The July 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:13, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello - thanks for the note. It has indeed been a while. I've been not particularly active for quite a while now, so that's probably part of it. It's good to see some old-timers are still about the place. john k (talk) 21:01, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Regarding the Doctor Steel article, specifically which part(s) were you referring to when you added the Peacock label? I was not in on the original writing of this article but was brought in afterward and have been endeavoring to help clean up the article and make it conform to Wikipedia standards, add citations and remove hyperbolic language. I have edited quite a lot of it, but if you could point out specific points you objected to, that would be appreciated, as outside objective observation is always helpful. (I personally have suggested to the committee a rewrite or removal of the first section, "Youth".) We wish to work with Wikipedia in good faith on this article, to as much as possible make it objective rather than sensationalist (unlike previous efforts). Thank you. --Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 09:45, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Llywrch, the entire article has been revised top to bottom, not just by me but by several admins working on concert. Since you added the Peacock tag, I think it's protocol that you remove it? Thanks. --Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 04:45, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Llywrch, You are the first one so far who has had the decency to return to AN/I having realized that you made an error. I'll say that in your favour. In recent days there have been a number of others, who despite my prompting, have not done as you have done. There has been too much false inuendo made at AN/I and too many knee jerk reactions as a result. Alot of this trouble could be avoided if the issues in question were more thoroughly investigated. You can see the chronology of events if you go to my entry of 1st August 2009 on Brews ohare's talk page. It's rather rich that after only 18 days, I managed to get page banned for 'persistent' disruption when the dispute has been going on for months and is still going on right now. David Tombe (talk) 12:55, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for returning my message. Tagging the sentences would be a good idea, but I'm not really well-versed on the subject of "tags" here, so I'm not sure how to reply. I'd say if you posted a list of the lines and the section(s) they were in to my talk page, that would also suffice. I could then forward that list to the appropriate people.

I informed the committee that wrote the original article and they are already looking at the "Youth" paragraph (the section I assume was most objectionable) and conferring with Doctor Steel, whether to rewrite or edit it or simply remove it altogether.

Appreciate your help. Any other style points you might have for us would likewise be appreciated. --Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 23:37, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Regarding his onstage persona: I realized yesterday that that paragraph had no documentation, so I took care of that. Much of his onstage persona's backstory is in musical form in his songs, "Lament for a Toy Factory" and "Dr. Steel"; I linked to pages which contained the lyrics of those two songs. Hopefully this will be sufficient.
  
  Regarding the content in the Youth section: As far as I know, this is what Dr. Steel has shared with interviewers about his past. The section links to the bio he wrote of himself on his website. If there is a better way of referencing this, please let me know. Or perhaps that section should be a quotation from him with reference, instead? Thanks. --Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 00:08, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am eager to take my eyes out of their sockets and put them in ice, perhaps do the same with my brain. Too many hours stuck to the screen, that is. But I just had to drop you a word before I retire into Morpheus deceitful blessings. I have been trying to force some sense into my Strategic Planning Proposal:Divide Wikipedia (you see trouble began with the very title) and in the process of looking for simlar proposals - you'd be astounded how many there are - I stumbled upon the second I read, Proposal:Stupidity of Increasingly Smaller Crowds, where you were kind enough to leave me an answer to my comentary on your commentary. I just wanted to thank you for the link - yet another world within wikipedia's world is revealed to my devouring curiosity. Regards, -- Thamus ^joyfulnoise 09:40, 31 August 2009 (UTC) P.S. sorry for the red links - can't figure out why so. Perhaps you may tell me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thamus (talk • contribs) 09:41, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can has thanks [1]. Awickert (talk) 21:17, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Once again Llywrch, I have to thank you for intervening when you saw an obvious injustice. You didn't have to do so, and since we first got off together on the wrong note, the fact that you intervened here goes very much in your favour. David Tombe (talk) 23:03, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there again. Thank you so much for your prompt and useful answer about the links. I hope this won't be imposing on you too much, but I am bewildered about the reactions I am getting on http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposal_talk:Divide_Wikipedia and wondered if you could give your views on wether it is I who can't express myself or people just don't read. Should I change the title? Can the main ideas be understood, or do I need to rewrite the wole thing? Or just complete it? Or...? Please don't feel obliged even to answer, but if you feel inclined to :), could u use my talk page or mail? Will be very stressed for the next couple of weeks and have to limit wikitime dramatically :( I am making the same request to other people here whose judgement I respect. Also, about laissez faire, I'd say, for now, that I am too young here to express any thoughts that could be valuable to you, but i need to read it again much more closely. So far, it certainly clarified your position, and I thank you again for expanding my view. Saludos, -- Thamus ^joyfulnoise 16:28, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Egyptian_chronology&curid=2662428&diff=311684684&oldid=309464779 this edit as anything else than a personal attack on me. Why did you find that necessary? Dougweller (talk) 17:56, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fine explanation, I've replied on my talk page. No problem then. Dougweller (talk) 18:34, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 12 September!
Many thanks,  Roger Davies ^talk 04:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia_talk:Article_Rescue_Squadron#Inclusionism_and_Deletionism_debate_between_two_prominent_editors PING. I was thinking of letting editors submit questions, let me know what you think of this question, ASAP. If you are on, let me know. Ben seems to be on a vacation, so I may proceed ASAP. Ikip (talk) 01:15, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to hold off on this for now, thanks for your comments :) Ikip (talk) 19:36, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Made the move from 'beating' as per various discussions on the talk page, in which you took part in favour of the move. -- Ishel99 (talk) 02:12, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heh heh, thanks for the feedback... yes, I was surprised to see for how long the move had been mooted but no-one had actually done it. It wasn't simple as it required another move from the article name I wanted to use to Flogging a Dead Horse (album) and then a request for an admin to remove the resulting redirect... and then presto, made the move this morning. Not earth-shattering, just another tiny drop in the vast ocean of Wikipedia. =^^= -- Ishel99 (talk) 05:55, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

HI! Hope you are happy with the new better quality svg I requested. I noticed thought it looks better at 300px like Asaita because of the scale.

Also I wonderd if you could create a set of navigation templates by province to connect the woredas. E.g Gewane (woreda) I want to navigate to the other woredas of the province but not even the category does...

Himalayan 19:53, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe yes! No this time it was done from my Tibetan monastery... Harar looks good I think, dunno if 300 is maybe a little too big maybe 260 or 280 might work better. If the map is featured above standard size it looks much better I think.. For the woredas, I would recommend something in the format of Template:Ararat. Of course you could use standard nav colors and I dunno if the provinces are split into districts or not. If so they can be organized in the same way lisitng the worderas under each district by section of the province. If not then they can all go in one bunch. If you like I can do one province as an example to follow? I'm a bit tied at the mo I'm just finishing off the huge transwikiying of Culture of Tunisia! Himalayan 20:11, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I see they have zones like Administrative Zone 3 (Afar) etc so best to organize those at the side and the woredas within them. Himalayan 20:15, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Howz

OK? Himalayan 20:24, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, the Oromia Region is huge isn't it. Well if there ar emore than 20 zones anyway they won't fit down the side. If there are under 20 zones it will fit but you'd have to shrink the template to default close. Himalayan 20:30, 11 September 2009 (UTC) Also, have you considered a way we might be able to make our own woreda location maps? I think these woreda articles would be improved with a highlighted locator map within the region and zone? Himalayan 20:33, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's definately the most awkward thing a government can do is keep restructuring districts and overlapping and merging some whilst splitting others. Especially when other sources name certain towns under a former division and the maps are still in the articles of the former districts it makes it a nightmare to try to work out what is which. Senegal did this recently, and I know numerous other African nations like DR Congo have done it too. Himalayan 20:42, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is the same with the majority of the African countries, particularly on small towns and villages. What is remarkable is how far you've managed to find some data and be able to write articles at least with some useful text. Try finding info on the web to expand an article on a small town in, evne a major city in Gabon, Guinea or Liberia or something for anything other than the capital city online and as yet there is very little. Liberia apparently had a census in 2008, I am yet to see anything.... Thanks to your work we actually have something half decent on many small towns and they set a good initial example for the others to follow. Himalayan 20:58, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, its definately getting better all the time, just look for instance how many new language translation services google has recently expanded in. When I started on the wiki there was practically nothing for a lot of places. At least even countries like Gabon are growing on the web, particularly with government websites and newpapers making access to knowledge easier. The web is still in its infancy and still in its teething stages in many African countries, so it will get better, undoubtedly. Yes I managed to find some info mostly through aid sites on places like Gory, Mali. They have info on over 200 communes which is something.. Himalayan 21:16, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any chance you could create some new articles on towns in regions such as the Gambela Region Category:Cities, towns and villages in the Gambela Region to even up the coverage a bit. It seems that some regions are much better covered than others. Is there a reason for this? Is there info for towns in Gambela for instance? Himalayan 11:09, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Urgh, google search for Tergol showed this. Himalayan 11:12, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, on going where the info flows anway. Not much point in creating Tergol if it can't be expanded by anybody. As long as it is a verifiable inhabited settlement I doubt it would be AFD'd, much less deleted but it would be haning around as a short stub for a long time.. That is exactly why I didn't start it because of lack of info. Good job on those settlements, aparticularly the Djibouti one.. Himalayan 17:26, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'm pretty sure you could out do Guigba anyway. 95% of these Algerian town articles contain zilch info.. Himalayan 18:35, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well they are all virtually as poorly developed as that. I did expand Akbou and an adjacent commune earlier from French wiki but they really need proper citations. At least the info on French wikipedia on some of the places is a start to begin expanding them, a lot of their other commune stubs are like Guigba. Himalayan 18:52, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I didn't think you meant for me to expand it right away, for a lot of places as with Ethiopia there is not much online it really is uneven. I know, it really gets very frustrating at times that well over 2.5 million of our articles really lack basic information or are unreferenced/have issues. The people who really seem to care about places in the developing world like us are really extremely low on here and however much time we devote to trying to improve the situation we will never be able to get done what we want. This site potentially has enormous potential but in many areas we are really under achieving. Even articles about medium sized American and Canadian towns are mostly very poor articles!! I'm sure you;ve come across some of the unincorporated community articles.... Sometimes I wonder given the size of the United States and the amount of editors on here why even many important American topics are neglected, whether they are forest parks, rivers or lakes or towns etc. Even the article on Las Vegas is pretty poorly written and referenced. DOn't know about you but it really annoys me when I see tens evne hundreds of editors involved in some dispute over an editor or one article and spend days even weeks endlessly discussing and arguing over it while 80% of our stubs are lying around. Even if 1/10 of those involved in wiki drama and hang out at ANI on here helped actually write articles we'd get places fast. Himalayan 19:09, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shock horror, one of those !!! this was still missing!!! moments for Alula Engida. Nice job! Well done! Himalayan 19:20, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The August 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:31, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the nice language map links! Greetings, Landroving Linguist (talk) 17:47, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Voting in the Military history WikiProject coordinator election has now started. The aim is to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of sixteen candidates. Please vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on 26 September!
For the coordinators,  Roger Davies ^talk 22:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, your recent edit has probably caused a big increase to the number of unassessed articles. If you don't want to use Image-Class, Portal-Class, etc. you can at least classify them as NA-Class to show that they don't need assessing? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:06, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FA	A	GA	B	C	Start	Stub	FL	List	Category	Disambig	Draft	File	Portal	Project	Redirect	Template	NA	???	Total
2	0	19	176	439	2,141	2,209	1	154	2,680	27	21	25	1	63	186	186	9	111	8,450

I'm not sure I understand your point. AFAIK, there ought not to be any unassessed Ethiopia-related articles -- except for the two "C" class assessments I know about. Looking at the 35 that popped up on that banner, they all appear to be disambiguation pages -- which I'm not concerned about & will removed the WP:Ethiopia tags from. (If someone volunteers to watch those Ethiopia-related disambig tags, I'll change it back -- it's just that I'm not interested in doing the work, & at the moment I'm the only one in the WikiProject.) -- llywrch (talk) 16:08, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I wasn't clear. I was only trying to save you some time. With this edit I have made it so that non-articles will automatically be classified as NA-class, so you shouldn't need to change any of them manually. However, I notice that {{AfricaProject}} is still using all these classes (including C-class), so unfortunately the categories can't be deleted ... — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:31, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, now I understand. I didn't know those parameters could be assigned multiple values. -- llywrch (talk) 16:38, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, we now have a new map for Sudan and Senegal too. Just checked out Akobo, Sudan which I stubbed a while back. It has been expanded but unreferenced and maybe controversial! Himalayan 11:41, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a case of double mutual categorization. What good would either category be if it lacked the element categorized solely in the other? --Mr Accountable (talk) 20:48, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, that makes a lot of sense, I'm going to go ahead and do it. --Mr Accountable (talk) 21:02, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As you're an admin and a member of Milhist, you may wish to add your name here. Thanks,  Roger Davies ^talk 14:52, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On September 27, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Alula Engida, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 08:28, 27 September 2009 (UTC) 12:42, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Since you're an admin and a member of the Military History WikiProject, feel free to list yourself here. Cheers, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:36, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if you noticed it, so I'll drop you a line here. I left a suggestion for your review on its talk page. We can publish it this week if you're through with it, or push it back if you want to make some changes.--ragesoss (talk) 00:12, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thought you might want to comment. Himalayan 12:33, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I personally don't think he is notable, (but probably little different in terms of level of actitivy and notbaility than thousands of other articles on here) but I wanted to know what you thought... I mean immunoglobulin is, but having a biography about him especially I'm not to sure... Himalayan 16:31, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, I dare say in a lot of cases people turn out to be more notable than one might think because of the language barrier. But if I come across a vanity article that reads like a CV I get suspicious, as one does briwsing through articles about Pakistani business and military figures for instance.... Himalayan 16:46, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well take for instance Shahzada Alam Monnoo. Your typical Pakistani biography article on here. Now it does indicate notability in part but is obviously completely unreferenced but in some parts it gets a bit suspicious because of the way it is written. Having read that article there is nothing in it which makes me inclined to believe a word it says. If however it was well referenced to reliable sources, wikified and cleaned up it would give me a whole new outlook on it. Unfortunately the number of articles that exist like this make finding a place to start very daunting... Himalayan 16:52, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. I believe the man is notable and there are sources that exist which prove it he is an influential figure in commerce in Pakistan but it s the way that is is written and presented which mostly gives a wrong impression. I guess at least it does mention he was Minister of Commerce, similar articles would probably just say "he is very rich man, Pakistani PM thinks he is bestest mill owner in Lahore district. Himalayan 17:05, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK that Abba Garima Monastery, located near Adwa, Ethiopia contains the crown of the Emperor Zara Yaqob of the Solomonic dynasty? I've made a start on this article... Would be nice to find a photo.. Himalayan 14:40, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes thats a DYK hook. Yes I thought that map looked quite rare too, glad it helps. Himalayan 16:23, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I may have a solution to the "roughly equivalent to Duke" issue found in the Tekle Haymanot of Gojjam article ... and all other related articles. Please let me know what you think. Thanks! Mkpumphrey (talk) 14:10, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The September 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:50, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'll draw up the bones for the templates at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethiopia/Woreda templates. Himalayan 11:51, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dunno about emailing... Well I'll leave it up to go to organize the templates to your wishes, in your own time... Himalayan 16:10, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well there is of course the option to display them like Template:Tehsils of Punjab (Pakistan). The zone and then the woredas if there are too many zones to fit down the side.. Himalayan 16:29, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ya, I asked him to! Not a cooincidence... He can do it quicker than me using AWB... Himalayan 17:24, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail!--Crossmr (talk) 07:32, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I just read article about Benishangul-Gumuz Region and there seems to be a problem with census data about religion. According to the article, 1994 census recorded 44.1% Muslims and 34.8% Orthodox Christians, while 2007 recorded 95.6% Orthodox Christians and 4.0% Muslims. It is highly imposible that such drastical change in religion makeup of the region could happen in 13 years period, so the most logical conclusion is that data from one of the censuses is incorrect. Since you was a person that posted 2007 census results into article (1994 results were posted by anonymous user), can you please check your data again to be sure that it is correct? PANONIAN 20:07, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article itself is unclear - were the elections only for vacant seats, or were they full elections for the local authorities? пﮟოьεԻ 57 19:17, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You should probably rename the article "Ethiopian local elections, 2008", and add the by-elections as an addition to the article. Then there can be a section on the template for local elections (as there is here. пﮟოьεԻ 57 19:28, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It causes me a lot of grief that you are so determined to spread lies about the Ethiopian Orthodox Church in direct contradiction of their own position, presenting them as if they were truth. Do you not have anything better to do with your time. I am more than prepared to take this to higher mediation or arbitration, as it violates every aspect of the NPOV policy. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 16:49, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Partisan badgering from Til Eulenspiegel? The shock! Seriously, Til, this kind of behavior will not result in improvement to the article (or even in getting what you want). All it does is create a toxic atmosphere no reasonable person would want to enter.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:36, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cuchullain, your snide comments do not change any of the facts one iota; what exactly do they accomplish? However, I am content with your latest edit, attributing by name the actual authors who stated their opinion, so considering how delicate this is I would advise keeping the current status quo of that sentence. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 17:46, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've explained my position on the matter to T.E. on her Talk page. However, C. might understand one of the reasons I procrastinated in organizing the notes I have accumulated to write Christological disputes in Ethiopia. In any case, I suggested a solution on her Talk page that would benefit everyone involved in the matter; I consider this matter closed, & would appreciate both of you taking your discussion elsewhere. -- llywrch (talk) 18:23, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see this discussion. It's less intriguing than it seems. Durova³⁵⁵ 21:27, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello--You left this comment. Another admin (Xavexgoem) left this one. I just wanted to get a feel for "what happens next" in regard to that AN/I. Is the discussion effectively over now, or is it worth continuing? Is it your judgment that we should let things lie until there are more problems, and then do something? Would we start another AN/I if there is a repeat of similar troubles or head to ArbCom (about which I know almost nothing)? Should we consider Skipsievert "officially warned" to change their behavior in some way?

Anyway, thanks. I'm just trying to figure out where things lie. I'm going to leave a similar message for Xavexgoem here. CRETOG8(t/c) 02:57, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Skipsievert and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Requesting Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, The Four Deuces (talk) 19:54, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your post to Wikipedia talk:Categorization of people#Ethiopian names of 04 October —

Would you be so kind as to correct the incorrect applications of values for {{DEFAULTSORT}} and |listas= that you find rather than revert them?

It is the desire of the Biography WikiProject that all articles covered by the project have a values for {{DEFAULTSORT}} and |listas=. To this end there are a few editors who are working on the pages in Category:Biography articles without listas parameter and are applying values. None of us is an expert on every naming convention and none of us pretends to be. Reverting the previous attempt without an edit summary that is instructional only throws the alligator back into the swamp where another editor, who generally does not have the time to read the history of the file and the clever edit summaries, will do his or her best to apply a sort value.

It would also be helpful if you were to scan the pages of Category:Biography articles without listas parameter for Ethopians and add the correct sort values so that neither a human nor a bot will be prompted to add one that is incorrect. That is only a suggestion and it is completely understandable if you do not have the time to scan 150 pages of any category.

Thank you for your cooperation, support and assistance. JimCubb (talk) 05:45, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

hi, I have made some changes to the article as advised in the review, please check it again for further suggestions if any. regards... الله أكبرMohammad Adil 18:23, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a member of the Military history WikiProject or World War I task force, you may be interested in competing in the Henry Allingham International Contest! The contest aims to improve article quality and member participation within the World War I task force. It will also be a step in preparing for Operation Great War Centennial, the project's commemorative effort for the World War I centenary.

If you would like to participate, please sign up by 11 November 2009, 00:00, when the first round is scheduled to begin! You can sign up here, read up on the rules here, and discuss the contest here!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:38, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The October 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:38, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I want to say thanks, for your help & recommendations at WP:ANI. Appreciate it very much. Koplimek (talk) 17:11, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's okay. The whole forgetthetalkies issue has been an ongoing problem for over a year. In regard to this one article, the addition of the link by Koplimek isn't linkspam, but the issue of the site itself has been an issue of linkspam by the website owner. That was why it ended up listed by linkbot, but in being asked why a link is removed, how else would one explain it? The problem regarding the Surratt article is that no one has added the filmography to the article, but instead is content to leave it a link in the external links section. In that regard, it isn't duplicate information, since it isn't in the article. I suggested adding the filmography, but that hasn't been done. Thoughts? Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:11, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I understand now. Apparently, I wasn't comprehending what you said. Yes, in this case, IMDB is far more reliable than a fan page. Even if the creator believes it is well researched, and it may well be, it is still a self-published website. Thanks for clarifying that. I am still bothered that the editor misrepresented my statements about sourcing and sources. I believe sincerely that when someone is adding content that says this actress and that actress and another actress had abortions, living or dead, it should be cited when it is added. I never called a source unreliable, but I guess I can live with that. Wildhartlivie (talk) 17:24, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Since TomBaker321 has responded at length beneath your response to my objection, I am responding here to avoid inspiring another extended response.)

Perhaps the topic can be hat closed (without result) on the procedural error of no prior discussion on my talk page—with the understanding that the "extraordinary measures" in the wake of the current-events inspired contention are now concluded. Is that acceptable? Proofreader77 (talk) 21:47, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Negative response (on my talk) acknowledged. Proofreader77 (talk) 21:52, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Llywrch, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I declined the speedy deletion of James Wilkes (theatre) - a page you tagged - because: association with notable productions and groups is significant. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know.  Skomorokh, barbarian  04:56, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problems. I only added that comment after I had stupidly changed the assessment automatically with the Biography assessment, and found it didn't appear because it wasn't incorporated into the banner. And I can well understand the headache of trying to change the banner, so no problem. John Carter (talk) 17:56, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks mate... but I scrambled the password deliberately on the old account... Tim Starling offered to recover the password for me some time ago but it's far too tempting!

Congrats on becoming a parent! - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 04:38, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Wow, I can't believe I didn't notice this until this long after the fact... just for a very bad reason. This (on your end) would have started here with a polite chime-in some days ago. To explain the situation-- at that point, the ANI had been up for well over 24 hours with zero admin input. Seeing any there for 6-8+ I feel bad ignoring unless obvious rubbish.. One thing I've noticed is that ANI is becoming a catch-all for every incident board including the incredibly straightforward 3RR and RPPs and number of admins about seems to be down. Thanks for poking your head out on my behalf. I'm aware of my newness but the only difference from now and a month ago is that I only seem to confirm things to self twice instead of 3-5 times. Others have asked before... I have awful (actual) insomnia and like the Wikipedia namespace for unknown reasons, so 2 months turns what could be an equivalent 6+ months of posts and research. I've taken to calling suicidally-bold rollbackers "Brooms", trying to arrange things for quick Mop polish work.

What I will do: Edit/Revert in BLP incidents, mark as resolved any discussion that required no admin interaction, suggest 100% voluntary editor restrictions, evidence collection for AIV AN SPI, etc, general greetings to slowly start the discussion as a stop-gap clarification of "until an admin...". Learned that a sense of humor is quite a must and that laughing at all involved parties works best. Bad for me to do: Any use of the word "block". Ever. Only if 2+ steps removed and hypothetical. By definition, I'm not qualified to state where it might apply or give an opinion even on things like 3RR on my own. Discussion once the word "block" is evoked also to be avoided, solely adding evidence if it comes up. Finally, to always make it abundantly clear I am not an admin, if there appears to be even a chance of immediate need I'll again make my status very clear. Both of these word restrictions apply to any namespace, any page.

Doing that, I've yet to be even close to eaten alive akin to this until now. Since my highest edit count article is ANI, I assume others don't care or don't notice. The exceptionally sad thing is that the ANI is still open and I see you participating there. It's literally a 180 of how it started, only with a fervent defender. My intuition seems to have been right from what I said 6 & 5 days ago and after suggestion of just walking away a week... doesn't help you though, sadly. Sigh. Also proven to be a massive waste of time to all, and hopefully you can finish it, as I gave up about 3 days ago. Also good to have actual admins around while I'm learning how to deal with stress on debates lasting 3-4+ days straight. I'm always very verbose, which I apologize for, but I figure I owed an explanation as to why I unilaterally did something that out of place. I've done far stranger lately, being why I was confused at the user objection here. Thanks again~ Cheers~ ♪ daTheisen(talk) 09:28, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The November 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:05, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: This topic on Gwen Gale's talk -- Proofreader77 (talk) 00:59, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Please see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gwen_Gale#Proofreader77....Again --Tombaker321 (talk) 00:36, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Llywrch! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 2 of the articles that you created are Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. Please note that all biographies of living persons must be sourced. If you were to add reliable, secondary sources to these articles, it would greatly help us with the current 942 article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the list:

1. Beyene Petros - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
2. Mikael Imru - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 19:03, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The December 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:48, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Llywrch,

I recieved your message. I have no problem with you moving it down, and you were right, I covered the whole thing up. Thanks for catching that!

_{Naluboutes,Nalubotes}^{Aeria Gloris,Aeria Gloris} 21:43, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Llywrch, it seems that Binarygal is pretty insistent on repeating her claims of a conspiracy theory against the ITIL page, even after I archived the page to stop the drama Ash reverted, then you quite shortly came along and did an archive hide, but Binarygal is continuing to argue.

What do you say we stop this rot by removing any more edits she writes about ITIL and conspiracies on site? I've commented on WP:AN/I to this effect. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 23:42, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you an e-mail. --Tenmei (talk) 08:01, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your time and consideration. As a gesture of appreciation, may I share a rhetorical question from the Analects of Confucius: "Is it not pleasant to learn with a constant perseverance and application?" --Tenmei (talk) 00:11, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I should give you a heads-up on this ANI regarding Proofreader77 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Proofreader77_Established_record_of_continuous_unrelenting_Disruptive_Editing

--Tombaker321 (talk) 09:19, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Llywrch! The requirements for the service awards have been updated, and you may no longer be eligible for the award you currently display. Don't worry! Since you have already earned your award, you are free to keep displaying it. However, you may also wish to update to the current system. Sorry for any inconvenience. — the Man in Question (in question) 10:20, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pls feel free to add an Ancient Egyptian banner to this article's talkpage which I created here I don't edit too much on wikipedia nowadays due to my poor health as Dougweller knows. But I felt Mereruka deserved an article seeing his importance in the 6th dynasty of Egypt and the presence of quality photos for him. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 00:11, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for your help and your sympathy. I mostly edit on Commons nowadays which is more stress free and features less vandalism. Here is my account there: [2] With kind Regards from Vancouver, Canada --Leoboudv (talk) 10:17, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to this edit, were there any Cuban military personnel involved in the Eritrean War of Independence in sufficient numbers to justify this infobox? I'm asking as a sanity check because my own opinion -- based on my incomplete knowledge of the event -- is that there weren't. -- llywrch (talk) 19:58, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please find EPLA Press Release 1978-05-13, "... ~3500 Cuban troops in Asmara ..." Further please find, "The Cubans ran the logistical back up for Ethiopia in the war theater of Eritrea ..." Kaplan, Robert, Surrender or Starve Merhawie (talk) 21:07, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That sort of action, constantly editing/collapsing/archiving by some people, usually leads to the banning of people who restore the previous text, which is why I didn't do it myself - I don't need the hassle. TheGoodLocust (talk) 00:27, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It had nothing to do with Abd's restriction--I'd no idea Abd had any restriction and I don't even think he had commented at the time I removed it. I did so because a discussion that had a chance of reaching consensus was being turned into a straw poll in which people talk past one another and engage in an effort to demonstrate numerical superiority. GoRight was encouraging this by getting his fans to march over and vote. Removing the bolding did help to get people discussing the issues again. I'd no intention of causing any disruption, and indeed none is demonstrable in my opinion. Killing the tendency to line up and vote is very much a good thing. I would have removed the bullet points, too, if I could have done so efficiently. --TS 18:00, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Except for one example (that one on Siegenthaler), I am unfamiliar with another biographical article about a living person which is unduly problematic." [3]

Have you ever performed OTRS patrol? That kind of comment is truly depressing. --TS 21:40, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What I find depressing is when someone who knows the strengths & weaknesses of communication on Wikipedia writes something completely oblivious to them. Don't imply credentials or expertise where none are otherwise accepted without further proof. Your comment implies that you, Tony, have performed OTRS patrol; can you prove you have, or have reliable information about that? How does that experience relate to the issue? Can you provide reliable information from OTRS to substantiate your assertion? And if so, perhaps it would be more to your advantage to share it at the RfC, rather than on the talk page of a long-term Wikipedian who doesn't trust your uncorroborated assertions. -- llywrch (talk) 22:41, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've performed OTRS patrol. I'm asking whether you have. Why are you so defensive about this? You evince a disconcerting ignorance about the vast numbers of problematic biographies of living persons, so I having talked to real, living, breathing people about their reasonable requests that something be done about the false, poorly sourced or unsourced harmful statements about them, asked whether you had ever shared that experience. --TS 00:37, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You definitely need to improve your reading comprehension skills. My response was intended to point out failings in your response, & offer what I thought was a constructive suggestion: to provide verifiable data from OTRS input to the RfC & show the skeptical that there was a problem with BLPs. I'm not the only one who unconvinced that there is a need to handle biographical articles about living people differently in any way from other articles. Had I intended to be "defensive" in my response, I would have done responded with a counterclaim of my own. For example, could have speculated over the suddenness between my giving you this warning for incivil behavior & your post above. (I am having a problem dismissing this as nothing more than a coincidence.) And had you not come across in such a condescending & arrogant way in your statement, "That kind of comment is truly depressing", I might not have been tempted to begin my response with the words I did.

But to answer your question, I don't see how whether I am involved in OTRS is relevant to what I wrote at the RfC. If a given biographical article doesn't lead to an uproar that is mentioned in the news media, then it is not problematic, IMHO. Most of the complaints I have seen percolate to the average Wikipedia editor have been of the "scoundrel objects to being shown to be a scoundrel in Wikipedia" type. Such as Barbara Bauer's dismissed lawsuit over a biographical article that had been deleted (because she wasn't notable). But I have talked to "real, living, breathing people" about their Wikipedia articles; you may be surprised at how many contacts an average, perhaps unremarkable, editor gets about biographical articles he has contributed to. (Sometimes this interaction has a surprisingly positive result which keeps me contributing.)

To conlcude, I strongly disagree with your opinion in this matter &, while respecting your right to differ. now let's move on. -- llywrch (talk) 03:45, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciated your wonderful and inspiring comments at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people, which will determine whether the community will delete 50,000 articles created by 17,400 editors, most new editors. Don't let the "bullies" get you down! (as NYT journalist User:Wageless calls editors)Ikip 01:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Two links that might be of interest to you: User:Jennavecia/Victims and Wikipedia talk:Volunteer response team#...and some numbers.21. NW (Talk) 01:47, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. If you recall, you had responded to a request for peer review on Alexander the Great in the Qur'an ... Thank you for your response (and apologies for the belated reply). You mentioned:

"A fascinating topic. Has your research touched on the fact that there exists an Ethiopian version of the Alexander romance, wherein Alexander is considered a saint? I think this is relevant, & including this variant of the story is relevant. (Ethiopian Christianity was heavily influenced by Syrian & pre-Islam Arab practices.) If you need help finding sources about the Ethiopian story, drop me a line & I will provide a few."

I've come across some references to an Ethiopic version of the Alexander legends, but have not read it or know much about it. Any help finding sources would be great. Could you post the info in the discussion page on Alexander the Great in the Qur'an? Thanks! -- Semaphoris (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:25, 29 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Hi, nice piece of info on that. I was not aware of it at all. Do you have sample images of how that happened? That would make a nice image addition. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 12:25, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great, now how can we get a couple of images into Wikipedia commons? Thanks. History2007 (talk) 18:39, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have an account but I do not have the image! History2007 (talk) 19:24, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Llywrch, I know that you aren't really crash hot on the incivility block proposal. However, discussion has continued and a few of us have tried to take various concerns into account - we now have some actual policy text codified, but we're looking for feedback, both positive and negative. Did you want to comment on this? It can be found here. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 14:07, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The January 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 04:06, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are being notified because you participated in a previous Afd regarding this article, either at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Argentina–Singapore_relations or at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philippines–Romania relations, and you deserve a chance to weigh in on this article once again. --Cdogsimmons (talk) 00:11, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Thank you so much for the advise, You are so right, I dont have that much time, I am mostly busy during week days, so I have withdrawn my offer, I didn't notice the issues that he is in, thank you again for the advise, take care :-) MaenK.A._Talk 08:51, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much again for the positive encouragement, thats great of you :-), you too enjoy editing MaenK.A._Talk 17:47, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I really am taken aback by that low blow at ANI. Three times in that discussion I offered to discuss substantive issues of offsite harassment and stalking via email. You either failed to notice any of those offers or ignored them. We're talking about helping a real world stalking victim at zero substantive cost to the encyclopedia's mission. Is there no subject so altruistic that I may discuss it without fear of getting dragged through the mud with scurrilous personal attacks? I hope someday you feel as ashamed as you ought to be. Durova⁴¹² 01:37, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Replied at my user talk. Since then I have also gotten the full background and followup on this person. The Wikipedia entry and OTRS's failure have had a direct and nontrivial effect. Unfortunately you're not OTRS so I can't tell you exactly how mistaken your bad faith assumptions are in this situation, but I can discuss a parallel situation if you choose to follow up by email, which so far you have not. Durova⁴¹² 16:15, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]