng.

It's not a big deal for me. MrDemeanour (talk) 19:33, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

WP:UNCIVIL

You owe me an apology. Waleswatcher (talk) 03:31, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Waleswatcher - You think an essay written by Joe Bloggs from down the street is more relevant than the opinion of an accredited institution of learning and a library. WP:CIR and you are failing to demonstrate having it. Mr rnddude (talk) 03:37, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

To be clear, you're not going to apologize for "What the fuck are you talking about?", and repeatedly calling me incompetent? Waleswatcher (talk) 03:42, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Waleswatcher - No, not a chance. I'm not going to apologize for saying "fuck", and I am not going to apologize for calling your competence into question when you are comparing a library guide to an editor's opinion. You can dismiss the library guide, I don't care, but the statement your unsupported assertion, is objectively false. Now if you have a viable citation that says that dictionaries are secondary sources, I will take it into consideration. If not, then... I suspect there's nothing further to discuss. Mr rnddude (talk) 04:00, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

• Hmm someone dragged me to ANI the other day for having said "fuck off". If that was OK (if discouraged), then "what the fuck" should be unproblematic. I saw y'all were fighting on some talk page: something about guns? and a dictionary? I hope it's exciting. Drmies (talk) 04:03, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

• Drmies - I wish it what something more valuable. Yes; guns, technical terms, dictionaries, and meanings. The things that usually start wars I imagine. Mr rnddude (talk) 04:09, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Guns and dictionaries eh? Talk about, words being weapons ... —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 04:20, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Drmies, I haven't dragged anyone to ANI just yet. Actually that was Mr rnddude, who violated the DS on that article (restoring an edit that I reverted, without consensus) and when called on it, dragged me to the AE board (Here's how that ended: From what I can see Waleswatcher's interpretation of the "consensus required" sanction was correct...closed with no action.).

From where I sit "what the fuck are you talking about?", "Incompetent. Utterly incompetent", and "Sigh, I will once again let other, competent, readers work it out [directed at me]" aren't exactly civil. Maybe Mr rnddude doesn't like me intruding on their articles. Waleswatcher (talk) 04:29, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Actually that was Mr rnddude, who violated the DS on that article (restoring an edit that I reverted, without consensus) and when called on it, dragged me to the AE board - Not sure why this is relevant now, but no, that's not what happened. You were reverted by Thomas.W, whom you reverted, then I reverted you, went to your talk page, gave you a warning about consensus required and 1RR – found an admin was already there, too – let it go when you reverted a third time only to get reverted back by Afootpluto, and then on your fourth revert decided it was time to go to AE. I don't recall being called out on it; and if I had violated DS, the AE would have boomeranged on me and I'd have been sanctioned. Maybe Mr rnddude doesn't like me intruding on their articles - As far as I'm aware, you've never edited one of "my" articles. I don't have an issue with you editing them either, so long as you have a useful contribution to make. I do take issue with you making false assertions. Right now, that's my only issue. Mr rnddude (talk) 04:51, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Just for the sake of clarity. On this article[1] I have reverted you a grand total of once, out of 50 edits. Eh yeah, "my" article. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:13, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Well, "utterly incompetent" is indeed somewhat uncivil, unless we're talking about some glaring CIR issue. But Waleswatcher, and I say this with the innocence of a lamb since wild horses couldn't drag me into that article, the tiger who pounces on the kid three times when the Spinx of ArbCom has laid down the rules in the petting zoo will frequently find themselves penned in before a court--with or without kangaroos. Drmies (talk) 14:08, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Drmies, fair enough. I'll let it be for the moment. Mr rnddude (talk) 18:12, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I think we're both old enough to know that one can't really demand an apology--I hope Waleswatcher realizes that too. Drmies (talk) 19:54, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nominations open

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. Cheers, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:53, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Milhist coordinator election voting has commenced

G'day everyone, voting for the 2018 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:35, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Milhist coordinator election voting has commenced

G'day everyone, voting for the 2018 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:22, 15 September 2018 (UTC) Note: the previous version omitted a link to the election page, therefore you are receiving this follow up message with a link to the election page to correct the previous version. We apologies for any inconvenience that this may have caused.

Mass shootings

At issue is the text (in effect) "the deadliest" or "most high profile" hence the cut at over 10 (it does not help that if you loo at half a dozen sources you get half a dozen different interpretations of what is a mass shooting).Slatersteven (talk) 12:19, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

I get the idea behind it, but I also know it doesn't pan out well, Slatersteven since more deaths does not necessarily higher profile. Take for example, the Sutherland Springs shooting with 27 victims vs the Charleston church shooting with 9 victims. Both of these were church shootings, so I'm comparing like for like. The "Sutherland Springs shooting" has 5.9 million google results[2], but the "Charleston shooting" has 61 million hits on google – it now says 44.2 million for me... hmmm Google hmmm.[3] When you add "church" to both results, to remove any other shootings from the results they come out equally at just over 4 million. You can also look at Google news hits for "Charleston church shooting" (78,800 results[4]) vs "Sutherland springs shooting" (36,200 results [5]) or "Sutherland springs church shooting" (33,100 results[6]). I'm sure you've heard the name Dylann Roof (406,000 results[7] and 32,400 news results[8] respectively), but you might not know the name Devin Patrick Kelley (106,000 results[9], and 12,300 google news results[10] respectively). Even our articles, Charleston church shooting at 121,000 bytes, against the Sutherland Springs church shooting at 75,000 bytes, show the bias toward one shooting over another, three times deadlier, shooting. Now the reason for this can be summed up with a single word: race. That doesn't change the fact that one shooting is much more high profile than the other. Mr rnddude (talk) 00:05, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

That is why deadliest if better then high profile. The problem with the whole thing (as I said) is there is no clear cut definition of mass shooting (or even high profile mass shooting). So we should go with what RS say.Slatersteven (talk) 07:51, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

But tbhis is why I find google search hits a bit iffy for establishing "publicity", [[11]] so still all about it on page 5 whereas by page for for Charleston Shooting [[12]] you are already getting unrelated hits.Slatersteven (talk) 07:54, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Have your say!

Hi everyone, just a quick reminder that voting for the WikiProject Military history coordinator election closes soon. You only have a day or so left to have your say about who should make up the coordination team for the next year. If you have already voted, thanks for participating! If you haven't and would like to, vote here before 23:59 UTC on 28 September. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:29, 26 September 2018 (UTC)