Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/February 2008

Voting is now concluded.

Current time is 11:22, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Tally
edit

Candidate	Votes
Blnguyen	44
Dreamafter	4
Eurocopter tigre	36
Kyriakos	36
LordAmeth	34
MBK004	22
Narson	9
Nick Dowling	35
R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine)	8
Roger Davies	53
Shibumi2	6
TomStar81	39
Trulystand700	2
Wandalstouring	33
Woody	31

Overview

The project coordinators are generally responsible for maintaining all of the procedural and administrative aspects of the project, and serve as the designated points-of-contact for procedural issues. They are not, however, endowed with any special executive powers, nor with any authority over article content or editor conduct.

The Lead Coordinator bears overall responsibility for coordinating the project; the Assistant Coordinators aid the Lead Coordinator and focus on specific areas that require special attention.

A more detailed description of the coordinators' responsibilities is available here; some specific examples of day-to-day coordinator work can be found here.

Incumbents

Name	Position	Standing for re-election?
Carom (talk · contribs)	Assistant	No
Cla68 (talk · contribs)	Assistant	No
Eurocopter tigre (talk · contribs)	Assistant	Yes
FayssalF (talk · contribs)	Assistant	No
Kirill Lokshin (talk · contribs)	Lead	No
Kyriakos (talk · contribs)	Assistant	Yes
LordAmeth (talk · contribs)	Assistant	Yes
Roger Davies (talk · contribs)	Assistant	Yes
TomStar81 (talk · contribs)	Assistant	Yes

More information on the history of the coordinator positions can be found here.

Election process

• The election will run for two weeks, starting at 00:00 (UTC) on February 15 and ending at 23:59 (UTC) on February 28.

• Any member of the project may nominate themselves for a position by adding their statement in the "Candidates" section below by the start of the election. The following boilerplate can be used:

=== Name ===

{{user|Name}}
: Statement goes here...

==== Comments and questions for Name ====

*

• The election will be conducted using simple approval voting. Any member of the project may support as many of the candidates as they wish. The candidate with the highest number of endorsements will become the Lead Coordinator (provided he or she is willing to assume the post); the next eight candidates will become Assistant Coordinators. The number of Assistant Coordinators may be increased if there is a tie or near-tie for the last position.

• Both project members and interested outside parties are encouraged to ask questions of the nominees or make general comments.

Candidates

Voting is now concluded.

Current time is 11:22, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Blnguyen

Blnguyen (talk · contribs)

I have been a regular member of Wikipedia for 26 months and started taking up an interest in military history writing by chance in April 2007. Anyway, since then I have become a regular writer of articles on Vietnamese military history, mainly from the Le Dynasty onwards, but mostly notably since the Nguyen Dynasty in the 19th century, French colonisation up until the early 1960s. I have been a regular at WP:MHR from both sides of the fence, reviewing articles for PR and A-class, as well as writing a few FA and A-class articles of my own.^(details) I also review at FAC and GAC regularly so I would think that I would be a safe pair of hands at closing reviews and reforming the process if and when the need arises, having also seen the process Kirill goes through with the notices and updates when he closed the reviews on my articles. I have also in the past been involved in writing the monthly newsletter for WP:INDIA and WP:AUS and would be willing to report the monthly news where necessary. I participated in the recent tag and assess drive and have developed a working knowledge of the taskforce structure. I also have been tagging many Vietnamese related military history articles recently, and the monitored pages has roughly tripled in the last three months. I think one of my strengths is my high level of activity, and my ability to withstand high levels of repetitive work: I have been of the most active admins in updating the Did You Know? template on Wikipedia's main page and preparing its content in my 20 months as an admin ^(verify).Regardless I will continue to work and encourage all editors to submit their new articles to the DYK section on the main page. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Note:Most of my talk page tagging edits are under my declared sock YellowAssessmentMonkey (talk · contribs). Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:03, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Comments and questions for Blnguyen

• What are your views on scrapping the role of lead coordinator altogether? Do you think the project needs strong personality-based leadership or a balanced team of nine coordinators each bringing different skills to the role and working together to develop and implement consensus? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 07:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

• Well, with Kirill not being around, the landscape changes a great deal since he did the vast majority of the coordination work and I'm not able to predict how things will adjust; it would be almost like a new franchise hiring a new group of people. I don't know how things will evolve, but I would expect that over time, things might just evolve into something of an informal hierarchy or distribution of fields of responsibility without explicit appointment simply from the way the coordinators conduct themselves and the tasks that they gravitate towards. To use a sporting analogy <everyone rolls their eyes>, with a basically new team, they don't pick the captain (or multiple captains in some teams) until they see how the teams train, and some AFL teams actually take their players on an army camp or to the Kokoda Trail to work these things out at the start of each season. Personally, unless there is a landslide result in terms of the general sentiment of the members, and that of the selected coordinators, I don't see a need to commit to a set structure without seeing everyone in action first. As for whether one leader or multiple people is a good thing in an ideological sense, differing times call for differing circumstances I feel. When things are in a mess and are at rock-bottom, there is more chance of a strong leader doing well and getting things rolling a bit more, although there is a chance that if that person is reckless it could cause a large walk-out or something. If things are going well though, it's better to spread the load (while trying to keep things consistent like at FAC) because in my experience, Wikipedia, perhaps because it is very young compared to other organisations, tends to be have sweeping culture changes and the mood of the community often changes very quickly. People can come to Wikipedia and quickly rise up the ranks so to speak in terms of getting a following of other Wikipedians, in some ways almost in rock-star manner, and when people do something that is not taken well, it can also quickly lead to strong protests and walkouts. In my experience, it's unfortunate to say that sharpest crashes in productivities in various places in Wikipedia have almost always occurred due to actions made by people in higher places, not necessarily because of foul play, also some moves made in good faith that were in hindsight not so good. This is due to the high level of expectations that people place on "senior wikipedians" and then they are shocked when the person has a failure. When a vandal or a troll or a non-admin POV pusher does things, people will simply revert them and block them where necessary. But when a senior Wikipedian does something that looks bad, a lot of people will lose morale and drop off. So in that sense, it's good to spread the load, so that if one coordinator gets into something of a kerfuffle, it won't cause as big a distraction. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:03, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

My question deals with changes I've made and have had them undone by IP address users. How much latitude would you give IP Address users to make minor and significant changes to articles? Leobold1 (talk) 17:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• Well, due to Wikipedia policy, unregistered IP users are allowed to edit Wikipedia freely generally speaking. However, if an article is the target of regular vandalism, then I would semiprotect it. I'm not averse to doing this myself when there is vandalism/spamming or disruption and I can do it if needed. If I saw an IP address make regular and substantial additions to the encyclopedia, I would encourage them to sign up, since anons tend to be hassled about and not taken as seriously by registered users, so that it would be easier for a constructive anon to get their work done. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

How would you push to expand the stub articles covered by this project? Leobold1 (talk) 17:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• Well, my perception is that in general, articles are developed across the board on Wikipedia; so if things are going well, then the numbers of articles at any given level of quality will increase when there is a good period of growth or there will be slowdown across the board if there are general problems. The only exceptions would be a disproportionate boom in the level of stubs, usually due to systematic efforts to create all the finite articles on a certain topic criteria, eg, all the generals in a certain army etc, or all the units of a certain army. Disproportionate increases in FA/GA/A tend to occur if the established editors have a large burst of activity or the grassroots has slowed up or nobody is creating stubs. So I think the increase in content will have to come from a general increase across the board.

1. Campaigning off-wiki on military enthusiast type websites is one way to attempt to get more people to join Wikipedia, which may be of possible use.
2. A second way would be to try and divert existing Wikipedia users and their labour towards the MILHIST project. This could be done by directly offering awards, eg like in the tagging drive, to get people to expand military history articles, with FAs on core topics and so forth. Another way is to think of some kind of articlespace gnoming drives that can be used to attract non-military oriented users to help renovate MILHIST articles so that it would free up other users to write military articles
3. A third way, on a smaller scale, which doesn't cost anything, is that we can create a list of Wikipedians currently at a university (as student or academic) and which journals they have electronic access to. This would allow people to get access to more article writing resources, particularly those who aren't at university, and would make the tracking down of such resources a lot easier. I can email copies of articles from journals to other users who don't have access, for example. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Votes in support of Blnguyen

1. Nishkid64 (talk) 00:05, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
2. Support Narson (talk) 00:15, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
3. Support Carom (talk) 01:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
4. Support TomStar81 (Talk) 01:55, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
5. Support --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 03:07, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
6. Support Cla68 (talk) 03:21, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
7. Support ^T/_@Sniperz11_edits^sign 03:43, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
8. Support. Kyriakos (talk) 05:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
9. Support -MBK₀₀₄ 05:54, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
10. Support -Eurocopter tigre (talk) 08:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
11. Support Woody (talk) 10:52, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
12. Support LordAmeth (talk) 11:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
13. Support BusterD (talk) 13:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
14. Support Chinese3126 (talk) 15:41, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
15. Support Dahn (talk) 22:43, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
16. Support John Carter (talk) 23:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
17. Support Shibumi2 (talk) 23:34, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
18. Support for assistant--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 00:01, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
19. Support MrPrada (talk) 00:45, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
20. Ral315 (talk) 09:05, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
21. Support Supergodzilla^20|90 18:28, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
22. Support Askari Mark (Talk) 22:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
23. Support   jj137 (talk) 23:34, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
24. Support Euryalus (talk) 00:59, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
25. Support Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 11:18, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
26. Support Gaia Octavia Agrippa (talk) 13:19, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
27. Support LuckyThracian (Talk) 05:21, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
28. Support Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
29. Support Good Luck Piotr Mikołajski (talk) 21:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
30. Support SMS ^Talk 22:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
31. Support Leobold1 (talk) 06:53, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
32. Support Of course⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 17:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
33. Support Good answers Oberiko (talk) 19:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
34. Support Without doubt. Captain panda 02:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
35. Wow You look amazing for a candidate! CD-MD (talk) 03:04, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

    — CD-MD (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — Mønobi 03:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

36. Support Hayden120 (talk) 05:22, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
37. Support ➔ REDVEЯS knows how Joan of Arc felt 14:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
38. Support you've made some great edits! Antimatter--talk-- 17:06, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
39. Daniel (talk) 01:41, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
40. Support Maralia (talk) 18:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
41. Support--Aldux (talk) 23:15, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
42. Go yellow monkey. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 14:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
43. Support SoLando (Talk) 23:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
44. Support Raoulduke47 (talk) 21:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Dreamafter

Dreamafter (talk · contribs)

I have been part of Wikipedia for nearly 10 months, and in being here, I have created many articles, see here and here. Two others that are not listed there are Legion Belge and Ludwig Gehre. To a lot of those articles I have added many pictures, and do a lot of work in creating articles and fixing them. I am willing to check in here a lot and provide my input to those that want it, I take criticism well, and will do a lot to fix my faults, and would love to help the project as an Asst. Co-ordinator. Please take the time to consider me and what I may bring to the project. You can also see some of my work here. ~ Dreamy ^§ 19:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Comments and questions for Dreamafter

• How do you respond to the accusation that you are "looking for status for the sake of status"? Woody (talk) 15:56, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I think that that is out of line, however, if that is what's thought, it's what's thought. I am not doing this for status, nor anything for status, I am merely trying to help out there, but it seems as if they do not wish me to contribute, so I will have to accept that and move on. I do fell disheartened by it, but like I previously stated, I just have to move on with my Wikipedia life. ~ Dreamy ^§ 00:36, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
• How much do you feel that you contribute to discussions on the Milhist talk page and Military history related topics? I ask this as I don't see many contributions (2 in the last 6 months) to Milhist project related discussions. Woody (talk) 15:56, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes, well, I don't see a lot of conversations or threads there that require my personal opinion, and if they do, I respond. I haven't been responding a lot, because I feel that others may share my opinions, so I choose to stay back and if something jumps out at me, I choose to answer. ~ Dreamy ^§ 00:36, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

My question deals with changes I've made and have had them undone by IP address users. How much latitude would you give IP Address users to make minor and significant changes to articles? Leobold1 (talk) 17:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

How would you push to expand the stub articles covered by this project? Leobold1 (talk) 17:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Votes in support of Dreamafter

1. Support - I checked your contributions and they are really good and helpful. I wonder why you didn't get any votes until now! --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 13:49, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
2. Support SMS ^Talk 22:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
3. Support You don't look bad, just talk more! I want to edit a page like you did at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heuschrecke_10! CD-MD (talk) 03:04, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

   — CD-MD (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — Mønobi 03:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

4. Support TomStar81 (Talk) 19:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Eurocopter tigre

Eurocopter tigre (talk · contribs)

I am a member of the MilHist project since March 2007 and an assisstant coordinator since August 2007. I hope I made myself useful for the project during my first term, especially in certain areas such as review and assessement. 95% of my contributions to Wikipedia are made on MilHist project, (see my Userpage for complete details regarding my contributions). I created over 50 MilHist articles, some of them representing Romanian Armed Forces' major units and air bases, as well as Russian Air Force's Air Armies (perhaps the most important article created by me would be Russian Naval Aviation). I have also created the Romanian military history task force in October 2007. If re-elected, I will most likely continue the work started during my first term. Thanks and best regards, Eurocopter tigre (talk) 13:08, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Comments and questions for Eurocopter tigre

Fairly recently we ended up on opposite 'sides' in the fairly heated discussion around the Iassy/Jassy/Yassy/Iaşi-Kishiniev/Chişinău offensive. I was wondering how you would avoid/resolve such situations in future, should they come up? Are there areas of MilHist guidelines we should establish in order to help establish a basis? Narson (talk) 13:21, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure that such situations can be avoided/resolved by establishing guidelines which would clearly explain when and which certain names should be used. I will propose this soon on the main project talk page. --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 13:36, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I wanted some clarification on this as well (though I should note for readers that I as well was on the opposing side). For this particular page, you moved the standard English language historical description of 'Iassy-Kishinev' to the Romanian names of the cities, and thus broke the wikipedia guidelines about referring to the event by its most commonly known English-language name. Would you please refresh for us your reasons for doing so, and state why as a coordinator you're not upholding the guidelines we're all supposed to work by? Buckshot06 (talk) 21:42, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

My opinion (which was supported by many other users), is that we should Iaşi-Chişinău name, because those were the official names of the cities in 1944, as well as in present. I also think I didn't disrespected the guidelines, as they can be easily interpreted in their current form. In fact, this is the reason for which I support the establishment of WPMILHIST's own guidelines. --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 15:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

• How would you evaluate your performance as assistant coordinator? What, if anything, would you do better or differently this time?--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 12:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

During my first term I think I was one of the most active assistants, and as I also stated above, hope I made myself useful for the project and its activities. If i'll get a second term, I would try to get more involved in other parts of the project (for example, helping the lead coordinator with maintainance). --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 15:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, I'm sure Kirill would appreciate any help you offer, just as our project would any help he can provide.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 17:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I strongly oppose Eurocopter tigre eligibility for election based on his participation in Talk:Iaşi-Chişinău Offensive, where he/she attempts to negate WP:RM, WP:UE, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names), WP:V, misuse of WP:MILMOS#CODENAME, and general abuse of logic, WP:MILMOS#SOURCES and failure to WP:MILMOS#CITE.--mrg3105 (comms) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target. 00:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I argued with User:mrg in this issue for about two days, but I stopped in the moment I realised that he is simply trolling in order to illustrate his own point. Even if I proposed a compromise several times, the user continued to argue in a disruptive and incivil way, as well as assume bad faith. Before making such comments as the above one, I would suggest you to carefully read WP:FANATIC, which might help you to learn in the future how to calmly discuss such issues in a civil way. Per your comment above, I would also suggest you to read WP:DR, especially Steps 1,3 and 4. --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 14:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with Eurocopter that I should accept [[[Wikipedia:Don't be a fanatic]] in the matter of WP:UE. However, English being my primary form of communication, I have no choice in the matter. Multiculturalism has not led to the change in Australia's official language.

I was banned for incivility for 24 hours (weeks ago), and I think I have served my dues and learned from the experience.

I think that other editors can judge for themselves if I am in fact trolling of attempting to get you to provide sources under WP:V. Wikipedia seems to be fairly uncompromising on the issue of verifiability.

• Where do you stand on the issue of verifiability?

If you feel that we have a dispute that requires resolution, please commence the process.--mrg3105 (comms) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target. 01:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually this is not the proper place to discuss this, and i'm not going to continue. However, I will consider starting the dispute resolution process in the next few days if you continue in this manner. --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 12:54, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I know. You are just having a hard time deciding what pretext to base it on

I think we should report mrg for ignoring sources provided by Bogdan, incivility, edit warring, assuming bad faith and desruptivity. Which would be the proper place then? --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 15:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

This is why I asked about where you stand on verifiability of sources. Bogdan provided one source, and this was sufficient for you. Me questioning it becomes an act of disruptiveness, assumption of bad faith, "edit warring" (note: I didn't edit anything in the article yet' only added citation templates) and incivility (for pursuing the quest for sources). --mrg3105 (comms) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target. 13:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually my friend, we provided one verifiable source which is Columbia encyclopedia. In the meantime, you provided 0 sources, but decided to ignore our source and continuing the useless conflict. This would be a clear example of disruptivity and incivility for me. --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 14:06, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

See, there you go again, assuming bad faith. I don't keep grudges.

I very civilly asked you on your stance on WP:V. There are several issues there that were/are a subject of discussion by other editors, and these impact articles in the MilHist project. :::::Are you aware of the WP:V issues? Do you have a position on enforcing what is one of the core Wikipedia policies? You brought it up, and it seems that this is the time and place when you can really express yourself on the issue.

If you want to be specific, do you think that the online Columbia Encyclopedia should be a standard source of reference that over-rides all other sources of reference? This is going to affect not only myself, but many other editors in the project, so I think its important that your views on WP:V are expressed clearly before the election. Thank you--mrg3105 (comms) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target. 22:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Of course i'm aware and strongly respect WP:V, as well as all other Wikipedia rules and guidelines. Regarding Columbia Encyclopedia, I think it would be a source which worth at least to be considered, not to be ignored. --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 13:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

My question deals with changes I've made and have had them undone by IP address users. How much latitude would you give IP Address users to make minor and significant changes to articles? Leobold1 (talk) 17:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

As long as they make useful edits, IP adress users should be welcome to make as many edits they want. --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 18:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

How would you push to expand the stub articles covered by this project? Leobold1 (talk) 17:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I would encourage the article writing contest, as well as establishing a scope for each task force - something like "promote 100 stubs each month". --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 18:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Votes in support of Eurocopter tigre

1. Support Carom (talk) 01:36, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
2. Support TomStar81 (Talk) 01:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
3. Support --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 03:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
4. Support. Cla68 (talk) 03:21, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
5. Support - ^T/_@Sniperz11_edits^sign 03:51, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
6. Support. Kyriakos (talk) 05:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
7. Support -MBK₀₀₄ 06:06, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
8. Support Wandalstouring (talk) 09:07, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
9. Support LordAmeth (talk) 11:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
10. Support BusterD (talk) 13:26, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
11. Support Dahn (talk) 22:43, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
12. Support John Carter (talk) 23:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
13. Support--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 00:00, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
14. Support MrPrada (talk) 00:46, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
15. Ral315 (talk) 09:05, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
16. Support Supergodzilla^20|90 18:28, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
17. Support. --Brand спойт 19:15, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
18. Support -- FitzColinGerald (talk) 22:11, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
19. Support Askari Mark (Talk) 22:44, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
20. Support  jj137 (talk) 23:34, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
21. Support BillCJ (talk) 23:53, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
22. Support RichyBoy (talk) 22:47, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
23. Support Cam 06:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
24. Support Dc76\^talk 17:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
25. Support Leobold1 (talk) 20:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
26. Support Patar knight (talk) 22:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
27. Support --noclador (talk) 22:37, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
28. Support SMS ^Talk 23:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
29. Support Lysandros (talk) 13:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
30. Support Captain panda 02:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
31. Why not? CD-MD (talk) 03:04, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
32. Support my favorite pick from the last elections, in the absence of Kirill...Antimatter--talk-- 17:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
33. Support --ScreaminEagle (talk) 21:12, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
34. Support Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 05:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
35. Support Dpotop (talk) 15:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
36. Support SoLando (Talk) 23:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Kyriakos

Kyriakos (talk · contribs)

I have been member of WP:MILHIST February 2006 and have been a assistant coordinatior since February 2007. Since then I have contributed a large number of article to the project mainly on Greece but also in other areas. Three article I have written have become FAs and Portal:Military of Greece, which I created and maintain is also a Feature portal. On the project, I help by putting in my two cents in A-class reviews and in FAC as well as helping in the GAC process and assessing. If re-elected I will help as much us possible with maintainence, assessing and helping people as much as possible. Thanks for your time. Kyriakos (talk) 21:13, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Comments and questions for Kyriakos

• How would you evaluate your performance as assistant coordinator? What, if anything, would you do better or differently this time?--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 12:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

• In my time as assistant cooridinator I think I have done a pretty good job. However, this term I had less time to contribute to discussions because of exams and because I began a new school. If I was re-elected I would endeavour to contribute more to community discussions as my time now free. Kyriakos (talk) 20:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your response.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 21:52, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

My question deals with changes I've made and have had them undone by IP address users. How much latitude would you give IP Address users to make minor and significant changes to articles? Leobold1 (talk) 17:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• Hmmm, this is an interesting question and it is an issue that I find interesting. When I had several IP users making minor changes to the Battle of Dyrrachium (1081) when I was rewriting it. The thing that I did was pretty simple and as is my philospohy on this matter. If the IP user adds a source or a cit for their claim then they should be trust. However, if they make an unsourced or uncited claim then I would suggest looking through your own sources and if you don't find anything on the change that the IP user did then I would recomend reverting it. Kyriakos (talk) 05:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

How would you push to expand the stub articles covered by this project? Leobold1 (talk) 17:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• At the moment a way the project is expanding the stubs and starts that are part of the project is through the project's contest competition. Just recently the coordinators have been taking about launching a new contest in the shape of a FA drive where a couple of important stubs or start article would be selected and a group of editor would volunteer to bring these article to FA level. I hope this answers your question. Kyriakos (talk) 05:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Votes in support of Kyriakos

1. Support RM Gillespie (talk) 16:02, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
2. Support Carom (talk) 01:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
3. Support TomStar81 (Talk) 01:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
4. Support --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 03:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
5. Support. Cla68 (talk) 03:22, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
6. Support - ^T/_@Sniperz11_edits^sign 05:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
7. Support -MBK₀₀₄ 06:01, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
8. Support --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 08:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
9. Support Wandalstouring (talk) 09:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
10. Support Woody (talk) 10:52, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
11. Support LordAmeth (talk) 11:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
12. Support BusterD (talk) 13:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
13. Support Yannismarou (talk) 14:58, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
14. Support --Chinese3126 (talk) 15:38, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
15. Support John Carter (talk) 23:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
16. Support Shibumi2 (talk) 23:34, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
17. Support--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 00:00, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
18. Support MrPrada (talk) 00:45, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
19. Ral315 (talk) 09:05, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
20. Support Supergodzilla^20|90 18:28, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
21. Support. --Brand спойт 19:17, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
22. Support Askari Mark (Talk) 22:44, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
23. Support Euryalus (talk) 01:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
24. Support --Lantonov (talk) 06:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
25. Support Buckshot06 (talk) 09:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
26. Support --noclador (talk) 22:37, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
27. Support --Cam (complain and discuss here) 04:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
28. Support Leobold1 (talk) 05:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
29. Support Lysandros (talk) 13:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
30. Support Monsieurdl ^{mon talk-mon contribs} 14:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
31. Support Of course. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 17:00, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
32. Support Oberiko (talk) 20:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
33. Support LuckyThracian (Talk) 04:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
34. Support--Aldux (talk) 23:17, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
35. Support Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 05:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
36. Support SoLando (Talk) 23:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

LordAmeth

LordAmeth (talk · contribs)

Hrm. What's to say? I've been a member of this project since before it was incorporated as Military History, and I've been an Asst Coordinator for quite some time now. I tend to lurk, creating articles now and then, doing cleanup, spelling, and grammar edits here and there, tagging and assessing... I like to think that I play some significant role in overseeing or fostering the Japan-related articles, but in fact that task force's page doesn't see much action, and in terms of actual contributions to articles I think the torch has passed.

In any case, the last few months have been super busy and I don't feel I've contributed much at all, particularly not in my role as an Asst Coordinator. The real-life workload's looking to lighten up, and indeed there remains quite a bit of Wikiwork to be done on various Japanese topics, not to mention other Asian topics (e.g. pre-modern SE Asia - I love WP:CSB), so I may be up for contributing a bit more in the near future, but most likely I will simply continue to do what I have always done - tagging and assessing, commenting here and there on various important discussions, and doing clean-up work here and there.

If you would like to have me back, I'm all for continuing to stand in the limelight. どうぞよろしくお願いします。

Comments and questions for LordAmeth

• Hello my friend! Just wanted to say it is good to see one of the original members still going strong...Carry on!--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 12:38, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

• Well in fairness I do have to ask now; How would you evaluate your performance as assistant coordinator? What, if anything, would you do better or differently this time?--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 12:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  • The past six months or so I have been extremely busy IRL, and I feel as though I have contributed next to nothing to the project, though that's not really true. I hope in the future to be more active on discussions on the Coordinators page, and in the various aspects of tagging and assessing, incl. A-class reviews, Peer Reviews, and the Tagging & Assessment Drive itself. To whatever extent that one can I would like to manage, foster, oversee the Japanese and Southeast Asian task forces, though those seem quite quiet most of the time, while being active in the Korean, Chinese, and other task forces where it is relevant to my interests & expertise.
  • Though I do regret not being more active in procedural things - the assessment department, the Coordinator page discussions, etc - I continue to feel that, for me, the keenest part about being an asst coordinator is answering questions; I enjoy helping people understand and follow the standards and guidelines we have, so that all the articles follow a similar format and thus look more professional and purdy; also, of course, to contribute to discussions to change those guidelines where appropriate, and to help answer questions regarding historical content.
  • Now that I've said all of that, let me sum up. In a nutshell, I feel that my way of being an Asst Coordinator is simply to be active, and to be available, and I hope to do more of both in the upcoming term. Thanks for the question. LordAmeth (talk) 13:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the answers and consider my support a given:)--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 14:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

My question deals with changes I've made and have had them undone by IP address users. How much latitude would you give IP Address users to make minor and significant changes to articles? Leobold1 (talk) 17:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I give them the same latitude, and the same assumption of good faith, that I do users with a user account. If their edits are well-written and well-cited, or even if not well-cited, reflective of the truth, they have just as much right to make changes as anyone else. On the other hand, when IP users make suspicious edits, I absolutely am quicker to hit the Revert button than if they were a registered user; a large part of "suspicious edits" being the removal or undoing of significant, truthful, or at least well-intentioned edits by registered, experienced users. I hope that helps answer your question. LordAmeth (talk) 22:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

How would you push to expand the stub articles covered by this project? Leobold1 (talk) 17:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

That's a tough one. I have generally found it quite difficult to get people to do anything they don't already want to - maybe I'm just a poor leader. Besides, many stub articles are that way because there isn't anything more to be said, because editors don't have much interest in the subject, or because those who do don't have the proper resources to find out more about the topic to write. Though there are various sorts of drives, collaborations, and things one might set up, I think that these things tend to be pretty hit or miss. LordAmeth (talk) 22:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Votes in support of LordAmeth

1. Support RM Gillespie (talk) 16:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
2. Support Carom (talk) 01:37, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
3. Support TomStar81 (Talk) 01:57, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
4. Support --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 03:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
5. Support. Cla68 (talk) 03:22, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
6. Support - ^T/_@Sniperz11_edits^sign 03:51, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
7. Support. Kyriakos (talk) 05:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
8. Support -MBK₀₀₄ 06:04, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
9. Support --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 08:26, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
10. Support Wandalstouring (talk) 09:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
11. Support Woody (talk) 10:52, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
12. Support BusterD (talk) 13:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
13. Support John Carter (talk) 23:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
14. Support Shibumi2 (talk) 23:34, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
15. Support--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 23:58, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
16. Support MrPrada (talk) 00:47, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
17. Ral315 (talk) 09:05, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
18. Support Sethy-boy 16:37, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
19. Support Supergodzilla^20|90 18:28, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
20. Support Askari Mark (Talk) 22:45, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
21. Support   jj137 (talk) 23:37, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
22. Support Euryalus (talk) 01:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
23. Support Gaia Octavia Agrippa (talk) 13:20, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
24. Support--Jerrch 16:45, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
25. Support Cam 06:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
26. Support Patar knight (talk) 22:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
27. Support⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 16:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
28. Support Oberiko (talk) 20:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
29. Support LuckyThracian (Talk) 04:15, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
30. Support --ScreaminEagle (talk) 21:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
31. Support--Aldux (talk) 23:19, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
32. Support Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 05:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
33. Support SoLando (Talk) 23:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
34. Support Raoulduke47 (talk) 21:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

MBK004

MBK004 (talk · contribs)

Military history has always been one of my main interests, but I did not find this project until I literally dove into the assessment drive at WP:SHIPS, which was held just before our assessment drive which recently concluded. My contributions to this project mirror those to WP:SHIPS because I have focused on naval history, specifically the capital ships of the United States Navy. The best example of my contributions can be seen at USS Texas (BB-35), which was thoroughly expanded by TomStar81 in January 2007, but lay dormant until I successfully co-nominated the article for Good Article status in December 2007. Afterwards I personally began to expand the article, which is still in progress. I have not involved myself heavily in the traditional coordinator activities such as peer reviews, and A-class reviews, but I plan to start regardless of if I am selected or not. I am also somewhat responsible for placing the seed for two ideas into the minds of the present coordinators:

• Encourage TomStar81 to continue his work on the Iowa-class battleships to the point that it qualifies as a Featured Topic.
• RfA notices - This proposal was completely thought-out and implemented by the coordinators and I had no involvement except for having my RfA during the time this was in-utero. My RfA was the first to be mentioned on WT:MILHIST using the new boilerplate template which was developed. This is a new responsibility of the coordinators of this project, and it is one that I feel I can fulfill, because I am active at RfA

I am currently active at WP:SHIPS, a project which does not have coordinators, but I believe I am one of the more-active behind-the-scenes members there. Since my work there is primarily military history-related, I feel that I can help this project by serving as an Assistant Coordinator and coordinate cross-project events (possibly including the next assessment drive), along with participating in the review (Peer, A-class, FAC) process and make the RfA notifications.

I appreciate your consideration, -MBK₀₀₄ 06:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Comments and questions for MBK004

• Thanks for your extensive work on the tagging/assessing campaign, and on our 20th century US naval history content. Outside of these fields, what do you think you intend to focus on as a Coordinator? Do you have any particular ideas for ways to improve the Project or to move it forward? LordAmeth (talk) 11:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Well, as I said above, I intend to actively participate in the project's in-house review system (Peer Review & A-Class Review), hopefully coordinate the next assessment drive or at least help out Roger (also with WP:SHIPS), and make the notifications of RfAs involving project members. As for ideas to improve the project and move it forward, this as you know is a mature project, but there are still many things to be done. We have a large backlog of articles lacking their B-Class checklists, and the most important thing of all: Content production (less than 10% of the articles in our scope are FA, A, or GA class). We should aspire to remember the number one reason we are here on Wikipedia, to gain and share knowledge. Hope I answered your questions. -MBK₀₀₄ 22:17, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Absolutely. Thank you. LordAmeth (talk) 02:12, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

My question deals with changes I've made and have had them undone by IP address users. How much latitude would you give IP Address users to make minor and significant changes to articles? Leobold1 (talk) 17:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

In general this is more of a general policy question than MILHIST specific, because current policy allows IPs to edit most pages. My own view is that IPs can make helpful contributions and evolve into registered users, but if an IP removes content from a page without a very good reason, especially if it is cited, I see that more as vandalism than good faith editing and revert on sight. Respectfully, unless you can provide specific diffs, I cannot make a judgement as an admin or an editor on the matter of your changes that have been undone. -MBK₀₀₄ 19:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

How would you push to expand the stub articles covered by this project? Leobold1 (talk) 17:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the main thing that keeps the number of stubs high is editors with an interest in the subject and access to sources. While there are plenty of stubs that can become FAs, there are also plenty that will not have the requisite amount of sources available for a myriad of reasons, and may remain stubs permanently. The main way I've seen that works to motivate project members is the prospect of rewards (i.e. awards/barnstars), especially since the editors of this project are notoriously stingy when it comes to giving them out. Perhaps something along the lines of a hybrid between the assessment drive and our article writing contest would be beneficial, but it all comes down to the priorities of the project. I say that because there are some things in the works including the core article improvement drive, maintaining our FAs (there are still some that are hidden in the showcase on the project mainpage and need to go through FAR), another assessment drive, making sure all of our assessed articles have completed B-Class checklists where applicable, etc. -MBK₀₀₄ 19:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Votes in support of MBK004

1. Support Narson (talk) 00:15, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
2. Support TomStar81 (Talk) 01:57, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
3. Support --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 03:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
4. Support --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 08:26, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
5. Support Woody (talk) 10:52, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
6. Support LordAmeth (talk) 11:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
7. Support MrPrada (talk) 00:53, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
8. Support Buckshot06 (talk) 02:37, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
9. Support --mrg3105comms If you're not taking any flack, you're not over the target. 03:30, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
10. Ral315 (talk) 09:05, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
11. Support Supergodzilla^20|90 18:28, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
12. Support – While relatively new to MILHIST, he has taken to helping out with the "scut work" with a passion. I'm willing to give him a mop and a bucket and point him to the bilge. Askari Mark (Talk) 22:53, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
13. Support BillCJ (talk) 23:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
14. Support Euryalus (talk) 01:03, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
15. Support. Kyriakos (talk) 01:47, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
16. Support Ouro (blah blah) 07:37, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
17. Support Dc76\^talk 16:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
18. Support Leobold1 (talk) 20:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
19. Support Wandalstouring (talk) 12:53, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
20. Support, but please consider helping me with adding information about the firing arcs of WW2 era warships, some of which are quite unique (Atlanta, Oakland, etc.)⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 16:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
21. Support Maralia (talk) 19:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
22. Support Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 05:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Narson

Narson (talk · contribs)

At the suggestion of a fellow project member and after pondering, I have decided to toss my hat/beret/fez into the ring. I have been a member of the project for the last several months, and a member of wikipedia in general for, well, a few years now (I did a few edits back in 05 and 06, my main bulk of editing started a year ago). I am afraid that I cannot match a few of the other candidates in terms of articles created and brought up to FA or GA standards, partly because most of the things I care about have already been created, but also because it is not where I tend to focus my attention. I try to spend my time working on protecting articles (Anti-vandalism and anti-POV) and also writing in minor changes and tweaking. My current little project is a re-write of the article on the Thingmen of Anglo Saxon England, which probably constitutes my largest project to date. One of my main activities is also promoting the use of talk pages in order to solve and debate through a lot of the conflicts that tend to occur on military and Formula One (my other wikipedia passion) articles. I think that the MILHIST is probably one of the key wikiprojects for wikipedia, considering that, as the Chinese said, all of the 'interesting times' in history occur during war and I would hope to become involved in helping ensure we maintain the standards that wikipedia requires, both by bringing more voices to debates on wikipedia guidelines that affect us, and by helping in the upcoming article tagging and assessment drive. I also look forward to helping in informal dispute mediation, which I have got a taste for with, among other things, the Falkland Island articles. Narson (talk) 00:31, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Comments and questions for Narson

• Don't worry too much if you 'cannot match a few of the other candidates in terms of articles created and brought up to FA or GA standards', everyone has there strength and weaknessess, and we work to togather to overcome our weaknessess rather than lord them over other people's heads. Look at me, I can't spell to save my soul but others here make sure that the things I type get editting for readability when it counts. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:18, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

My question deals with changes I've made and have had them undone by IP address users. How much latitude would you give IP Address users to make minor and significant changes to articles? Leobold1 (talk) 17:37, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

How would you push to expand the stub articles covered by this project? Leobold1 (talk) 17:37, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I think that more use needs to be made of semi-prot on articles, however, I feel that vandalism from IPs is sadly the price we must pay for wikipedia to remain accessible. If we ever get to a 1.0 status on wikipedia, I would expect registered (and thus accountable to more of a degree) accounts to be required however, 1.0 is a ways off...and there are alot of problems to address behind the scenes before then (Notability guidelines for example). Meanwhile there might be some merit at looking at limiting the /amount/ an unregistered account can edit, as in, limiting the number of bytes they can edit at once (up or down). Not a perfect fix but in deciding between security and freedom, we must always err on the side of freedom....to steal an idea from Franklin.

I think expanding the stubs could be done by making use of the taskforces and also other wikiprojects as well as our own and focusing on one section of stubs at a time, as well as making use of the existing program of 'competitions', possibly doing something similar to the recent prize for 'most improved article' that someone did recently (A $50 amazon certificate or something or whatnot). I think, however, we will have to accept some MilHist stubs may, in the scheme of things, get merged into main articles. It is better to have merged whole articles than fractured 'snippets' lying around the place. Narson (talk) 00:13, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Votes in support of Narson

1. Support TomStar81 (Talk) 02:12, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
2. Support --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 03:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
3. Support -MBK₀₀₄ 06:00, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
4. Support LordAmeth (talk) 11:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
5. Ral315 (talk) 09:05, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
6. Support Justin talk 11:38, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
7. Support Supergodzilla^20|90 18:28, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
8. Support Leobold1 (talk) 00:38, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
9. Support Damage control is important and overlooked. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 17:00, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Nick Dowling

Nick Dowling (talk · contribs)

I have been a member of this project for about two years and have been consistently impressed by way in which it has encouraged the development of high quality articles. I have participated in many article reviews and was kindly awarded the project's Content Review Medal. I have also often taken part in discussions of issues on the project's talk page and at WP:SHIP's talk page and for the last month have regularly gone through the articles listed for deletion and added relevant articles to the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Though it is not a requirement for this role, I am also an administrator and am able to help provide any admin services the project requires.

Aside from my work on the project itself, I have contributed to hundreds of military history-related articles and Portal:Military of Australia. I played the lead role in writing two FAs with other editors (Axis naval activity in Australian waters and Australian Defence Force) and have made significant contributions to a number of other articles which reached FA or A class standard. I have also been asked by other editors for advice on ways to improve articles.

If elected an assistant coordinator I will propose that monitoring AfDs be made one of the regular tasks performed by coordinators and will offer to take the lead in this role (though, of course, all editors are able to do this). I feel that this task is important as AfD discussions on military-related articles should include the views of editors who take an interest in these articles. I will also encourage the development of high quality articles by encouraging editors who make impressive contributions to gain recognition through submitting articles for peer and A class reviews. --Nick Dowling (talk) 00:29, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Comments and questions for Nick Dowling

• This will not effect my vote for or against you in any way, shape, or form, but out of curiosity I would like to know if you feel that you are an inclusionist or a deletionist with regard to the afd process, and if at all possible, why. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:17, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I guess that I'm a mild deletionist in that I don't agree with people who interpret WP:N to mean that anything which has appeared in the media on more than a few occasions is notable - I don't think that this constitutes the 'significant coverage' which is needed. I generally seek opportunities to merge non-notable content into broader articles when this is possible, however. --Nick Dowling (talk) 08:55, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:57, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

My question deals with changes I've made and have had them undone by IP address users. How much latitude would you give IP Address users to make minor and significant changes to articles? Leobold1 (talk) 17:37, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I treat IPs the same as all other editors - if they make edits which violate policies or are non-productive I re-write the material or revert the edit. Otherwise, their contributions are welcome. I'd strongly prefer that all editors have accounts so that they can be sent messages and have an edit history, but that's a much higher level issue than what this project can influence. --Nick Dowling (talk) 10:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

How would you push to expand the stub articles covered by this project? Leobold1 (talk) 17:37, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd highlight the articles on significant events/issues/units/etc which are stubs through the appropriate task forces to bring them to interested editors' attention (eg, though the talk page and/or by being bold and adding it to the project's 'to do' list). However, often stubs on notable topics indicate that no-one is currently interested in that topic enough to write about it, so I'd be cautious about pushing articles for improvement so that task forces aren't spammed with articles no-one wants to work on at present. --Nick Dowling (talk) 10:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Votes in support of Nick Dowling

1. SupportRM Gillespie (talk) 16:00, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
2. Nishkid64 (talk) 00:07, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
3. Support Narson (talk) 00:15, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
4. Support Carom (talk) 01:37, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
5. Support --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 03:11, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
6. Support. Cla68 (talk) 03:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
7. Support. Buckshot06 (talk) 04:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
8. Support. Kyriakos (talk) 05:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
9. Support -MBK₀₀₄ 05:55, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
10. Support - ^T/_@Sniperz11_edits^sign 06:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
11. Support --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 08:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
12. Support TomStar81 (Talk) 08:58, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
13. Support Woody (talk) 10:52, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
14. Support LordAmeth (talk) 11:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
15. Support BusterD (talk) 13:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
16. Support John Carter (talk) 23:26, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
17. Support Shibumi2 (talk) 23:34, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
18. Support.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 03:33, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
19. Ral315 (talk) 09:05, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
20. Support. --EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:01, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
21. Support Supergodzilla^20|90 18:28, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
22. Support Askari Mark (Talk) 22:46, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
23. Support   jj137 (talk) 23:35, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
24. Support BillCJ (talk) 00:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
25. Support Euryalus (talk) 01:03, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
26. Support Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
27. Support Dc76\^talk 17:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
28. Support --noclador (talk) 22:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
29. Support Indeed. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 17:02, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
30. Support Spot87 (talk) 04:44, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
31. Support LuckyThracian (Talk) 04:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
32. Support Maralia (talk) 19:45, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
33. Support --ScreaminEagle (talk) 21:15, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
34. Support Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 05:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
35. Support SoLando (Talk) 23:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine)

R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk · contribs)

• I was one of this project's early members. Though many of you newer participants may not know of me, I'm sure all of you know of our Task force concept. What few of you realize is, the idea was originally mine. Without it, this largest and best of Wikipedia's projects would have probably split into at least a half-dozen feuding daughters, spin-offs and splinters by now.

If this sounds like too much boastful, trumpet-blowing, I also came up with some less successful ideas, such as the Cartography and Translation departments. Nevertheless, I'm proud of the small role I've played so far in helping to shape and make this Military History project what it is today. I humbly ask that you grant me the opportunity to play a greater role within it, at least for the next six months, as your lead coordinator.

For more of my views and ideas, please read my extended candidate statement.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 10:36, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Comments and questions for R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine)

Is it necessary to have this leader thing in mind when devoting oneself to a project? Wandalstouring (talk) 11:01, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

No, but it is necessary to be devoted to the a project to be an effective leader of it. This is one of the differences between leaders and politicians who are motivated primarily by other considerations.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 11:51, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I remember the reasons leading to your abstinence from editing. It was a pretty heated discussion. You can make a good coordinator and possibly a leading one, but under the current circumstances you are someone out of exile and not yet proven again to be a good editor. My personal suggestion is that you take things a bit easier. Work out some good things for the projects first and really run for leadership in 6 months. If you really want to devote yourself, than try the Wikipedia: WikiProject History. I'd be happy to give there the lead to you and see some achievements. Wandalstouring (talk) 12:12, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind comments and advice. I will most certainly take it into consideration. I am aware that as a self-imposed exile I'm taking a chance. But certainly no more so than those whose deeds we record! As Churchill said; In war you can only die once, in politics you get to die repeadedly...:)Also, I made some fairly harsh, heated pronouncements in the discussion to which you refer. I heartily apologize for any harm or offense they may have caused.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 12:35, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Couple of points. First, you've not been very active over the last year, notching up less than 200 edits in total, and logging on sometimes weekly or fortnightly. It this going to change significantly if you are elected and, if so, do you need to be lead coordinator to be motivated to contribute? Second, it seems you are offering to stand on a "strong leadership" ticket. Why do you think this is appropriate to (a) Wikipedia and (b) Milhist? Thanks, --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 11:21, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

In answer to your first question; If elected, yes, I will have little choice but to come out of retirement:)It would indeed help to motivate me:) Do I need it? Not really, Assistant Coordinator would do just fine, but I've decided to be bold and run for the lead... Caesar or Nothing!. Your second question, I believe, is answered in my mega statement. I'm trying to offer an alternative to the current leadership...a different kind of leadership ("I am the candidate of change!":). If my quixotic quest somehow succeeds, I will work, in so far as possible, exclusively within the confines of Mil Hist and ignore the rest of Wikipedia. A big reason why I "retired" was I failed to do so and allowed myself to get dragged into political dramas. Having the burdens and responsibilities of LC would force me to focus my attentions to where they should have been all along.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 11:51, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

:) I trust that the Caesar (dictator of Rome) model was humorous hyperbole and that you really see yourself as primus inter pares? (This latter being a role that Kirill excells in.) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 12:17, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Indeed it was an attempt at humor, when dealing with me you must get accustomed to such things I fear:) And yes, my regime would be a continuation of the Principate and certainly not the beginning of a novo Dominate:)--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 12:35, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, are you one of the administrators on Wikitruth.info? Cla68 (talk) 13:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Cla68, isn't that a rather tricky question? Wandalstouring (talk) 13:31, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

But a fair question deserving of an answer. No, I am not an admin at Wikitruth. I don't even know who the admins really are there (They like it that way and so do I:). But I've made little secret of and make no apologies for my admiration of that site and the fine folks who run it. Believe it or not, they are actually some of the best friends Wikipedia has. Unless, of course, one believes that Wikipedia and its power structures are one in the same. I don't...I still foolishly make the distinction between the idea of Wikipedia and the reality of it. The idea is noble even if the reality is too often comically flawed. So if you are digging for a McCarthy moment, I'm a commie symapthizer but not a member of the Politburo or even the Central Committee.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 14:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

To make it clear, if you were an administrator at that site I wouldn't necessarily hold it against you. I support [1] constructive, outside criticism of Wikipedia. Cla68 (talk) 20:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Understood, I was actually a bit flattered by your question. And, no surprise, I also support you on point two. If constructive, inside criticism of Wikipedia were not so openly discouraged, if not actively prosecuted, there would be a lot less outside criticism of it.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 21:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

• Question: What are your views on scrapping the role of lead coordinator altogether? Do you think the project needs strong personality-based leadership or a balanced team of nine experienced coordinators each bringing different skills to the role and working together to develop and implement consensus? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 08:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Although I very much like the team concept, every team needs some sort of leader, even if that leader is only first among equals. Without one, who would coordinate the coordinators? Guide their efforts so their various skill sets better compliment each other's? Help mediate disputes amongst them? Who would be the project's one voice? Someone has to herd those cats.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 22:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

• Question: Your hybrid userpage/usertalk page has a notice at the top that you have retired from Wikipedia, and you refer to the page as your ex-userpage. Will this be removed if you are selected? -MBK₀₀₄ 23:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes it would have to be:)--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 23:19, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

• My question deals with changes I've made and have had them undone by IP address users. How much latitude would you give IP Address users to make minor and significant changes to articles? Leobold1 (talk) 17:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I see that you are relatively new to Wikipedia. I used to find IP editors (or IP Freelys as I derisively called them) annoying too back when I was new. Real contributors have registered accounts, I used to believe. Then I started to realize that not all of them were obnoxious, clueless vandals or trolls. Some of them were making very good editorial contributions, and had been doing so for a long time. Most all Wikipedians started out as IP editors and they used to play a very important part in building the 'pedias. As I saw all this I also started to understand why someone might wish to edit via an IP. For instance, IP editors tend to not get drawn into pointless political dramas as much as us real (l)users do. But just as I began to appreciate IP editors, Wikipedia's powers-that-be began to steadily restrict their editing privileges; first by forbidding them to create new articles and then by introducing semi-protection which prevents them from editing existing ones. Late last year a prominent Wikipedian, Gmaxwell, proposed allowing them to create articles again, but that idea was shot down faster than Francis Gary Powers. So regardless of what we may think of them, the consensus seems to be that they are 3rd class Wikizens, and they will likely remain thus for the foreseeable future. If you don't care for the edits they've made, simply undo them. If they complain about it, then find a friendly admin willing to semi the article in question and/or drive the annoying IPs away.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 06:13, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• How would you push to expand the stub articles covered by this project? Leobold1 (talk) 17:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

There are already plenty of contests, competitions and drives to expand and improve stubs at both the task force and project levels. So it is safe to state that this problem is being dealt with effectively. Therefore, I would push for more of the same:)--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 06:13, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Ghost, my old friend, I feel compelled to comment on your extended candidacy statement regarding policy and suggesting forking MILHIST. Warning: Incoherency follows. Much of it has been expressed ad nauseum and will be probably be, to an extent, repetitive for you: you've participated in and observed so many debates that have been conducted over the years. My own recollections of my earliest days as a "Wikipedian" aren't that.....positive - disregarding being inspired by the direct or visible support that I and/or others received from people like Infrogmation, Stan Shebs, Gdr, Gsl, Giano, yourself, Kirill and Leithp (I should say hello to him!). Support that still exists for newer editors irrespective of the inevitable existence of personal and ideological clashes (and such disputes have always caused rancour on Wikipedia *cough* Gdansk *cough* ;-). The quality of many articles were arguably high, but the standards and presentation weren't and the authority of articles consequently suffered. Not that visitors and editors shouldn't continue to exercise caution when reading articles ;-). I respect your dislike of mandatory content attribution, but the stringent demands for article verifiability is understandable and necessary for a project such as Wikipedia, and is, for example, an effective mechanism against those who are driven by agenda or not averse to misrepresenting their sources (W00T, Google and Amazon!).

Policy isn't a problem, at least not fundamentally: it strives to provide a framework that endeavours to protect the integrity of the project and its pages, attempts to maintain a coherent structure for articles and user behaviour/interaction, etc, and provide a system that tries to facilitate accountability. It is the interpretation, application, and enforcement of policy by some - not to mention the opposing reaction by some - and incompatible personal interests, accrimony and dogma that has caused the vast majority of drama/strife, in my opinion. Hardly endemic - they're just very notable spectacles. I don't believe MILHIST should adopt a "caravan" mentality and uproot because aspects of the environment aren't agreeable.

I've always enjoyed the articles you've written - they're still as engaging as they were three-years ago; conforming to current criterion isn't intended to degrade an article, but improve it to a standard almost universally accepted by the community. Sterile ("bland" to others) prose disheartens some (I can visualise the faces of authors past redden with rage, not to mention Giano's ;-) but I physically grimace when I cursorily glance at my earliest contributions: heavy on the hyperbole and completely unreferenced. Wikipedia would be repeating the errors of the past (those early editions of Britannica, for example ;-) were we not to maintain these guidelines and content policies that expound on the present requirements and recommended styles, stressing most importantly neutral prose and verifiability. Was that intelligible? Meh. Time to sleep. Do return one-day, Ghost, at least to MILHIST. SoLando (Talk) 23:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Votes in support of R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine)

1. Support for assistant coordinator. Cla68 (talk) 03:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
2. Support. Kyriakos (talk) 05:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
3. Support for assistant Wandalstouring (talk) 09:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
4. Support LordAmeth (talk) 11:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
5. Support Wikiacc (°) 12:57, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
6. Support Leobold1 (talk) 06:54, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
7. Support --ScreaminEagle (talk) 21:16, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
8. Support Leithp 19:18, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Roger Davies

Roger Davies (talk · contribs)

I have been an assistant coordinator for the past six months. My regular contributions have been peer and A-class article reviewing. Otherwise, I particularly enjoyed helping develop and implement Tag & Assess 2007. (I also tagged some of articles myself - though nothing like as many as some others - and have the calluses barnstars to prove it.) There are a couple of special Milhist projects on the horizon - our upcoming article improvement drive and the new tagging and assessment drive - which greatly interest me. They will improve the encyclopedia; enhance the project; and have considerable outreach/recruitment potential. Oh, and I nearly forgot to mention ^{(yeah, right)} I have been an admin for nearly a day. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 10:42, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Comments and questions for Roger Davies

• How would you evaluate your performance as assistant coordinator? What, if anything, would you do better or differently this time?--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 12:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

First, my own evaluation is likely to be one-sided :) For some recent third-party comments, see here, where this came up. As an individual, I'm calm and fairly low-key, with a taste for analysis-based solutions. I see the project as primarily scholarly and spectacularly multi-cultural, embracing hundreds of committed volunteers from many countries and backgrounds. I believe strongly in consensus, and keeping as many people on board as possible. I prefer devolution of power/influence to centralisation of it.

Second, depending on the outcome of the elections, the next few months may prove crucial for Milhist. Volunteer organisations are fragile organisms and are easy to break with abrupt or inappropriate change. My short term aim is to help ensure that the project remains stable and well-run following Kirill's retirement and that, most importantly, the future course it takes actually reflects consensus. Other than that, as I said before, I particularly enjoy planning and implementing special projects.

--ROGER DAVIES ^talk 08:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree, ensuring the project's stability is a top priority. But don't you think this end would be better served by maintaining the post of lead coordinator, in the first among equals manner which Kirill has forged it, rather than doing away with it altogether?--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 23:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Offered a choice of more forceful/more formalised leadership, no formal leadership, or continuity and the status quo, my choice is more of the same. However, the other options need airing from time to time to see where consensus stands. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 03:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• Although I have not really publicized it much, I have started a project to revamp and enlarge the Eastern Front (Second World War) articles. This has brought up several issues which I have discussed with Kirill: inappropriate category structures, article structuring to focus editors and encourage coherent editing, article consistency across the project and subjects, and use of titles that reflect events rather then the incessant "Battle of" usage. There is also the ongoing issue with non-English usage in titles. Yet another issue raised by other editors is the pro and con for creating stub articles, my argument being that one has to start somewhere, and with hundreds of articles yet to write its better to have some entry rather then leave the reader guessing. Having stubs is also an open invitation to enlarge them, and therefore encourage participation. I appreciate that you can't address all these issues in full here and now, but I was wondering if you would care to offer some of your thoughts on all, some or even one of these issues, and your approach to it/them.--mrg3105mrg3105 If you're not taking any flack, you're not over the target. 03:16, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

• First, categories. Horribly complicated subject. These are undervalued as they are brilliant for navigation, especially if you can't remember what the name of what you're looking. Ideally, they should be as (i) obvious as possible, (ii) easy to remember, and (iii) logically structured. However, everyone has their own ideas about what constitutes (i), (ii) and (iii). This crops up most often in areas which overlap with other projects: they have one set of criteria, we have another. I did quite a lot of top category work last spring with Kirill and Fayssal to try to get WWI and WWII into sync and I see that some of the consistencies have been undone by other projects seeking consistency with their structures. This, I think, is something we have to live wih though better inter-project liaison might help.
• Second, consistency of names. My preference is for the name most commonly used by English-speakers (which isn't always the same as the most commonly used English name). In name disputes, it's often best to see what the literature calls it and go with that. That said, some article names are always going to be problematic. The last German attack of the Great War, for instance, is variously called the Spring Offensive, Operation Michael (yes, I know it was one of several components but the name has caught on for the whole offensive), the Kaiser's Battle and (sometimes) the Kaiserslacht. Still, that's what redirects are for.
• Third, stubs. I personally love them, providing they cover the essentials. A decent paragraph or more of context and basic facts, a few supporting refs, a pointer to the key literature, sensible categories. They act as both a magnet for related facts and a platform for further expansion. A Milhist guideline on what to include in stubs would be probably be very helpful.
• Fourth, non-English usage and the language of names. This is the same point about English language usage really. I'd prefer the article to be called by the most commonly used name in English, with a redirect from non-English names/spellings. My reasoning here is that this is primarily an English-language encyclopedia so English is the common denominator and this is the most user-friendly way of doing it.

Hope this helps, --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 21:44, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your lengthy reply. It is more then I expected, which is always nice. I can certainly relate to all your answers, and conclude that there are no easy solutions with the exception of use of English where the common denominator is the English alphabet and the educational systems used in the English speaking world. --mrg3105 (comms) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target. 00:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• You did a lot of great work, especially with the tag & assment drive. Definately get my vote again. RichyBoy (talk) 22:43, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

My question deals with changes I've made and have had them undone by IP address users. How much latitude would you give IP Address users to make minor and significant changes to articles? Leobold1 (talk) 17:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

How would you push to expand the stub articles covered by this project? Leobold1 (talk) 17:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Your first point is really a Wikipedia-wide matter. IPs are entitled to edit and a great many keep within the five pillars. It's just the way it is :)

Your second point is interesting and surprisingly complex. The project now has about 30,000 tagged articles within its scope. A great many of these were swept in during Tag & Assess 2007. The 2008 Tag & Assess Drive is likely to bring a mass of new articles, including thousands of new stubs, under the project's umbrella.

This gives us say 25,000–35,000 stubs, mostly tagged by Task Force. The interesting question is finding the best way of dealing with such a huge number.

1. Most effective is probably to invite the original creators to improve them. Many will have the sources and know the subject. The invites could (should) be organised at Task force level. This is relatively painless and wouldn't use a load of resources. It has the advantage of bringing new editors into the Task Forces. A reward structure with gongs could be created at Project level but then managed at Task Force level.
2. Next easiest is to for the relevant Task Forces to improve the stubs themselves. At least, the editors will have some familiarity with the subject though not necessarily the sources. They could also merge related stubs into bigger articles but finding the clutch to merge could be very time-consuming.
3. Run a stub improvement drive at Project level. Unlikely to be highly effective as editors will not have sources and will not be that familiar with the subject. At best, laborious with low returns. At worst, frustrating with even lower results.
4. In the longer term, Project stub guidelines are needed. This will help improve the quality of new stubs, so they are more useful and comprehensive. From a Project POV, this is a high return for low work.

Project resources, however, are limited. Though many new editors join every time we run a drive. The question is whether a stub improvement drive is better use of the project's resources than running a large Featured Article drive, or a B-Class article improvement drive, or running further tagging drives. We can't do them all.

--ROGER DAVIES ^talk 20:58, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

As a PS to all this, another thing that does need some attention is beefing up Task Force membership.

Votes in support of Roger Davies

1. Nishkid64 (talk) 00:07, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
2. Support Narson (talk) 00:15, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
3. Support Buckshot06 (talk) 01:04, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
4. Support Carom (talk) 01:38, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
5. Support TomStar81 (Talk) 01:58, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
6. Support. Cla68 (talk) 03:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
7. Strong Support for President of the United States (seriously) - ^T/_@Sniperz11_edits^sign 03:54, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
8. Support. Kyriakos (talk) 05:21, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
9. Support -MBK₀₀₄ 05:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
10. Support --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 08:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
11. Support --Nick Dowling (talk) 08:57, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
12. Support Wandalstouring (talk) 09:14, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
13. Support Woody (talk) 10:52, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
14. Support LordAmeth (talk) 11:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
15. Support BusterD (talk) 13:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
16. Support John Carter (talk) 23:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
17. Support Shibumi2 (talk) 23:34, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
18. Support Fattyjwoods ^{(Push my button)} 23:51, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
19. Support--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 23:59, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
20. Support Patar knight (talk) 22:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
21. Support MrPrada (talk) 00:47, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
22. Ral315 (talk) 09:05, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
23. Support Supergodzilla^20|90 18:28, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
24. Support Askari Mark (Talk) 22:47, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
25. Support   jj137 (talk) 23:37, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
26. Support BillCJ (talk) 00:05, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
27. Support Euryalus (talk) 01:03, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
28. Support Harland1 (^t/_c) 10:04, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
29. Support Gaia Octavia Agrippa (talk) 13:21, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
30. Support RichyBoy (talk) 22:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
31. Support --mrg3105 (comms) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target. 00:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
32. Support --Lantonov (talk) 06:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
33. Support Cam 06:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
34. Support Ouro (blah blah) 07:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
35. Support Pyrotec (talk) 21:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
36. Support SMS ^Talk 22:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
37. Support Leobold1 (talk) 22:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
38. Support Monsieurdl ^{mon talk-mon contribs} 14:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
39. Support OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 00:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
40. Definately! A cool guy that just knows stuff! CD-MD (talk) 03:04, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
41. Support MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
42. Support YES!!! YES!!!!! Antimatter--talk-- 17:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
43. Support BonesBrigade 21:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
44. Support, great user _{WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN} ^{that one guy who buried stuff} 22:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
45. Daniel (talk) 01:41, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
46. Support LuckyThracian (Talk) 03:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
47. Support Maralia (talk) 18:52, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
48. Support --ScreaminEagle (talk) 21:16, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
49. Support TheVault (talk) 15:35, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
50. Support--Aldux (talk) 23:24, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
51. Support Redstarsldr (talk)
52. Support Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 05:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
53. Support SoLando (Talk) 23:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Shibumi2

Shibumi2 (talk · contribs)

I ran for assistant coordinator last year and received several votes. I would like to run again. Much of what follows is from my statement at that time.

I have partial Japanese ancestry and I have made the Imperial Japanese Navy and related articles at Wikipedia my personal mission. I noticed for three years this area is a weak spot in Wikipedia article coverage. Since February 2007, my English language skills have improved. I am sometimes awkward on the Talk pages because I hurry. But my edits to article mainspace are as good as anyone who speaks English as his native language. In recent months I have worked to raise awareness of Wikipedia WP:MILHIST project through "Did you know?" I have produced several features on Wikipedia main page under "Did you know?"

I have also tried to make articles conform with requirements of WP:SHIPS and WP:MILHIST in all cases. It is very important to coordinate our efforts with neighboring Wikiprojects wherever this is appropriate. I have worked with TomTheHand from WP:SHIPS to make these articles better.

I have expertise on the Pacific War. It is not honorable to brag about my achievements. I am a university student with much spare time for the project. My grandfathers served in the war on opposing sides (Imperial Japanese Navy and Royal Australian Navy). I inherited their libraries and I have many research materials, including unpublished diagrams, blueprints and navigation charts. I also have many books published in Japan.

English is not my first language but I will always concentrate on correct use of the language. I will be happy to serve the project in any capacity the voters choose for me. I welcome any questions. Thank you for this opportunity. Shibumi2 (talk) 23:02, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Comments and questions for Shibumi2

My question deals with changes I've made and have had them undone by IP address users. How much latitude would you give IP Address users to make minor and significant changes to articles? Leobold1 (talk) 17:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

All edits to WP:MILHIST articles by unknown or unfamiliar users should be reviewed for possible vandalism and then checked for accuracy as time permits. This becomes more important if such edits are significant. Material that is challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported with citation to reliable source per WP:V. If edits are made by LordAmeth, Kyriakos or some other veteran WP:MILHIST editor then I would not be so inclined to check them. But newcomers should be welcomed as their work is reviewed. We can always use an extra pair of hands if they are well intentioned and do good work. Shibumi2 (talk) 22:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

How would you push to expand the stub articles covered by this project? Leobold1 (talk) 17:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Review of various topic areas can reveal specific target areas where most articles are stubs and many possible article subjects have no articles at all. I observed WP:MILHIST project for three years before becoming involved. I observed good efforts in American and British Navy articles but very little in Imperial Japanese Navy articles in World War II era. I was very surprised to find that there was no article for Japanese aircraft carrier Ryuho. This is my area of expertise. So I rolled up my sleeves and went to work.

I suggest some recruiting may be in order for some of these subject areas where our coverage is weak. We are fortunate to have so many people who have expertise in specific areas and I am happy to fill this need for expertise on Japanese Navy. But I am sure there are other areas as well. We may wish to seek out experts in areas where our coverage is weak. Professors at our universities or even military academies may be receptive to such inquiries.

Another option would be research task forces. We can research secondary sources about these subject areas where our coverage is weak. We can post announcement on project page and ask for volunteers. Coordinators can take charge of task forces and direct these efforts.

Thank you for your questions and I look forward to serving WP:HIST in any capacity that its editors may choose for me. Shibumi2 (talk) 22:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• My question refers to something you wrote in your campaign for a leadership post last year:

I wish to add this to my previous response if this may be allowed. On another project called Free Republic, there is much conflict between editors. One side in the conflict is not honorable. The other side is one new editor, defending himself alone and with great honor and skill.

The one new editor, the one with all the honor and skill, that was User:DeanHinnen, wasn't it, later determined to be a sockpuppet of the banned User:BryanFromPalatine, a neighbor of yours? You have been restoring his deleted content since February 17, 2007, after he was banned, haven't you? Isn't it true that since December you have been involved in edit warring on that site with two SPAs as allies, User:Samurai Commuter who has been blocked and User:Neutral Good who has disappeared suddenly. Isn't it also true that you have been blocked briefly as a sockpuppet, and you have ignored the posting guidance of User:SirFozzie. How do these facts lead anyone to have enough confidence in your respect for Wikipedia institutions to vote for you, confidience in your judgment in light of your support of a banned editor, and finally, what assurances can you give that you aren't acting as a meatpuppet of the banned BFP?Eschoir (talk) 03:03, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

"Disappeared suddenly"??? Neutral Good (talk) 00:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Make that blocked for abuse of multiple accounts and disruption. Eschoir (talk) 04:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

This is the retaliation that every editor faces when seeking justice against a rule breaker. Eschoir has never previously participated in WP:MILHIST but has followed me here from the Free Republic article to harass me and sabotage my candidacy. Since we have many other candidates with much more experience I do not believe I had much chance of becoming coordinator. But actual participants in WP:MILHIST deserve the full truth about these matters.

Free Republic is a discussion forum website. Its owners sued Eschoir for creating over 80 disruptive sockpuppets and posting personal information about its members. They received permanent federal injunction against Eschoir. If Eschoir disrupts their forum again he will go to jail for contempt of court. Reasonable people agree this is very large conflict of interest. Official finding of Arbitration Committee was that Eschoir had "serious external conflict with Free Republic."

Several other editors and one admin joined me in seeking further action by WP Arbitration Committee. Admin SirFozzie said, "Someone who has been in legal conflict with another organization isn't quite the best person to write about that person. It's like asking Greenpeace to write the article on the Exxon Valdez." [2] The Committee decision was just recently made. Admins now have additional tools to stop Eschoir and anyone else who violates WP:COI policy from editing Free Republic article. Because I chose to request and insist upon compliance with WP:COI and WP:NPOV by Eschoir he has chosen to attack me in this manner. Members of WP:MILHIST are asked to consider the source of these allegations. Shibumi2 (talk) 23:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

These are not allegations they are merely questions, in a question-appropriate forum. Your potential constituents have every right to know the answers, and also see how your character responds to questioning. Eschoir (talk) 04:03, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Shibumi2 has been blocked indefinitelly for sockpuppetry. Eschoir (talk) 13:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Votes in support of Shibumi2

1. Support. Cla68 (talk) 03:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
2. Support. Kyriakos (talk) 05:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
3. Support.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 03:32, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
4. Support Dc76\^talk 17:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
5. Support. MrPrada (talk) 19:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

   Thank you. Shibumi2 (talk) 23:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

6. Support. - BillCJ (talk) 04:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

TomStar81

TomStar81 (talk · contribs)

I first ran for assistant coordinator last election cycle, and having enjoyed the experience I have decided to stand for reelection. Among other things I have tried to be active in the review and assessment departments, and suggested a few things for better internal management, incuding an edit to our Milhist Mos. I remain interested in the project and its task forces, and have enjoyed the learning experiences arising from this position and its additional responsibilities. For the record, I disclose that I remain as poor a speller as ever. I am in the middle of a school semester at the moment, but that won't stop me checking in with the project when time and circumstance permit. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Comments and questions for TomStar81

• How would you evaluate your performance as assistant coordinator? What, if anything, would you do better or differently this time?--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 12:52, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Respectively: Good, overall; I would like to think that I have helped the project if only by chipping in on the A-class reviews and peer reviews. I will confess that I need to budget more of my free time to look into our internal review departments, A-class article candidates and Peer Reviews need more input, and I agreed to take on a more active role in both of these when I ran for AC last time, but I underestimated the amount of careful reading required to give meaningful feedback to those who take advantage of these processes. I hope that tweaking my schedule a little to increase my free time will allow me to invest more time in the review process to get my two cents out to the masses. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:17, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

• Practical question here, Tom, based on what you have said about your school commitments. If you were elected Lead Coordinator, would you have have enough free time to do this new very demanding job? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 13:25, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

To be honest with you and the community, I have been doing some soul searching on that point for the last few days. I was not expecting such a strong voter turnout for me, and while I admit that I am thrilled to see that the project has faith in my ability to coordinate I am not entirely sure how my school commitments would impact my ability to assume a greater degree of responsibility. If elected lead I will have the benefit of a eight outstanding assistance to help with the work load, and that will definitely help ease the pressure of additional responsibilities, and in this particular case the timing of the elections means that I will have a three to four month window of summer vacation to really work for the project, but the months of March, April, and to a degree May concern me since I can not ensure that I will be here to lend my all to the project. Having never held the position of lead I am not sure how I will handle it, but if it proves to be too much a problem with school then I would do one of two things: temporarily cede the position of lead coordinator to the second place guy until we get to summer (with more free time to work with, I believe I could lead effectively), or if this is not possible, decline to accept the position of lead coordinator so as to allow someone with more time to better run the project. It would be disappointing for me to do that, but by the same token the project deserves people who can go the distance, and it would be selfish of me to hoard the position of lead if I can not find to commit to it. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:12, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

My question deals with changes I've made and have had them undone by IP address users. How much latitude would you give IP Address users to make minor and significant changes to articles? Leobold1 (talk) 17:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I tend to give IP addresses a sizable degree of latitutde when it comes to making minor changes to articles, usually becuase ISP addresses that edit articles make sp&g related changes and things of that nature, and in my case its well established that sp&g aid is helpfull. In addition, the minor ISP address edits typically do not change the core content of an article. I treat signifigant changes from ISP addressess as suspicious becuase most major ISP address edits either aim to vandalize the article in question or add unsourced and supicious material to an article. In such cases I tend to revert on sight. If an ISP address adds material to an article that could be useful, but doesn't provide a source for it, then I try to place the information either on the article talk page or in my sand box so I can find a source for the info and get it in the article. TomStar81 (Talk) 18:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

How would you push to expand the stub articles covered by this project? Leobold1 (talk) 17:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Hard to say. Each article is different, some have sources that we could find and use to expand the article in question, and some have so little to say that its hard to imagine that they will ever grow beyond stub. In terms of community expansion the contest page offers more award points for the expansion of stub articles to a higher rank (preferably FA), but more could prabably be done to help the articles. Perhaps we could see about arranging some kind of annual stub expanding contest or something along those lines, that could help. Unto my experience people are usually more willing to work if they feel there is something in it for them, so a stub award or an award given for stub expansion may help spur interest in the topics. Its an interesting question, but I am afraid that there really isn't a simply solution to the problem, and I need to look into this more to better understand and answer your question since no one's ever asked my that before. TomStar81 (Talk) 18:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Votes in support of TomStar81

1. Nishkid64 (talk) 00:07, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
2. Support Narson (talk) 00:15, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
3. Support Carom (talk) 01:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
4. Support Hell, yes! --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 03:11, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
5. Support. Cla68 (talk) 03:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
6. Support Absolutely - ^T/_@Sniperz11_edits^sign 04:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
7. Support. Kyriakos (talk) 05:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
8. Support -MBK₀₀₄ 05:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
9. Support --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 08:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
10. Support --Nick Dowling (talk) 08:58, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
11. Support Wandalstouring (talk) 09:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
12. Support Woody (talk) 10:52, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
13. Support LordAmeth (talk) 11:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
14. Support BusterD (talk) 13:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
15. Support Chinese3126 (talk) 15:42, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
16. Support John Carter (talk) 23:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
17. Support Shibumi2 (talk) 23:34, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
18. Support--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 00:02, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
19. Support MrPrada (talk) 00:48, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
20. Ral315 (talk) 09:05, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
21. Support Supergodzilla^20|90 18:28, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
22. Support Askari Mark (Talk) 22:50, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
23. Support   jj137 (talk) 23:36, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
24. Support BillCJ (talk) 00:12, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
25. Support Euryalus (talk) 01:03, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
26. Support JohninMaryland (talk) 01:05, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
27. Support Gaia Octavia Agrippa (talk) 13:31, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
28. Support Ouro (blah blah) 07:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
29. Support Dc76\^talk 17:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
30. Support Leobold1 (talk) 20:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
31. Support Patar knight (talk) 21:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
32. Support SMS ^Talk 22:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
33. Support Spot87 (talk) 04:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
34. Support Maralia (talk) 18:54, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
35. Support --ScreaminEagle (talk) 21:17, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
36. Support--Aldux (talk) 23:29, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
37. Support Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 05:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
38. Support SoLando (Talk) 23:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
39. Support Raoulduke47 (talk) 21:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Trulystand700

Trulystand700 (talk · contribs)

I have had always wanted to help a wikiproject and i have had been in the project for half a year. I want to make new articles and improve the project and give articles and the homepage of the project a complete overhaul. I will make articles that are stubs and hard to read overhauled to be able to be read and add accurate infomation to stubs. I will make sure that people work hard in this project and make people understand to project so they can join. I will also make sure that new articles that are required be created to be accurate and i will try to help newcomers in the project. I will make sure that all problems are fixed and all things that are needed to be done till the next election. Trulystand700 (talk) 19:19, Feburary 13 2008 (ETZ)

Comments and questions for Trulystand700

1. Can you give an overview of your contributions to Wikipedia and more specifically, MILHIST.
2. I see from your Contributions overview that you've joined very recently. What do you think are your positives what will mitigate your inexperience? ^T/_@Sniperz11_edits^sign 04:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• I believe your heart is in the right place, but IMO you need more active time with the project before taking a stab at being a coordinator here. Don't give up though, this is not so much an election as it is a motion of confidence: those who vote are here to show who they have confidence in, and if you remain active they will one day have have as much confidence in you as they do in the others whose names are listed here. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:19, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

My question deals with changes I've made and have had them undone by IP address users. How much latitude would you give IP Address users to make minor and significant changes to articles? Leobold1 (talk) 17:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

How would you push to expand the stub articles covered by this project? Leobold1 (talk) 17:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Votes in support of Trulystand700

1. Moral Support I hate to see a user willing to take on additional responsibility not get any votes, so here is my vote. It won't make a difference, but at at least its here. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:10, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
2. Moral Support --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 06:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Wandalstouring

Wandalstouring (talk · contribs)

I sign up, so we have a reason to vote. My intention is to work on images and maps, perhaps turning it into a kind of task force. I developed the underused external images template with Kirill and have been active acquiring contracts for the use of images under acceptable licence agreements. Other fields would be organizing our B-class assessment I screwed up some time ago. Our current criteria are equal to the lowered criteria for GA. This area needs some development because we have a huge number of unassessed B class stuff.

Kirill is shocking me. OK, I would do the leader job if elected, but not in single-leader-style, rather with a strong second in command to balance my temper.

Least popular coordinator is quite a position, seems like I no longer have a "strong understanding of the project and its needs". Well, I think it will be my last term if I make it. So, with the little influence I have, I urge to vote also for MBK004 (talk · contribs) since he is capable to make it to coordinator position and seems a decent candidate.

Comments and questions for Wandalstouring

• What makes you think you screwed it up? And how would you improve it? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 11:24, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I find hardly articles where the assessment system was used, but they even get rated B without(not our old backlog). Improving is the more difficult thing. One question to solving this thing is whether our B class is still underneath GA quality or already above. This needs to be discussed on a broader basis. Wandalstouring (talk) 11:31, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

• How would you evaluate your performance in your earlier stint as assistant coordinator? What, if anything, would you do better or differently this time? --R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 12:18, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion I defined the role of assistant coordinator as an active one and contributed to the point that there are more people doing the maintainance work. I failed on the broad designs of organization with reliance on editors I didn't know. That is really difficult to organize and the last coordinatorship did achieve progress in this area in a way I wouldn't have recommended. And certainly did I fail in the field of contributing to articles because wikipolicy consumed too much time. Wandalstouring (talk) 13:06, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

A very honest evaluation. However assistants do tend to be more concerned with maintainance work. It is the lead coordinators who should deal more with the broad designs, as you say. One more question/comment; You mentioned above the possibility of setting up task forces to deal with maps and images. I would be very Gung-ho for this idea, except that we've already tried it. Remember the cartography department? I tried to keep it alive...I even managed to find a curator for it. Unfortunately it didn't work out and the department died (Actually was put on life support, then got its plug pulled). The ridiculous levels of copyright paranoia and the jihad on fair-use, would make any task force's job in such areas much more difficult. Still, I would support your attempts, given how important images, and especially maps, are to our subject. Besides, there's no real harm in trying again:).--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 12:40, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

• Would you support scrapping the role of lead coordinator altogether? With all decisions based on consensus of the nine? This is in practise how it worked during Kirill's stewardship and seems a far better rein on temper than a strong second-in-command :) I mention this because I'm not convinced that the project needs personality-based presidential leadership, which is what appears to be on offer. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 07:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

No, I wouldn't scrap the lead coordinator system. I think they are useful rallying points to bring forward new ideas and in case we need a spokesman for the project they are ideal if backed up by the other members of the project. Wandalstouring (talk) 09:04, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

thanks for the reply. Given a choice of two models - (1) Presidential/chief executive personality-based lead; or (2) Titular/chief of staff first-among-equals lead - which would you favour? And, more importantly, if elected, which would you adopt? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 09:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

This leader thing gets really complicated. When I was a subordinate coordinator, I pushed for more active participation of my fellow coordinators in the decision making process. On the other hand, Kirill and me developed things for the project on our own. The problem how leadership operates is strongly based on the degree of participation of all coordinators in the decision making process. During my first term it was definetly a case (1) with Kirill and during my second term and the previous term it was a case (2). I hope for a case (2) situation since it means the least workload for each coordinator, but I would under circumstances of significant inactivity accept a more case (1) like approach. Wandalstouring (talk) 09:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it does get horribly complicated and thanks for your attempt to de-complicate it :)) The reason I'm asking this is that the lead coordinator/coordinator relationship is a very delicate one and I would prefer more of the same leadership-style rather than radical departures. I think there have all been occasions when individual coordinators take the initiative on something and push it forward successfully: I'd hate to see an end to that because of a hierarchical leadership structure. The other point here is that the quality and experience of the candidates is very high and it would be a pity to waste that. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 09:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

My question deals with changes I've made and have had them undone by IP address users. How much latitude would you give IP Address users to make minor and significant changes to articles? Leobold1 (talk) 17:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I usually check IP edits for vandalism, but otherwise they can make any change they want. I handle their works like that of editors with a login. Wandalstouring (talk) 18:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

How would you push to expand the stub articles covered by this project? Leobold1 (talk) 17:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

It needs considerable manpower and diverse interests to expand all these stubs, a task we can't do for all of them. My idea is to reduce the number of stubs by integrating them into larger articles with chapters consisting of former stubs. This way our great number of articles would become much more maintainable. Another approach is to allow for articles that are stubs, but do absolutely cover all information available, to rise in rank to B, A and FA despite their shortness. Wandalstouring (talk) 12:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Votes in support of Wandalstouring

1. Support RM Gillespie (talk) 15:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
2. Support Carom (talk) 01:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
3. Support TomStar81 (Talk) 02:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
4. Support --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 03:12, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
5. Support. Cla68 (talk) 03:26, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
6. Support - ^T/_@Sniperz11_edits^sign 03:44, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
7. Support. Kyriakos (talk) 05:22, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
8. Support --Nick Dowling (talk) 08:59, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
9. Support Woody (talk) 10:52, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
10. Support LordAmeth (talk) 11:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
11. Support BusterD (talk) 13:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
12. Support Yannismarou (talk) 15:00, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
13. Support John Carter (talk) 23:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
14. Support Shibumi2 (talk) 23:34, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
15. Support for assistant--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 23:59, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
16. Support MrPrada (talk) 00:51, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
17. Support--mrg3105mrg3105 If you're not taking any flack, you're not over the target. 03:24, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
18. Ral315 (talk) 09:05, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
19. Support Supergodzilla^20|90 18:28, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
20. Support Askari Mark (Talk) 22:48, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
21. Support Very strong personality, Very hard worker, VERY knowledgable. JohninMaryland (talk) 17:08, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
22. Support Buckshot06 (talk) 21:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
23. Support --Lantonov (talk) 06:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
24. Support --noclador (talk) 22:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
25. Support Very hard worker, very dedicated. Monsieurdl ^{mon talk-mon contribs} 14:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
26. Support Absolutely. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 17:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
27. Support Leobold1 (talk) 01:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
28. Support Captain panda 02:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
29. Support --ScreaminEagle (talk) 21:17, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
30. Support--Aldux (talk) 23:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
31. Support Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 05:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
32. Support SoLando (Talk) 23:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
33. Support Raoulduke47 (talk) 21:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Woody

Woody (talk · contribs)

I have been a member of the project for about 20 months now, and have written 5 FAs and 6FLs at last count. My primary area of interest in terms of article writing is Victoria Cross and Royal Navy related articles. I am currently revamping all of the VC recipients lists, hopefully all to FL. I helped to write the 4 articles of the Victoria Cross featured topic. I don't think that the job of coordinator should be judged simply by the number of articles created, nor the number of pieces of featured content that they have produced. It is about what they do and will do for the project in the future. Maintenance and focusing discussion are the major roles of a coordinator. As a result of being here a while, I know most of the ins and outs of the project and how it runs. I am generally involved with maintainence tasks for the project as and when I can. I try to update the Announcements template regularly as I hover around FLC, FAC and PR. I help contribute to A-Class reviews and Peer reviews as part of the excellent in-house review process. I am also an active reviewer at FAC, FAR and FLC. Currently I am involved in converting deprecated infoboxes for the project as well. If I am elected as an assistant coordinator I will continue to help maintain the project and help it to continue work so smoothly. Woody (talk) 19:50, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Comments and questions for Woody

• The peer review system does not run very well in wikipedia as a whole, however WPMILHIST has always impressed me with the speed and quality of its review system. Do you have ideas on improving the system further?
  • First off, I think you should have a look at the new system at WP:PR. It has been automated somewhat and completely overhauled, mainly as a result of the content review workshop. The whole systems that we use on Wikipedia to review and verify information are undergoing complete structural change. I have seen Milhist peer review held up as a process to aspire to. We churn out verified and neutral articles, many of which become featured content, which has to be a huge positive.
  • Recently I feel we have seen a bit of a reduction in the number of Peer reviewd at Milhist from new editors. We need to encourage new editors in their efforts to improve articles. I think in some ways, it needs to be a more user-friendly process. We need to encourage people to offer more reviews, and we need people who are knowledgable on the subjects. I think the new peer review volunteers page will take a part in that. We need to fully advertise the options available to editors and encourage the use of our processes by all editors and not just existing stalwarts. Woody (talk) 18:13, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

• My question deals with changes I've made and have had them undone by IP address users. How much latitude would you give IP Address users to make minor and significant changes to articles? Leobold1 (talk) 17:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Frankly, that is well beyond the scope of the Milhist project. Wikipedia is the "encyclopedia that everyone can edit", and that includes IPs. Some of the best contributions can come from IPs who make little edits here and there. Is there much difference between an IP and a newly registered user in terms of editing? We were all new once. I would bring up any issues you have on the talk page, perhaps leaving a link hidden in the article. Woody (talk) 17:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• How would you push to expand the stub articles covered by this project? Leobold1 (talk) 17:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
  • The number of stub articles is, again, an issue for the wider encyclopedia, though it is something that we can combat on a local level. I would like to see the writing contest featured more prominently for the project members and to encourage the participation in that contest. I think we also have to concentrate on our "core articles" as well as the stubs though. There is little that can actually be done on a coordinator level, other than organisation of encouragement intitiatives. I think it will be helpful when we have full article assessment statistics and complete B-class checklists. Woody (talk) 17:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Votes in support of Woody

1. Nishkid64 (talk) 00:07, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
2. Support Narson (talk) 00:15, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
3. Support Carom (talk) 01:40, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
4. Support TomStar81 (Talk) 01:59, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
5. Support --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 03:06, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
6. Support. Cla68 (talk) 03:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
7. Support. Kyriakos (talk) 05:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
8. Support -MBK₀₀₄ 05:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
9. Support - ^T/_@Sniperz11_edits^sign 06:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
10. Support --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 08:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
11. Support Wandalstouring (talk) 09:11, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
12. Support LordAmeth (talk) 11:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
13. Support BusterD (talk) 13:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
14. Support John Carter (talk) 23:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
15. Support--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 00:05, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
16. Support MrPrada (talk) 00:59, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
17. Ral315 (talk) 09:05, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
18. Support Supergodzilla^20|90 18:28, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
19. Support Wikiacc (°) 22:33, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
20. Support   jj137 (talk) 23:35, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
21. Support BillCJ (talk) 00:16, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
22. Support Kernel Saunters (talk) 17:38, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
23. Support Buckshot06 (talk) 09:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
24. Support Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
25. Support Leobold1 (talk) 20:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
26. Support Sf46 (talk) 22:02, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
27. Support Anthony Staunton (talk) 11:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
28. Support Maralia (talk) 19:49, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
29. Support --ScreaminEagle (talk) 21:18, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
30. Support Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 05:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
31. Support SoLando (Talk) 23:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Lead Coordinator referendum

Recently, much discussion has taken place within the Military History Project regarding our coordinator scheme, which presently uses a lead/assistant setup. After much discussion between the coordinators and other members of the project over the continued use of the lead/assistant scheme vs an equal scheme or a president/cabinet scheme, we have decided to place the issue before the community and determine what our contributors would like to see. Your input on the following proposals is therefore requested:

Proposals

1. Presidential/chief executive style lead coordinator, with eight assistants to whom tasks are allocated. This would be a change from the current position.
2. Titular/chief of staff lead coordinator, developing and implementing consensus with eight coordinators. This is how it is at the moment. Kirill also combined this with a huge amount of routine project administration.
3. Nine coordinators of equal standing, developing and implementing consensus together. This has been discussed plenty but never tried.

Voting section

• Support #2 The current version works, I see no reason to change it. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:38, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
• Support #2 also. Carom (talk) 03:04, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
• Support #2 If it ain't bust .... --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 03:07, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
• Support #2 as long as we have someone with the time and dedication to make the lead position work, which seems to be the case currently. Cla68 (talk) 03:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
• Support #2 - However this will really need someone totally dedicated to the project, and who has been here for some time and understands the in and outs of it. Without that, this will very easily fall apart. Thats a danger. With Kirill gone, someone has got to step up. ^T/_@Sniperz11_edits^sign 03:58, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
• Support #2. It works so I think we could keep it. Kyriakos (talk) 05:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
• Support #2 - Why mess with what has worked for 2 years? -MBK₀₀₄ 05:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
• Support #2 - No need to change the current system. --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 08:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose all choices because setting things in stone may handicap the project in case assistant activity declines from its current high standing. #1 blocks inititative in case of high assistant activity. #2 only works well with active assistants. #3 is chaos on the long run because it lacks organization. Wandalstouring (talk) 09:12, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
• Support #2 - If we can't press gang Kiril back, we can at least use his example. Narson (talk) 09:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
• Support #2 - Wandal makes good points, but ultimately if we pick #2 and end up with a poor or inactive Lead, we're basically playing the #3 game anyway. And if the Assistants are inactive, it causes the same problems, to pretty much the same degree, with all three options. So it doesn't really matter. LordAmeth (talk) 11:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
• Support #2 - Leaning toward #3. Love to see someone step up; we appear to have a rich field of candidates. BusterD (talk) 13:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
• Support #2 - Provided someone is willing to step up to be the leader. If at anytime there isn't such a person, then the situation can be changed. John Carter (talk) 23:22, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
• Support #2 Shibumi2 (talk) 23:34, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
• Support #2 per the discussion with Roger--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 00:08, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
• Support #2 MrPrada (talk) 00:49, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
• Support #2--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:05, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
• Support #2 Supergodzilla^20|90 18:28, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
• Support #2 Frankly, in my experience, this works best for volunteer organizations. No one is the "boss", but there is someone to "lead". Kirill was outstanding at that, and I hope that whoever gets the lead post this time follows his excellent example. Askari Mark (Talk) 22:56, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
• Support #2   jj137 (talk) 23:36, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
• Support #2 jaiiaf (talk) 00:52, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
• Support #2 provided that someone is willing to step up as Kirill did. Without such a strong presence, the whole project will falter. Nonetheless, I will vote for #2. JohninMaryland (talk) 01:08, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
• Support #2 - the Project is too big for options 1 or 3 to work. A presidential-style Lead will create a decision-making bottleneck for co-ordinator actions. No Lead at all will weaken the gentle direction-setting we currently have. The relationship between the lead and assistant co-ordinators is also heavily influenced by their personalities, level of involvement and interests. Let's leave it as is and see how the new Lead and new/returning assistants work together. Euryalus (talk) 01:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
• Support #2 per Euryalus. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:21, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
• Support #2 per Euryalus. Dc76\^talk 17:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
• Support None' I think it should be up to the Lead Coordinator. There's no guarantee that the next Lead Coordinator will have the abilities and leadership of Kirill. Leobold1 (talk) 17:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
• Support #2 Someone has to step up to fill in the hole left by Kirill. We need a leader (at least in name). --Patar knight (talk) 21:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
• Support #2 with condition that Lead Coordinator must be able to LEAD. SMS ^Talk 22:49, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
• Support #2 while recognizing Wandalstouring's concerns. If we don't have active assistants, #2 will fail. However, if we don't have active assistants we can just vote them out and elect new ones. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 17:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
• Support #2 but recognizing the need for active coordinators. My voting in the elections will reflect this opinion. Antimatter--talk-- 17:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
• Support #3 Providing the coordinators are active, I really don't see the need for a nominated lead coordinator in a co-operative working environment. Justin talk 13:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
• Support #2 I like having a go-to guy like the lead coordinator, but not a dictator. It works now. --ScreaminEagle (talk) 21:08, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
• None of the above It should be up to the coordinators to decide in what manner they want to organize themselves and their work. They should decide whether or not they want one of their members to serve as a "lead" or a "dictator" or have no "lead" at all.BradMajors (talk) 22:51, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Coordinators be thou for the Contributers, not vice versa. For us to operate effectively we need to work with you, otherwise the coordinator concept will go the way of esperanza. As we could not reach consensus among ourselves, and our contributers seemed interested in alternatives to the lead/assistant setup, it was decided to seek contributer input on the matter. Thats all. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:02, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

General comments

Please make any general comments not related to one of the candidates on the talk page.