Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/Archive 31

Archive 25

←

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

→

Archive 35

MILMOS status redux

Given that the project discussion about moving or restructuring MILMOS seems to have ended due to a general lack of enthusiasm, I think we need to consider what, if anything, we need to do from our end to resolve the MILMOS status/location issue.

As far as I can tell, the folks running the MOS reorganization appear, for the moment, content to let MILMOS retain its nominal status and remain where it is. However, I'm not certain whether this state of affairs is going to last or not. In particular, due to the reversions of the location change, MILMOS appears to have ended up outside the new MOS category structure; if we look at Category:Wikipedia Manual of Style, MILMOS sticks out like a sore thumb, which is likely to provoke further attempts to "fix" the problem.

I see several options we can pursue here:

1. Restart the discussion about moving and/or restructuring MILMOS, in hopes that whatever the result is will be something that fits both our desires as a project and the structure set up by MOS. This is, in some ways, the most obvious answer, but also one that's likely to eat up a lot of time and not go anywhere; at the very least, we should probably prepare a specific proposal for discussion this time around, rather than just throwing the question out and expecting an answer to spontaneously appear.
2. Ask the MOS folks to create a history/humanities/something else category that MILMOS could move into. This may or may not get a positive response; it's also likely that they would expect us to compromise on the location of the page, at the very least, as a condition of changing the category structure to suit us.
3. Do nothing, and hope that nobody notices for a while. I don't think this is a particularly good idea in the long term, but I suppose there is an argument to be made for letting sleeping dogs lie.

Thoughts? Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 02:35, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

We have some outstanding tasks re MILMOS - namely the development of notability guidelines for units and battles (and possibly other subjects) - that came up in the earlier MILPEOPLE discussion and are still waiting to be addressed. I think it would make sense to resolve the location and content of MILMOS before we start developing additional sections, as well as perhaps deciding if we even want notability guidelines to be part of MILMOS.

With that in mind, I prefer option 1. As I see it we have two questions to put to the project:

1. Should we move MILMOS to bring it into line with the rest of WP's style guidelines?
2. Should we split our notability guidelines from our style guidelines?

Whether we'd want to raise both at the same time or do them consecutively I don't know. To prevent them lingering on we could impose an end-date, and something like a straw poll is likely to get more 'drive-by' input than an open request for comment, so perhaps we could consider that (they're both pretty much yes/no questions). EyeSerene^talk 07:59, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

We'd probably want to combine both into one question to avoid contradictory results; e.g. "should we split style, notability, and content into three pages and move the style one to a MoS location?"

(We've also gotten better results in the past by making very specific proposals and asking for approval, rather than posing individual questions.) Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 11:35, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

The only reservation I have about multipart questions is that it's not straightforward to adjudicate consensus when support/oppose is divided amongst parts of the same question. I take your point though that we'd need to split MILMOS before moving it :) I suppose another advantage of throwing the entire lot into one proposal is that without the reason for the split (the need to come into alignment with the rest of WP re style guidelines), it's harder to justify proposing making the split in the first place. So, how about:

• Proposal: to split milhist's manual of style into three separate pages, one each for content, notability and style, and to move the style page out of milhist and into the MoS.

Would this fit the bill? (with some accompanying background) EyeSerene^talk 12:06, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 03:18, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Same + a yes/no question will certainly get more participation and thoughts because it's easier to comment on (IMHO), so good choice there as well. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 03:22, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I thought we covered this earlier, or was that something else? Anyway, if I am reading this right, the idea being put forward is to spin out those points of merit from our mos into the main mos and then retool our current mos into a non-mos. Is that more or less correct? TomStar81 (Talk) 03:27, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, more basically, it's to split the one style guide subpage into three, and then move one of those to a MoS subpage. The result should be functionally equivalent to what we currently have; the only distinction will be the number and location of the subpages holding our collective guidelines—and that's being driven largely by the desire of MoS to have a subpage under the MoS tree, and their reluctance to put content guidelines under said tree. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 03:31, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I've written up the proposal on WT:MILHIST. I didn't think it was worth including a Neutral section, but feel free to add one if desired :) EyeSerene^talk 10:11, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

This month's contest

I'm in the process of verifying the results of the contest for this month. Would someone mind verifying the status of my articles, please? The link to follow is here:Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Contest/Entries. Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 03:58, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I've verified all entries except my own. I've set up the new contest and moved June down to the log. When someone gets a chance, can you please go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Contest and verify my article scores? I will then compile the results, update the table, etc. Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 07:23, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Yours are verified, nice work this month :) —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 07:37, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. AustralianRupert (talk) 07:48, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I messed up one of my entries for this month (put down the wrong article), and AustarlianRupert brought it to my attention. Can someone verify the corrected listing? Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 11:15, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Done. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:52, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I believe that the contest has been sorted for June now. I've added the results to the Newsletter and handed out the awards. The new contest for July has been set up and old ones archived. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:06, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Newsletter

Hey guys, it's 1 July, so we need to get the newsletter together! I'm willing to write an op-ed, but two of the three sections in Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/News/June 2010/Project news are not started. Also, is there anything else we want to include now that we have additional room? —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 07:45, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I've commented out those sections for now. There's our new strategy think tank (still under development), plus the MILMOS discussion proposals above that may go live before the newsletter goes out. I can't think of anything else at the moment.

Are we okay with the header layout and front page? EyeSerene^talk 08:15, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

The header layout is perfect thanks to you, but the front page still looks like it is set up with the headers for the old one-page style—should they be converted to links or something? —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 08:33, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I deliberately set it up that way to retain something of the former design - a kind of nod to the past. My intention was to include in each box a linked one-liner (similar to the signpost's front page), but I don't really know how workable that will turn out to be. I'll have a go at filling in some examples to illustrate it. EyeSerene^talk 09:59, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Done, but please alter as necessary. EyeSerene^talk 10:27, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

The new format looks good to me. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 11:29, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

With the exception of the editorial, everything looks to be in good order. I think next time around perhaps we can see about getting the TFs or the special projects to write a few lines about how things are going with their efforts. In the meantime, since all appears to be in order, I'm prepared to give the green light to Cbrown to send the letter out once the editorial is done. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:41, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

ES, I see what you were doing and really like the front page formatting. Tom, is there a way Cbrown can send the front page to everyone (or something like the Signpost, where links to the different articles are sent?) Re editorial, I'm going to be offline for the next few hours at the least, but I'll get one written up by tomorrow at the latest. I'm thinking that it'll be on reviewing articles to try to rile up some additional reviewers for the A-class process, but I'm open to better ideas. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 22:50, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I wrote an editorial as well that I thought I would throw out there for consideration. If the coordinators like it feel free publish it. I figured that I since I created a section of the strategy think tank for the development of editorials, that I might as well write one. It is at Frustration and Disappointment. It may be a little rough but tell me what you think? LeonidasSpartan (talk) 00:51, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Our new format should allow for more than one editorial, so perhaps we can do both this time around and see if the members like that format. On the matter of delivery, it was my intention to have just the front page sent out so that we could maintain the current delivery system without having to come up with a new way to get our newletter's sections out. I would make one observation: the new format should allow for greater use of images, so I think we should try to add the images as the information we write about provides us with opportunities to do so. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:18, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I really like Leonidas' editorial. I think that should run alone this month so that it garners as much attention as it should—it's very uplifting. I'll add a short bit in the "From the Coordinators" about reviewing, and I'll write up an editorial for it next month. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 03:37, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I added LeonidasSpartan's editorial, aside from the write up is there anything else that needs to be added/tweaked? TomStar81 (Talk) 03:43, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Let's hold up until Leonidas gets back online and make sure he's okay with everything, especially after Krill's edit —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 03:56, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

With the exception of any final copy editing on the part of who ever is acting as the editor, I approve of the form of the editorial. I am not going to be a difficult customer when it comes to collaborative effort like this. Though I am slightly embarrassed that I missed some of the typos in that editorial. But I suppose that is the price of rushing a bit on a piece of writing. LeonidasSpartan (talk) 07:22, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I did some copyediting on the essay page and Tom copied it over to Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/News/June 2010/Editorials. Don't worry about the typos, at least they are easily fixable :) —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 07:49, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and what about the project news? I know we have/had the MILMOS discussion; should that be added? Any other major things? And do we want the "From the coordinators" under project news or editorials (I ask because Woody had them in the editorial section!) —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 07:53, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I think given its usual content, "From the coords" is fine under Project news. I've updated the front page teasers so we're almost good to go. Only one other outstanding issue I can see - there's a redlink in the "From the coords" re an invitation to discuss the new newsletter; do we want to direct this to the appropriate WP:MHSTT page where newsletter development will be taking place from now on? Note that discussion is ongoing (see Kirill's link below), so I'm not sure if we're in a position to give a definitive link yet. EyeSerene^talk 08:17, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if this is suitable for the newsletter, but here it is. Just subjectively, SHIPS seems to get more efficient at cranking out high-quality articles every day; in particular, Parsecboy and Sturmvogel can crank out FA-quality articles like nobody's business. I'm seeing an increase in the number of people who are reviewing our articles at FAC ... which is fantastic ... but the problem is these FACs are turning into very long conversations, and the delegates (Sandy and Karanacs) don't like long conversations at FAC, and I don't like them either. I'm wondering if there's a way to get the message out that, while we absolutely encourage as many people as want to read our articles to comment on them at FAC, we encourage them even more to do the same thing for these articles for our A-class review, in a more reliably collegial atmosphere without so many deadlines or rules. - Dank (push to talk) 15:35, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Lol. I suddenly feel like I am at my workplace, where we try to ensure that customers don't call the national complaint line, but rather the individual owner's hotline (so "we can handle it internally"). :-) Anyway, that doesn't sound like a bad idea, seeing as a single negative !vote at FAC can multiply as others do drive-by noms based on that assessment. It can happen at ACR too, but I don't see that as often. However, I don't think we want to phrase it like that—we don't want it to be interpreted as an attack on FAC! —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 17:04, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I went ahead and created the red link for feedback; if there are no further comments on what needs to be added then I will send Cbrown a message to get our newsletter out this evening before i go to bed. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:25, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I've pointed the link to the STT/news subpage as that's where newsletter development will be taking place from now on :) I've also updated Ed's note re the STT to reflect the recent discussions. Re Dank's note, might that be a suitable editorial subject for next month (we could couch it as a general "reviewing at FAC" piece)? EyeSerene^talk 06:57, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks ES, I was worried that the note would become dated quickly, but I didn't think it would be that fast :) That might not be a bad idea. We could have the subject be a general "reviewing articles" and have two sections on A-class and FAC (or more if we include other stuff)? —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 07:05, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that might work better (maybe a comparison-type piece highlighting the differences between A-Class and FAC reviewing?). We don't want to give the (false) impression that we're having a go at anyone or anything, but Dan's concern is definitely worth raising. EyeSerene^talk 07:19, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I forgot to note this last night: Cbrown is out of town at the moment; he returns July 5. I'm waiting to leave the message until then on assumption that he would like to enjoy his vacation uninterrupted :) TomStar81 (Talk) 21:04, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I left a message with Cbrown just now, so look for this to go out sometime in the next 24-48 hours. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:49, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I just left a quick message with him because Cbrown is sending out the newsletter in the link only format—Tom, you told him we were changing it, but you didn't specify what that meant for him (ie everyone gets the "full contents")... —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 18:45, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

TomStar81 (Talk) 05:03, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

You better hide before I KILL YOU. ;) No worries, Cbrown changed it partway through, so most members got the right version! —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 05:07, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

ACRs for closure (threaded discussion)

Done two, but I can't close the Courageous class battlecruiser ACR because I've reviewed. EyeSerene^talk 17:26, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I still haven't quite figured out what I'm supposed to be doing as a coord. I can rarely close the ship articles because I'm copyediting and reviewing them, and I really don't feel competent to close other milhist A-class articles. I suppose it's like anything else, I could get competent if I devoted some major time to it ... does anyone think I'm falling down on my coord duties by not closing A-class and peer reviews? I don't have any strong feelings about how to best use my time, but I enjoy copyediting and writing most. - Dank (push to talk) 17:30, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

If I can address the competence first: there's not really any independent thought required. If an article has a minimum three supports and no outstanding criteria-based opposes, it passes. If it's been up for over 28 days, it should be closed anyway (I usually use "no consensus to promote" rather than "fail", but that's a personal preference). On the odd occasion there's a borderline case, normally in my experience where an article has two supports and some outstanding issues that appear to have been addressed, but the reviewer hasn't checked back. In those cases I tend to try to review (time permitting) rather than close - it's often an easy 'support' at that point in the process and going a day or two over the 28 doesn't do any harm in my view if another A-Class article is the result. As far as the technical aspects go, there are step by step instructions at the bottom of the A-class review instructions box. It takes a while at first because of the sheer number of different page updates, but it does get quicker with experience.

All that aside, you do what you're happiest doing :) There are no 'jobs' here, and your reviews and copyedits are far more valuable to the project than, say, my review closures. We're short of reviewers anyway - I certainly rarely have the time - so more power to you for doing your stuff. How many articles wouldn't be A-Class now if you hadn't? It's no contest. EyeSerene^talk 17:55, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, and thanks for all your closes, I don't think it's quite as easy as you make it seem. I wasn't fishing for a compliment, but I never turn them down :) - Dank (push to talk) 18:05, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome, but if it wasn't true I wouldn't say it. Unfortunately, MBK's the mainstay of the review administration process so I can't even take credit for much of that :P EyeSerene^talk 18:15, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

ACRs for closure (OMT involved close)

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/SMS Rheinland - OMT article with sufficient support -MBK₀₀₄ 12:35, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/USS Massachusetts (BB-2) - OMT article with sufficient support -MBK₀₀₄ 16:08, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Borodino class battlecruiser - OMT article with sufficient support -MBK₀₀₄ 15:13, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Hello, Is anybody able to close these or am I about to do three involved closures? -MBK₀₀₄ 18:16, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Bit short on time tonight, but if no-one has by tomorrow morning I'll do all three then (when my boss isn't looking). Ranger Steve (talk) 22:07, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
      • Drat, my boss must have heard me. Sorry, just got a phone call asking me to go to an event this morning. Not going to be at a computer. Ranger Steve (talk) 06:41, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
        • Considering that these articles have sat here for 12, 6 and 4 days. I have (in work as this is posted) gone ahead and made involved (as a fellow OMT member) closure of these three reviews as successful. I have not commented at all on each of these reviews and have made the requisite attempts to get an uninvolved coordinator to close before undertaking this course of action. -MBK₀₀₄ 03:05, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
          • No dramas from me with this. It had to be done. I am thinking of stopping my involvement with reviewing ACRs so that I can help with the closing. I could then just focus on reviewing at B class and GAN. AustralianRupert (talk) 07:30, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Strategy think tank organization

If anyone has a bit of free time, there's a discussion going on about how the new "Strategy Think Tank" should be organized that could use some opinions from more than just the three of us currently involved. :-) Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 03:24, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Collaboration with the Smithsonian Institution

I'm currently involved in setting up a Wikimedia/SI collaboration, and I think that MILHIST could potentially play a significant role in the effort; I've started a discussion at WT:MILHIST#Collaboration with the Smithsonian Institution, and any comments there would be very welcome. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 18:02, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Flagged revisions and the Military history Project

I'm aware that its only in its trail stage, but I was wondering if I might start a discussion on the matter of flagged revisions to establish two important points:

• Where you guys stand on the matter of the use of flagged revisions, and
• Should we establish some sort of guideline(s) for their use within our project should the measure be adopted?

I for one feel that flagged revisions are not worth implementing in any respect; I think they dilute the already diluted interpretation of "The free encyclopedia that anyone can edit", but mine is but one opinion in this matter, and having a sense on where everyone else stands would be appreciated as well. On the matter of guidelines for the use of flagged revisions, I think that if flagged revisions must be used they should be limited to the military BLP articles within our scope. For all other articles, I think that semi-protection should be used instead. How about the rest of you? Where do you stand on the matter? TomStar81 (Talk) 02:45, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the main point of flagged whatever is protecting BLP material. As someone who's watched the promises come and go over the last ... good lord, it's almost 4 years now ... my plan is not to care until it's actually here in a non-trial form. - Dank (push to talk) 03:27, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

P.S. I meant the discussions have been almost 4 years, it'll be 3 years for me in November. - Dank (push to talk) 03:31, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I think this is out of our scope. The use of flagged revisions ought to be determined for all articles over here, not at Milhist. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 03:29, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I know, but if they are implemented we can at least exert some control over where they end up applied within our article's scope (ie: "Flagged revisions should be used only in cases where consensus emerges that the use of flagged revisions is in the best interest of the article. In cases where flagged revisions are determined to be unneeded semi protection should be used instead.") so as to keep a handle on what they are used for. Now like you pointed out Ed, this is outside our scope specifically, but if they do decide to incorporate pending changes as policy then we can determine how our project will interpret the policy - essentially, we can observe the "spirit" of the policy rather than the "letter" of the policy. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:51, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree that discussion of flagged revisions needs to be undertaken at the Wikipedia-level. However, as one comment it has caused problems in the World War II article - the large number of rejected changes by IP editors to that article mean that the watchlist system no longer really works for it as its possible for other edits to be made in between the IP edits. Nick-D (talk) 06:38, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Indeed; flagged revisions/pending changes/whatever it's called at the moment is not really something that can be accepted or rejected by individual projects. Having said that, I do agree with Tom's point that the feature is really more suited for BLPs and other articles where there are concerns about BLP material in the text; indeed, that's the main context in which I support its use.

Nick, your experience with the WWII article would certainly be valuable input when the results of the trial are evaluated; you should probably bring it up in the relevant central discussions. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 15:43, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Will do. I've since turned flagged revisions off in the article and moved it back to semi protection. Nick-D (talk) 08:00, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I've posted comments at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Feedback#World War II Nick-D (talk) 08:21, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps we should move this to the main talk page and see where the rest of the project members stand on the matter. This would also allow us the options of adding a note about the discussion to the current events template and adding something to the bugle to see about getting additional input. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:59, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't see this as a matter for the project to consider, at this point. If the feature makes it out of a trial stage, and if it still resembles the current one at that point, and if the main policies on its use allow any discretion as to its use, then there would be something worth discussing; at the moment, however, all that we would accomplish would be to insert the project into a high-level political debate, which would have no real benefits and any number of drawbacks. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 22:01, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. We'll take a "wait and see" approach and, well, wait and see what happens :) Hopefully the proposal will be -if not dropped entirely - then at least retooled to be more specific about when and where this type of protection get used. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:49, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I've recently applied pending changes protection to an article where I'd otherwise have sprotted. Something of an experiment - I think clearer guidelines on where to use the different levels would be useful. EyeSerene^talk 10:56, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

¡Viva España!

these things are probably selling quite well in Madrid right now...

So, Spain has officially won the World Cup. As per my personal policy, this calls for beer!

Also, my condolences to Team England (and Team USA), except not really.

From your friend and former fellow coordinator, Cam ^(Chat) 03:43, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

To be fair to the USA, football just wasn't our national pastime. Now if they were playing football instead of football, then we'd have own them. In any case, thanks for the drink; having lost - twice - to ghana, I really need to drown my sorrow. Actually I think most of the soccer loving USA fans need a drink right now. Oh well, here's to the next world cup (And to officials who actually count our goals :) TomStar81 (Talk) 06:07, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Well at least the best and fair team won this year (not Fabio Grosso and Marco Materazzi) YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 06:12, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Meh - I'll keep my comments about the overpaid primadonnas in our least successful national team to myself (I prefer a real sport). Congrats to Spain though :) EyeSerene^talk 07:27, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Tom, that's because no other major country plays "our" football. :P I was rooting for the US and the Dutch from the beginning, so I'm glad both did well. The refs need more help, whether in video replays or extra men to watch for that stuff... Thanks for the condolences, Cam (except not really).

@ES - cricket isn't a "real sport." Just saying. :-) —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 07:30, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, if by 'sport' you mean something that takes less than a day to play or requires body armour... EyeSerene^talk 08:46, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Cricket involves body armour ... which is nearly all I know about it.  Roger Davies ^talk 13:05, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Heh, true I guess though only for certain very important parts of the body... EyeSerene^talk 13:10, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I can see where this heading now:

Englishman: Oh, it's Cricket. Marvelous game, really. You see, the bowler hurls the ball toward the batter who tries to play away a fine leg. He endeavors to score by dashing between the creases, provided the wicket keeper hasn't whipped his bails off, of course.

American: Anybody get that?

In all seriousness though, cricket is not a game I understand, so I couldn't evaluate its position as a 'real sport'. The only cricket I am familiar with is the kind that makes that soothing chirping noise at night, and that is always been good enough for me :) TomStar81 (Talk) 09:02, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

You know, that's not a bad explanation. US football, football, cricket, bog snorkelling... any excuse for a beer really :) EyeSerene^talk 13:01, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

And cheese-rolling - a great favourite in Gloucester (pronounced Gloster, if anyone's interested).  Roger Davies ^talk 13:09, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Don't let your wife hear that, ES – she might ban you from watching all sports! ;) @Roger, I see people running down a hill. Not sure when the cheese is rolled... but it looks fun nonetheless. :-) —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 20:05, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

They chase the cheese. I once had a go at it in Yorkshire - I mainly remember a feeling of impending doom as one's body accelerated faster than one's legs. Still, we got to eat the cheese afterwards :) EyeSerene^talk 22:04, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I hated that feeling in PE in high school where you knew you were falling forward and tried to run faster to compensate for it but you were already going as fast as your feet could carry you so the only thing left to do was brace for the impact of the fall which inevitably hurt more than you thought it would because the forward momentum also left you with some manner of friction burns in addition to the cuts and or bruises you got from falling and then ricocheting off the ground at least once before coming to a full and complete stop on whatever surface you were fortunate or unfortunate to have landed on. It was one of the major reasons I never really got into sports, just didn't have that kind of endurance for the team. And if I didn't have that kind of endurance for the team, then there is no way I going to have that kind of endurance for the cheese. (Unless its macaroni and cheese, and even then it would have to be really good MaC :) TomStar81 (Talk) 07:11, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

C'mon guys, you're missing the one true sport. And those accidents hurt a lot more... Ranger Steve (talk) 07:31, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Nope – the best sport is over here. The only time you can purposely and deliberately smack something as hard as you can at one of your friends and not get yelled at for it. ;) —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 07:39, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

No no, you're getting confused with cricket again - much harder balls too. But I'm afraid if it doesn't have wheels, I'm not interested. Shame I live in the worst country in the world for cycling.... Ranger Steve (talk) 18:00, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Testing the water

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I was quite happy to give up on this and leave it well alone in the hope it might slowly die, but the great Blablaaa wikidrama shows no signs of abating. It is now spread across no less than 2 wiki talk pages (Neutral POV Noticeboard and our own talk page, which has the longest continuos thread I think I've ever seen), at least one article talk page (at length on Talk:Operation Charnwood) and about half a dozen user talk pages.

The list of people who have fallen out with this user is long (and rapidly lengthening). I believe that most of these users have been able to look after themselves, but it has quite obviously been a stressful ride for most, which is evidenced in many of the posts (ok, I don't know this for definite, but it would certainly stress me out). I gave up on trying to help him a week or two ago, and really couldn't be bothered to have any more to do with it (despite his sudden switch to attacking me), but now User:Chaosdruid, who has spent a very long time trying to reach a compromise, is suffering more and more attacks, and Blablaa's forum shopping is now starting to make User:EnigmaMcmxc appear as if he is some sort of anti-German revisionist historian. I think this has come to a point where enough is enough; there really has been too much systematic abuse of other editors (several of whom have genuinely tried to resolve the dispute amicably and have given Blablaaa far too much of their time), too much forum shopping (cleverly trying to dress the same point up in different clothes) and too much bitching, whining and woe is me on the various talk pages (he just claimed that Chaos Druid is harassing him). I'm sure that this will quickly endear me even more to Blablaaa, but I can only remain neutral for so long in front of such disruptive behaviour.

I know that several people have now had way more than enough of this issue, so I'm sorry to bring it up again, but I felt it was worth raising here. I'm not into wiki dramas, but Blablaaa's effect on the project as a whole is starting to have some fairly negative connotations that I don't think we should ignore. I'm worried we might start losing editors because if it, and certainly any sort of "fact checking" benefit that Blablaaa might have is easily outweighed by the endless effort that editor's need to go to to work with him. Does anyone have any other opinions on the matter? Ranger Steve (talk) 19:01, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Gentlemen, I feel the time has come to take the drastic step of moving this issue to the arbitration committee. I see no end in sight for Blablaa's disruptive editing, yet his occasionally useful contributions make it difficult for the administrators and for the coordinators to effectively keep blablaa in check with the policies and guidelines on sight. It is clear by the multiple threads highlighted above that attempts at both mediation and consensus are not working, so I would like to refer the matter to the arbitration committee for two reasons.

First, the committee should be able to place restrictions on Blablaa's editing which will make it much easier for us to lock down on his disruptive behavior when it pops up. Attempts at doing this have thus far had limited results; the last time an indefinite block was imposed it was lifted three days later due to complaints that ran contrary to consensus. If the committee moves to restrict blablaa's disruptive editting with sanctions then it should be easier for us to block him and keep the articles and the POV down.

In the case of the second reason, the committee should be in a position to limit or prohibit blablaa's editing of the German articles, which I think would result in one of two possible outcomes: he will either find another niche and contribute constructively without the need to add or debate POV German issues with the rest of us, or he will ignore the committees warning and edit anyway which would allow those of us here with admin privileges to block him and revert the contributions as they occur. Note that in both cases, power would be restored to the admins and the coordinators to better govern the matter of the disruptive editing.

Before going to the Arbitration committee though I want to hear about alternatives that could be implemented. I'm growing tired of watching my editors get harassed by this guy, and IMO we are out of options to deal with this peacefully, but I am willing to listen to anyone else's ideas on what our next move should be. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:09, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Generally speaking, the Committee is unlikely to accept the matter for consideration in the absence of a prior user conduct RFC, so that should be the first step. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 21:49, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

maybe tomstar should show me any diff which can be considered german POV , so maybe tomstar you give me one? Blablaaa (talk) 05:07, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

and honestly maybe it would be ok to go somewhere with neutral admins then i will show about 50 diffs showing wrong accusations by ranger enigma chaosdruid, and so on. I will show one diff: what they claimed then i will show a dif:f where i ask for a proove and no proof followed then i will show some diifs: showing what they did. But then tomstar you will also search sanctions and restriction for them ? Iam interested if i show what people claimed and said and how much they lied and disrupted wiki with this, are you then willing to treat them like you want to treat me? I also intent to raise and issue regarding systematic bias of milhist. I asked one time for neutral help and got support and 3!! milhist editors came into the discussion and tried to argue against their decission. Iam prepared for showing several accusation and insults agsint me. Iam also prepared for showing evidence for systematic bias. The only reason why i have problems on the articles is because i dont except allied bias. I showed that sources were misused and got immediatly support by neutral editors. I would never get this support and milhist. The reason for that is obvioius. Iam hope that the committee has enought time and judges like a neutral "court". The diffs and 1000 wrong accusations against me are enought to proof the unfair behaviour against me. But please consider not blocking me until i had the chance to speak to neutral committee Blablaaa (talk) 05:16, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

We can simply start with tomstar giving me the edit which is german POV. Please show me any diff. Blablaaa (talk) 05:18, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I haven't been following what's going on with this, and frankly I don't really care. But the way the above post is written and a cursory glance at the discussion tells me four things:

1. Blablaaa needs to learn how to clearly convey his ideas, because I don't enjoy deciphering his words.
2. A user conduct RfC would be a good idea.
3. In this RfC, Blablaaa should supply these claimed diffs instead of just stating he can "show about 50 diffs". Claimed evidence != real evidence.
4. Blablaaa needs to read and understand WP:TLDR.

As a side note, I hold Ranger in very high regard. To see him so frustrated by a single individual told me a lot about the individual, even before I perused the discussion. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 05:59, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

An alternative to RFCU/ArbCom is to take this to AN/I; see what the consensus there is and whether an uninvolved administrator will intervene. AN/I can and does often also impose editing restrictions (usually topic or interaction bans). It will probably be much quicker.  Roger Davies ^talk 06:12, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I was under the impression that there had already been an ANI discussion? —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 06:24, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Yep, at WP:AN, back in April. It can always be raised again,  Roger Davies ^talk 06:34, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I think I was confused by a comment in the WT:MILHIST discussion that basically said "it is at ANI", but now I'm pretty sure that was referring to a different civility-related discussion. My bad, thanks for the clarification! —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 06:49, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually it did also go to ANI in July. Anotherclown (talk) 14:36, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

What is RFC? Blablaaa (talk) 07:38, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

A Request for Comment. It enables the community to examine user conduct and make recommendations.  Roger Davies ^talk 07:48, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

(od) I've completely washed my hands of Blablaaa and have no interest in contributing to anything he's involved in. I'll make an exception for ANI/RfC though. EyeSerene^talk 08:05, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I think an option would be if i stop editing for a while. At the moment iam collecting data to finally going to some admins and discuss the subtle bias editing of some user and the "protection" offered by admins. Iam pretty confident regarding the outcome. But iam afraid that a "possible block" would hinder me. Though i dont believe i will get blocked because i did nothing to justify a block. Furthermore people look much worse then me ( at least for neutral eyes). So i think its a good option if you postponed your attempt to block me until i brought the case, regarding what happens on milhist ww2, to the correct place. This would mean you spare some time and achieve the same result. At the moment my major interesst is eliminating the bias and this will only happen after some comittee judged this. So i dont care in charnwood or whatever. After this you can do whatever you want. Your points will look less valid after this anyways. If i dont edit ( including talk ) this is the same effect of a block so i guess this would be good deal. You immediatly stop my edits and iam safe that i can bring my report to some kind of court. Blablaaa (talk) 08:09, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I completely understand EyeSerene, and much like Ed's observation of myself (cheers Ed!), your obvious frustration is a fairly good litmus test. I'm personally more inclined toward RFC at the moment. While not opposed to ANI I'm in no rush to get any sort of results (it just can't happen with this user) and it's been there plenty of times before (there was a brief discussion there related to this drama about incivility, sorry Ed, forgot to mention that). Added to which, ANI can often turn into quite lengthy, bitter and unorganised disputes. RFC is the next step in seeking more formalised resolution and will (hopefully) let us all lay our opinions out in a slightly more organised way. In the long term it may also be better for further mediation processes (bearing in mind what Krill says about Arbitration). Ranger Steve (talk) 08:24, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd suggest a formal process like a RfC. Based on previous discussions of this editor, an ANI post will quickly turn into a very long and difficult to follow discussion with accusations being hurled around in all directions. This will probably not lead to the situation being resolved as it would be difficult for an admin to reach a conclusion. In contrast, using a RfC would impose discipline on the discussion and make it easier for uninvolved editors to reach conclusions on what's going on. This will be of benefit to Blablaaa (as he will be able to make statements and respond to other editors' statements in an easy to follow manner) and other involved editors (as they will have an opportunity to state their case and relate experiences). Nick-D (talk) 08:49, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree that an RfC/U is a better option than ANI and will establish the groundwork should other routes prove necessary. I have a couple of minor reservations: one, that participation is often limited to the involved parties; and two, that the RfC doesn't lose focus on user conduct and become a rehash of the various content disputes. However, hopefully it'll be productive.EyeSerene^talk 08:57, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Did anyone notice that i already explained that i see no value in discussing my behaviour and my future here? I want to finally report in detail the alledged bias . For this i need some time to collect data. Its also high likly that this is the end of my editing . You can plan your RFC anyway but you simply could let it and accept my "deal" which means you get exactly want you want. Blablaaa (talk) 09:07, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

That's a good point EyeSerene. I'd hope there would be enough involved parties to make it worthwhile though, but there is a danger that it could easily degenerate with this user. Ranger Steve (talk) 09:18, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

So... what next? Blablaaa has indicated that he sees no point in participating in an RfC. I'm against process for process' sake, but given his other comments in this thread it night be worthwhile anyway. Those of us who've been dealing with this since last year (when he first started contributing as an anon) have seen him come and go before, and personally I really don't want to be back here again in a few months' time with nothing resolved. EyeSerene^talk 14:26, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Likewise. Can't say I'm surprised that Blablaaa sees no value in it; admittedly there'd be no point in doing it if Blablaaa just left, but my crystal ball tells me we'll probably have to do this all over again if we don't take formal steps. That RFC rule about 2 users contacting the individual on their talk page to seek dispute resolution may fail us though - unless they can be backdated? Ranger Steve (talk) 17:05, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

The RFC certification criterion includes attempts to resolve the dispute on any talk page involved in the matter, not just the user's own talk page; from a procedural standpoint, anyone involved in the dispute on either the project pages or the article pages could potentially certify, and it's not uncommon for a dozen editors to certify in the case of a large dispute. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 02:18, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

maybe a good step would be talking directly to me because i said i could stop edting. But you prefer to ignore me, ^^ how matured... I am willing to stop participating until i reported my case in full detail to a comittee. And by the way if you finally do this RFS stuff would it be possible that a german editor takes part this would make conversation muhc more fluently and i would be able to explain the issues very detailed and short in my nativ language.Blablaaa (talk) 17:33, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

• @Rangersteve. I'm disgusted beyond words. Completely appalled.
• @TomStar81. In regards to your wall of text, you sir are hardly neutral here. You are a friend of Nick-D's (the admin who abused his tools by blocking Blablaaa 5 times). You said: "..the last time an indefinite block was imposed it was lifted three days later due to complaints that ran contrary to consensus." That is not true. The community decided that your friend Nick's block was bad. Nick, (like I said on AN) abused his tools plain and simple. Are you calling the community liars? Admin User:Jéské Couriano over turned Nick-D's block with his edit summary stating "consensus is block is bad" as seen here. Are you also calling Jeske a liar? Please try to be honest and accurate. You said: "I'm growing tired of watching my editors get harassed by this guy". Which editors? Do you mean your buddies from MILHIST? Nick? Enigma? Eyeserene? Ed? Rangersteve? Who exactly? What, you're tired because many (Enigma etc) edits/sources are questioned?? And you got upset? It's completely normal to question edits that do not correspond with sources. It's not a German POV and it's not disruptive. It's the correct thing to do to ensure NPOV is achieved. I am growing very tired of hearing "disruption", and civility and POV being used as excuses (in regards to Blab) to distract from the truth and to shut the door on open discussions. I have zero energy for political wiki games that I see too many editors playing on wiki. I'm not saying you are doing this. I'm speaking in general. However, I'm sorry, but I do not believe you are here in good faith. I've spent hours going through your history. I honestly don't trust you.
• @Tomstar81. Please also provide evidence. Give me the difs to prove your allegations in regards to a German POV? We need evidence.
• I'm deeply concerned at the large number of editors posting here, nearly all of whom have had disagreements with Blablaaa in the past or who are close friends of admin Nick-D. Nick-D, Eyeserene (buddy of Nick's), Tomstar81(buddy of Nick's), Ed (buddy of Nick's and Enigma) and RangerSteve. These are hardly a group of neutral editors.
• An RFC could be good as it would allow neutral editors to judge fairly. We need neutral outside input and not the MILHIST editors who have biased issues with Blablaaa. It would also be good if editors were able to speak honestly and freely without fear. Many of the wiki policies (CIV,NPA,AGF) are often abused by some to instil fear or to prevent folks from speaking openly, and I think that hurts the project as a whole. It's a real tragedy that Wiki does not operate the way the real world does. If wiki was more like the real world, we'd accomplish so much more through open dialogue without the fear. Caden ^cool 04:26, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm relatively sure that I have never interacted with Enigma before, thanks. When I come into a dispute, I don't allow friendships to cloud my judgment. I don't really care that Blablaaa was blocked by Nick before and it was later overturned; it has no impact on my reasoning. If my friend was wrong, then I will either tell them as much or I won't comment. I'm not going to defend a poor decision simply because a friend made it.
  • I'm confused that you are including Ranger there. He certainly was a neutral party, at least before he tried to bridge the divide but got tarred and feathered for his trouble.
  • "An RFC could be good as it would allow neutral editors to judge fairly." -- Good, we're all on the same page! We need new editors, ones who have not been party to the plethora of past disputes, to come in and provide neutral voices to hopefully build a bridge between the two sides. If that can't be done, or if one side is 'correct' (for lack of a better word), then hopefully they will be able to determine that too.
  • "It would also be good if editors were able to speak honestly and freely without fear" -- Fear of ... what? After what happened to Ranger when he tried to come in as a neutral editor, I was certainly 'fearful' of entering this dialogue. Otherwise, I don't see what you have to be afraid of unless you start attacking other people. The pendulum only swings so far on either side; one is free speech, the other is NPA. Go past a certain point and you will be blocked. So, why would you be fearful if you aren't throwing ad hominem remarks at other people? —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 05:11, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

@theEd17. "It would also be good if editors were able to speak honestly and freely without fear" -- Fear of ... what? Fear of retaliation from the abusive boot stomping civility/censorship police, for speaking the honest to God truth. And no, I'm not talking about people cussing or being vulgar or using CAPS. I'm talking about good editors being punished for speaking honestly and openly.Yes, politics do play a role on wiki whether or not people want to believe that or not. Some play the political game well (off wiki of course) and use cleaverly disguised false reasons to silence the opponent on wiki. (examples:an honest remark/observation gets turned into something its not by calling it incivility, lack of AGF, a NPA violation, thus illegal blocks get handed out) It's a real tragedy that Wiki does not operate the way the real world does. If wiki was more like the real world, we'd accomplish so much more through open dialogue without the fear of retaliation from the abusive boot stomping civility/censorship police. Caden ^cool 06:52, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

(od) I think it would be unfortunate if this page turned into yet another extension of the wider dispute. If no-one else has done so, I'll try to find the time to file an RfC/U later today. Can I respectfully suggest that we save further comment for that venue? EyeSerene^talk 07:31, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

@EyeSerene. No. No. No. Please do not file an RfC/U. You are not a neutral admin here. A report should be filed by an unbiased, neutral party, which you clearly are not. Caden ^cool 07:48, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

There is no requirement that only uninvolved parties can initiate RFC/Us. As they form part of the dispute resolution process they're actually well suited for involved parties to help them resolve the dispute. Nick-D (talk) 07:59, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I expected this from you Nick so I'm not surprised. You are a very involved party (and as you know I don't trust you from past experience) and so it's not helpful. We need a fair, unbiased, neutral party. It's the only way for justice to be judged fairly. Caden ^cool 08:12, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

What? Anyone can initiate a RFC/U; I don't see why we need "a fair, unbiased, neutral party"? We need neutral editors to participate, yes, but not to begin. I also can't understand your attack on Nick, seeing as his comment was all facts? See through your hatred, anger, or whatever it is, and read what people (and you) are writing, dude... —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 08:20, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

@Ed. "See through your hatred, anger, or whatever it is, and read what people (and you) are writing, dude..." Please do not attack me. I have read what Nick said and I responded honestly without the allegations you've made. I want a fair RFC/U to be filed. Is that too much to ask for? I do not deserve to be abused by you for asking. Caden ^cool 08:35, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

My point was that I don't see why a fair RFC/U requires an uninvolved editor to read through all the reams of text to find diffs and be able to summarize the problem. Regarding Nick, that wasn't intended as an attack... "hatred" was probably a tad too strong of a term to use. I apologize. I just don't see why you attacked Nick for a statement that consisted of pure fact. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 08:43, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

My apologies to Caden, but I think your understanding of RfC/U requirements is faulty. I'd rather not be doing this - I've got far better things to do with my time - but I really think we've reached a point where there's no choice. I've started to put together a draft at User:EyeSerene/Sandbox/RFC draft. I haven't done one of these before so any input is welcome (especially to the "Evidence of disputed behavior", "Applicable policies and guidelines", "Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute" and "Users certifying the basis for this dispute" sections). However, please bear in mind that the purpose of a draft is more to ensure the RfC is formatted and presented correctly rather than to start the actual dispute resolution process itself. EyeSerene^talk 09:09, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• @Ed. Your apology is accepted. Thank you dude :)

But I honestly did not attack Nick. I'm sorry you misunderstood me.

• @EyeSerene. Sounds fair, I misunderstood the process so go ahead with the draft :)
• Something very important has been ignored above and I'm worried. Blablaaa said:" And by the way if you finally do this RFS (RFC) stuff would it be possible that a german editor takes part this would make conversation muhc more fluently and i would be able to explain the issues very detailed and short in my nativ language.Blablaaa (talk) 17:33, 20 July 2010 (UTC)" This is a reasonable request. I support it fully without question. On a side-note I also noticed that he said he was being "ignored" and asked that yall speak to him rather than disclude him. Caden ^cool 09:25, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate that Blablaaa feels he's being ignored. I think that's a result of editors trying to discuss what to do about him while he's actually listening in; no rudeness was intended. I believe the awkwardness in these situations is a price worth paying for the transparency of conducting our business in the open, and I hope Blablaaa can forgive us for talking more about him than with him.

If Blablaaa wants a German-speaking editor to help him out with translation, that seems perfectly fair. However, I'm slightly concerned that he wants to present his case for everyone else being biased, lying and POV-pushing rather than addressing his own conduct (which is what the RfC is about). I have no objection to him making whatever arguments he sees fit, but in the interests of fairness to him I wonder if he'd be better not using this RfC to do it. I honestly don't know - as I say, it's the first RfC I've been involved with, so if anyone can advise that would be useful. EyeSerene^talk 09:52, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Though I've no doubt that I'll be seen as part of this alleged MILHIST 'conspiracy', I've added my own outside view of these proceedings to the draft RfC, and will gladly look at the RfC and endorse it when filled in. Skinny87 (talk) 11:04, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

is this draft open now ? can i reply somewhere? Blablaaa (talk) 11:12, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I think the draft is open here Blablaaa, and I would reckon that you can respond. I would suggest only making one summarised reply, however, and not multiple responses, to aid comprehension and speed of assessment once it goes live.

thank you. I think its not possible to describe the situation in a short post. I guess oversimplyfing the issue helps others more than me. I want others do read all. Truth comes with understanding the complexity. But i dont see where i can respond directly, but i will search for itBlablaaa (talk) 12:09, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Your statement should go here. Parsecboy (talk) 12:13, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

-.- dont know why i did saw this. ThanksBlablaaa (talk) 12:19, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Shall I have a go at the "Attempts to resolve the dispute" section? Looks like a good place for my input to the page (I can't really consider myself an "outside opinion" anymore). Ranger Steve (talk) 14:59, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

please do so i have already the diffs showing how you not tried to help. Blablaaa (talk) 15:55, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the snide comment, Blablaa; it really helped things move along. Please start commenting on actions, not people. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 17:24, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

and this from your side ^^ Blablaaa (talk) 18:01, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

(od) I'll leave this note here, but the draft talk page might be a better venue from now on just to keep everything central :) I think the basics are now in place, although please see my note on the talk page. Blablaaa, I don't think it matters if you take a day or two to post your response because RfCs are usually open for quite a while. You don't need to feel rushed. Thanks all, EyeSerene^talk 18:44, 21 July 2010 (UTC) people will read it they will start to get opinions. Established opinions are harder to change. Thats why i would have prefered to show enigmas ( and yours ) bias and the systematic bias before the thing started. But now people will read the wrong accusations and see no respond of me because i want to respind later. I explained my point and you choose to ignore it. Its ok we will see, good luckBlablaaa (talk) 19:39, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Now that this is live, I'd like to leave the above coversation at arm's length. I have points related to the current RFC I would like feedback on:

• Should we add this to the milhist template? In support I point out that 1)We cover current events there, and this is a current event, and 2) it would help draw more users to the rfc which could help us find more people who have an opinion on the matter. This works both ways in that it may help draw out additional members who back Blablaaa or Caden, but it also has the potential to turn the RFC into a one-sided rout if more people emerge to support our views rather than Caden and Blablaaa's views. In opposition I point out that 1) it is already listed at WP:RFC, and 2) this is project dedicate to improving wikipedia's military history related content, not a news ticker, and the rfc is not really related to milhist news beyond the fact it happens to involved a number or our editors. I expect we will here from both parties on the matter, but I remind everyone that no action will be taken until we reach consensusus on the matter, so if this ends up in the milhist template without consensus yank it out ASAP.
• At the risk of upsetting everyone involved in this I would like to see that situation resolve itself in such a way that Blablaaa ends up on probation becuase as much as I hate to admit he has raised a few valuable points in the past and if we can compell a talk first action later aproach in which edits are added by consensus from both Blablaaa and other community editors he may yet turn into a valuable assest. I know that probably doesn't sound attractive to a lot of you - Nick-D and EyeSerene are the first two people I can think of you would have a stake in seeing Blablaa gone completely - but I would prefer a situtation in which no one ends up unconditionally vioctorious.
• Most ominiously for me (and I hope the rest of you too): how did we all end up in this situation? Surely we all could have done things differently, but in the interest of learning from past mistakes I would like to hear back on whether we should have done more earlier or whether we would have ended up at rfc anyway. I see this rfc as a failure of both sides to agree with each other, and although I admit that at this point I feel the rfc is needed, I am open to hearing what we could have done differently earlier to better handle this situation. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:52, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps the best thing for now is simply to let the RFC run its course, keep all comment peripheral or otherwise to that page, and turn instead to other Milhist matters?  Roger Davies ^talk 22:00, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps that would be the best for everyone. Most of us have dwelt on this long enough. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:28, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Outstanding matters

In an attempt to keep things from slipping through the cracks, here are—to the best of my recollection—the outstanding matters that we ought to deal with in the near future:

• MILMOS reorganization

  The discussion at WT:MILHIST seems to have concluded with no opposition to our proposal, so I think we can proceed with implementing this. I think the cleanest way to move forward would be to host the three subpages in our project space initially:

  Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Style guide (Naming conventions, Usage and style, References and citations, Templates, Categories)

  Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Content guide (Article content)

  Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Notability guide (Notability)

  Once we've split the pages and cleaned up the various links to and among the guidelines, we can move the first subpage to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (military history) and create an appropriate MoS sub-category for it.

• Strategy Think Tank

  The STT seems to be languishing a bit. Assuming that we want to continue with it and bring it to full activity, I think we should make an effort to advertise its presence more; I see a number of different options:

  (a) Add it as a tab from the main page tab bar (e.g. "Strategy", next to "Logistics")

  (b) Add it as a collapsible block on the navigation template, with the main subpages listed below it

  (c) Add a note about it to the main talk page editnotice, directing editors to it for brainstorming discussions

  (d) Add a note about it to the welcome template

  Some or all of these could be implemented, depending on what we want to do. More generally, we should probably try and start some actual brainstorming discussions there (e.g. future drives, museum collaboration, etc.), but that's a bit longer-term.

• Academy

  We should try and move forward with cleaning up the academy so that it's a bit more usable as a learning tool. The first step would probably be to move the redlinks elsewhere—the STT is a good place—but then we'll need to actually roll up our sleeves and start copyediting the individual articles into more coherent form. Any ideas on how we can best organize the effort? Should we coordinate it through the STT as well?

• Military fiction task force

  When this was originally created by WP:NOVELS, there was a brief discussion here about turning it into a joint TF with them, but we decided to defer any action until we had completed our internal task force reorganization; now would probably be an appropriate time to pick this up and approach Novels with the idea again.

Any thoughts on these items would be appreciated. If anyone recalls anything else that we need to deal with, please feel free to bring it up as well. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 01:38, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Looks good. A couple of other things to perhaps consider ....

1. Is it time yet to dish out reviewers awards again, with suitable fanfares/attendant publicity?
2. Can we avoid future gaps by planning the Bugle a couple of issues in advance? And, if so, get some articles/essays commissioned for it? (If these could also be current Academy redlinks, then two birds, one stone.)

 Roger Davies ^talk 03:40, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Definitely. To the above I'd add that there are a number of outstanding discussion ideas that have been suggested over past months, such as the development of various notability guidelines, the scope of fiction in milhist (maybe another guideline), a naming guideline for foreign ranks, and how we should be using the infobox (which I think is one point we can detach from recent events as being worth further thought). I think these could all be fruitful subjects for the STT. Perhaps it would be worth creating a section where these and other ideas can be listed as they come up? Often when they're raised is not an opportune time for addressing them, and possibly not every idea is appropriate, but we ought to maintain a record both so that they don't get overlooked and to provide a bank of subjects for the STT to work on. EyeSerene^talk 06:31, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:MHSTT#Ideas ;-) Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 14:28, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Adding some now :) EyeSerene^talk 15:34, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Some replies on a couple points: I'm not sure if Novels could effectively mount any sort of opposition to it anyway, it's mostly dead.

Reviewers' awards would be good if someone will volunteer to count the lists.

I think that essays and editorials are the only things that can possibly be made ready for The Bugle long beforehand? Unless that's what you were asking for? —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 06:55, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, essays/editorials were exactly what I had in mind for advance preparation. They are time-consuming to write and benefit from mulling and polishing. Having a rolling schedule of these covering the next two/three issues makes it much easier to plan ahead. The schedule needn't be set in concrete (some things will inevitably run late anyway) but it will provide ideas for perhaps adding supporting things or updating the relvant sections of the Academy.  Roger Davies ^talk 07:27, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I think it's worth widely advertising to the project that we're encouraging submission for essays/editorials. It would be great to get more involvement from editors outside the coords/former coords circle (maybe we could even invite contributions from editors outside the project on certain subjects - User:Moonriddengirl springs to mind for a feature about copyright/plagiarism). EyeSerene^talk 09:08, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely. It's a good way of getting more Academy content too.  Roger Davies ^talk 11:17, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

So, does anyone have any further comments on the first two items (the MILMOS reorganization and the STT linking)? If not, I'll go ahead and start implementing the needed changes over the next few days. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 03:42, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

No objections to that. I think consensus is crystal clear on the MILMOS issue, and the STT ought to be linked more prominently to get us all into the habit of using it. Have you got a preference for a subject for the first brainstorming session to get things kicked off? EyeSerene^talk 07:43, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Ditto what EyeSerene said. I can't see the harm in carrying out those two actions. --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 00:51, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Thirded the above. :) —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 01:02, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I'll move forward with those two items shortly. As far as the first brainstorming topic, I'm not sure; perhaps something about the Academy, to roll in the third item in the list? Or is the expected effort there too administrative in nature to need project-wide brainstorming? Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 12:47, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, not sure really. I think there are things we could usefully discuss re the Academy: how it should be structured (eg What distinguishes a course from an essay? How do we link content together? Do we want a standard format? What should that be?...); how we oversee it; how we go about copyediting and collating what we've already got etc. Whether all this requires brainstorming or just a couple of editors with the time and stamina to take it by the scruff of the neck and get stuck in - as I've meant to do on more than one occasion - I don't know. EyeSerene^talk 14:27, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the milmos split, I was not opposed to it and I'm glad to see this moving forward. On the matter of the academy, some discussion among members concerning the questions of formatting and the difference between a course and an essay may help us grasp which way the members want to move this thing. As the for the SST: like all new things I think there is some reluctance to use it since no one is sure exactly how it is supposed to work. To borrow a little for an illustrative example, when I launched OMT it was with working groups, then that evolved into a userspace drive since using working groups seemed to tedious, then that evolved again into a special project since it was felt to be too big for the userspace or working group concepts but not big enough for a task force. Since then, three other special projects have come about since the framework for the usage of the term has been established. I suspect a similar approach here will occur, where people will refrain from using the SST until its niche is properly discerned through some manner of trial and error.

In response to your suggestions above Kirill, I think moving forward with all of those ideas would be a good idea, and we could probably cover the SST in the bugle with an interview or two from project members involved in setting it up to help drum up interest in the matter. Eventually, I would like to see the bugle evolve to the point where a once a month story concerning these somewhat lesser known areas/groups/teams that we operate are covered to help better advertise their existence to the members. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:38, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Status update

Items 1 and 2 from the list above have now been implemented; I'd appreciate it if people could take a look at the changes I've made and make sure that everything is as expected. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 02:44, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I just re-read MILMOS (except for the cat stuff) ... looking good. - Dank (push to talk) 03:18, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Possible addition to MILMOS

I have an idea for an addition to the Notability guideline. It relates to the notability of military units and formations. I've started it in my Sandbox, if you want to take a look. It will probably need tightening and is really just a rough draft. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:12, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps it should set out a provision for smaller special operations units? --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 04:18, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Patar knight, thanks for the feedback. Could you please provide an example of the type of unit you are refering to? I'm struggling to think of a way to include them at the moment and if you have an example it might help me frame the wording. Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:07, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

AR, would you mind if we took this to the STT talk page? Your proposed guideline is just the kind of thing that the STT intended for. EyeSerene^talk 12:47, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

That would neatly resolve the question of what we could start brainstorming. :-) Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 01:46, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

My thought too :) EyeSerene^talk 09:14, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I've added a section at the STT talk page. Apologies if I've formatted it badly. Please feel free to tweak if necessary. Please add any further comments over on that page. Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 10:42, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

That looks great. Thanks so much for doing this :) EyeSerene^talk 10:55, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

After discussion and tweaking on the STT and main project talk pages, I have now moved the unit and formation essay to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Notability guide. AustralianRupert (talk) 22:59, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Academy work area

Now that we've moved the list of needed Academy articles into the STT, I'm wondering if we should simplify the associated talk page structure as well. At the moment, we have three relevant pages:

• Main Academy page (contains finished articles)
• Main Academy talk page (contains all related discussion)
• Main STT page (contains missing articles)

This is probably not ideal, since (a) the "work area" for the Academy now doesn't have a dedicated talk page and (b) Academy matters are now split among both the STT and the Academy page itself.

What I'd like to do, in some form, is to pull the discussion from the Academy page into the STT as well, and leave the main page as simply the list of finished courses (similar to how our showcase is set up). At the same time, mixing Academy discussions in with the brainstorming sessions on the main STT talk page will probably be a bit confusing. In light of that, I'd like to suggest that we create a "training division" within the STT and collect all Academy activities there. This would leave us with:

• Main Academy page (contains finished articles)
• Main Academy talk page → redirected to STT training division talk page
• STT training division page (contains missing articles, other planning materials)
• STT training division talk page (contains all Academy-related discussion)

This would effectively mean that the STT training division would be the only page that people working on the Academy would need to really keep track of; the Academy page itself would just be a reader-facing one.

Thoughts? Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 13:22, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. Although it would have been nice to keep as much as possible central, I think mixing the Academy discussion with WT:MHSTT would be confusing. In creating a training division we wouldn't actually be creating extra talk pages so the overhead is basically the same. The only alternative I can think of is to segregate the STT talk page somehow. EyeSerene^talk 14:46, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I've made the changes; we now have a training division that we can use to coordinate Academy work. At some point, we should probably go through and come up with a plan for cleaning up and consolidating the current set of articles; we've been meaning to do that for a while, and it would be nice to make some progress on that in the near future. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 16:15, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

A modest proposal for The Bugle

I'm currently writing an article on article creation for The Bugle (draft here) and in doing so it occurred to me that one way to raise the profile of the existing academy articles would be to highlight one or two of them in each edition of The Bugle. This could involve including a short (one para or so) summary of the article and a link to the remainder. Nick-D (talk) 06:12, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

That's a pretty good idea, particularly now that we have the space to add a paragraph on something like this! —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 06:56, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Nick. Looks like a good topic for the Bugle, in my opinion. I love the image, of course, and can sympathise with the sappers, having put across a few bridges in my time. High Range in summer with full body armour is no treat, but not quite the same as the Miribad or Chora valleys as one might appreciate! AustralianRupert (talk) 08:08, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

One suggestion I have, Nick, is that perhaps you could find a way to mention the Requested article lists that most of the task forces maintain. The ANZSP, for instance, one is massive—mainly biographies—but it is a place that editors who are wanting to kill some redlinks might go for inspiration. AustralianRupert (talk) 08:17, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

That's a good idea - thanks for that. Nick-D (talk) 08:22, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikileaks strikes again

By now, if you haven't noticed it, the wikileaks group just unleashed nearly 100,000 papers on or relating to the afgan war to the public. At the moment (IE, as I am tying this) the article seems to be stable, but I expect that will change over the next 48 hours. Of particular note at the moment is that the issue of the article name is still up in the air, so I would ask that everyone keep an eye on this and if necessary move-lock the article at a particular name until we have the need weeklong consensus for retention of the article at its current name or a consensus to move it to a new name.

On an unrelated note, it appear that the next GRE test date will be August 17, so I am shooting to have my test on that day, and then I should be back with full force (I hope). I dislike dumping on other people what I feel I should be my part of our workload, but hopefully it will end soon. TomStar81 (Talk) 10:56, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

No problems so far, and the discussion over the name of the article isn't going anywhere. Nick-D (talk) 11:08, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I still haven't seen any problems arising from this on the articles I've got watchlisted. The nature of the material posted on the Wikileaks website also doesn't really lend itself to OR, which is a bit of a relief. From my poking about it's largely low-level operational reports and requires a lot of effort to analyse in any way - anyone with the time and motivation to do so would likely have other (and better) avenues for publishing their analysis. It also doesn't seem to be having all that big a news impact (as a lot of commentators have pointed out, the leaks showing that the NATO-led forces are bogged down don't add much to what's been being reported for the last year or so...). Nick-D (talk) 11:03, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

July newsletter

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/News/Newsletter July 2010
  • Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/News/July 2010/Project news
  • Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/News/July 2010/Project news
  • Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/News/July 2010/Editorials

With August now upon us (how fast the time flies!) We need to see about getting the July Bugle out there for the readers. The above links still need work, and I am open to ideas on what our editorials for the month should be on. I would also suggest that we consider interviewing Parsecboy since he has received only the second A-class medal with swords to be issued. A few words of encouragement for students may also be worth including being as how over the next eight weeks most students will be marching back to the classrooms for the new school year. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:48, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Tom, do you mind if we redirect this to our new newsroom? EyeSerene^talk 09:22, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Not at all. I just post here since those who tend to do most of the writing, as well as those who will send out the letter, happen to reside largely on this page. TomStar81 (Talk) 10:33, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

That's true, but unless we make a conscious effort to use the STT it's going to die a death from neglect :) I think there are advantages to having a dedicated newsdesk that will hopefully emerge as we all get into the habit of using it. Probably a reminder here every month, like the one you've posted, is still a good idea though! EyeSerene^talk 10:48, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi, all. For some reason I completely forgot about the contest, for which I will promptly give myself an upper cut. Anyway, I'm trying to verify the entries this morning (Brisbane time), however, there are quite a lot and I would appreciate it if anyone could help out (maybe if someone could start from the bottom of the list and work up, as I am going from the top down?) AustralianRupert (talk) 22:36, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok, the July contest has been verified and the results added to the newsletter. Apologies for the tardiness this month. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:32, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm sending this out on Sunday, so this is the last call for any news related matters and copyedits before the newsletter ships. If it ain't in the letter when I email Cbrown1023 it gets left behind. TomStar81 (Talk) 18:04, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Is August the edit war campaign season?

Am I right to think that there are (many) more than normal edit wars and heated content disputes going on within Wikipedia's military history articles at the moment? They seem to be springing up all over the place. Incidentally, I'm surprised that there isn't a Campaign season article given the central importance of the topic to warfare throughout human history. Nick-D (talk) 02:30, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I suspect its that people are coming back from time off; stateside this is summer vacation season, but with school set to resume many of the technologically gifted people are return to the computer terminals and this in turn correlates to higher user input and therefore higher levels of editorial agreement. I should note that I have no idea how this effects things in the southern hemisphere, but I suspect a similar correlation. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:46, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

That makes sense; certainly, editing in general tends to follow certain trends related to the academic year. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 03:14, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Interesting Information concerning FPs

According to Wikipedia:Picture of the day/Unused, this is the only 100% milhist article not to be seen on the mainpage for being too gruesome.

By chance I happened to have located Wikipedia:Picture of the day/Unused, which displays a very limited number of images that are featured but have not appeared on the mainpage. I take a quite pride in having the only explicitly designated milhist photo to be disbarred from the mainpage on grounds of being "too gruesome", however there is another image, File:Butt, Baden-Powell, Taft, Bryce2.jpg, that is listed there simply because there is insufficient information on the meeting in question to use the image on the main page. We can fix this problem if we could get some information on the meeting up and running here on site, and I for one would like have such a high res photo up for all to enjoy. According to the photo information, one of the men depicted in the image is Robert Baden-Powell, 1st Baron Baden-Powell, a lieutenant general in the British Army, that would probably be a good place to start if anyone would like to take up the challenge. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:58, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

There are two military men in that photo (along with a sitting President of the United States) in front of the White House: Archibald Butt was a Major in the US Army and advisor to Presidents Roosevelt and Taft until his death during the sinking of RMS Titanic. This photo was taken only two months before. Also Baden-Powell is the founder of Boy Scouts. -MBK₀₀₄ 04:01, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

The Baden-Powell picture seems to have more to do with scouting than Milhist. It's part of a series ([1], [2], [3], [4], [5]) possibly related to Taft becoming the first Chief Scout.  Roger Davies ^talk 19:37, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Interesting article in this week's signpost

The article on the decreasing number of RfAs at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2010-08-09/Admin stats is well worth a read. Any current or former coordinators of this project and most editors who've taken the lead with an FA would have no difficulties passing a RfA, and the more admins around the better... Nick-D (talk) 10:54, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed  Ed (talk • majestic titan) 18:41, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

From the position of the milhist coordinators (past and present), the candidates for adminstratorship (excluding those already admins and those who have departed or edit irregularly for the past six months or more) would be:

• Cla68 (talk · contribs)
• Bedford (talk · contribs)
• Catalan (talk · contribs)
• Maralia (talk · contribs)
• Abraham, B.S. (talk · contribs)
• Ian Rose (talk · contribs)
• Jackyd101 (talk · contribs)
• Joe N (talk · contribs)
• Lordoliver (talk · contribs)
• Skinny87 (talk · contribs)
• AustralianRupert (talk · contribs)
• MisterBee1966 (talk · contribs)
• Ranger Steve (talk · contribs)

Of these candidates, some already have rollback/reviewer rights, some have had rfa's, and in one case, the user was an admin but was demoted such as it were after an incident. Members listed below Skinny 87 are members of the current admin coordinator tranche. Note that this list may not reflect the presence of an "I do not wish to be an admin" template or disclaimer, this is merely intended to be a snapshot of coordinators who we could approach to see if they held any interest in being admins. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:53, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Considering activity levels and divisiveness (climate change comes to mind, no offense to Cla, you know I love your Japanese capital ship knowledge!), I think Bryce, Ian, Aussie, MB1966, and Ranger are the only ones with a shot at passing. On the flip side, this very discussion could damage their chances, as people might view it as 'milhist cabaling' or something like that...  Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 07:23, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, not only am I quite inactive at the moment, but I have no desire to get entered into the crapshoot/slander contest that is RfA. Skinny87 (talk) 09:53, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm flattered by the above comments, but having read several RFA's in the past I just don't really have the desire to get involved in that whole process. There seems to be an emphasis on "what more will you do / what other areas will you work in if you become an admin?" at these things, which strikes me as the wrong sort of attitude in a volunteer project. Ranger Steve (talk) 10:00, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Quite honestly, I don't blame either of you. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 14:28, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I've been thinking about throwing my hat into the ring, but not until early next year. I've gone back to uni this year and I won't have the time until my course is over. At the moment I've found that my article output has become almost zero, which I find disappointing, although I am working on a couple of articles offline at the moment which should hopefully be finished in the next few weeks. AustralianRupert (talk) 22:06, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Just stumbled on this RFA which I think helps to summarise the problems with the whole process a little. Some terrible reasons for oppose from some less than saintly editors, (including some admins with far worse examples of their own). What fun! Ranger Steve (talk) 11:40, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

On the other hand, Nev is on track to be confirmed as an admin, so the process is working there (it seems worth noting that as a former admin seeking reinstatement they'll inevitably attract some opposes from editors who they've ruled against). Several of the questions s/he's been asked seem to be broad policy matters which are beyond the scope of individual admins to act upon though. Nick-D (talk) 11:59, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Unassessed articles and those without task forces

Hi all, the number of articles sitting in the unassessed and without task force category has risen dramatically the past few days. I'm trying to do a few (and I think some other editors are working on this too), but we seem to be losing the battle. If anyone is looking for some gnomish work, I'd appreciate the help. Even if every co-ord just did 5 a day, we'd make a bit of a dent and it doesn't take much more than a minute or so to add the task forces, although it can take a little longer to assess, of course. Just a thought. Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 06:35, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I noticed a new editor to MILHIST was doing a massive assessment run a few days ago but forgot to leave a mention here. My apologies -MBK₀₀₄ 14:30, 13 August 2010 (UTC)