User talk:Mrg3105

Welcome!

Friday

8

November

20:35 UTC

Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! 

For logical positivists
Logical positivism asserts that only statements about empirical observations are meaningful, effectively asserting that all metaphysical statements are meaningless.

Unfortunately, this fundamental tenet of logical positivism belongs to the family of statements that it asserts to be meaningless. As a result, the entire edifice of logical positivism vanishes in a puff of logic.

This insight appears not to have occurred to the logical positivist school of philosophers.

As a proud pedant, I enjoy precision, like this Back in the time when the Samurai were important, there was a powerful emperor who needed a new chief Samurai, so he sent out a declaration throughout the land that he was searching for the best one. A year passed, and only 3 people showed up for the trials:

... a Japanese Samurai

... a Chinese Samurai

... and a Jewish Samurai.

The emperor asked the Japanese Samurai to come in and demonstrate why he should be the chief Samurai.

The Japanese Samurai opened a match box, and out flew a bumblebee. Whoosh! went his razor sharp sword, and the bumblebee dropped dead on the ground in 2 pieces.

The emperor exclaimed: "This is impressive!"

The emperor then issued the same challenge to the Chinese Samurai; for him to come in and demonstrate why he should be chosen.

The Chinese Samurai also opened a match box, and out buzzed a fly. Whoosh, Whoosh! Went his great flashing sword, and the fly dropped dead on the ground .....in four small pieces.

The emperor exclaimed in awe: "That is really VERY impressive!"

Now the emperor turned to the Jewish Samurai, and asked him also to step forward and demonstrate why he should be the head Samurai.

The Jewish Samurai also opened a match box, and out flew a small gnat. His lightning quick sword went Whooooosh! Whooooosh! Whoooosh! ... But the tiny gnat was still alive and flying around.

The emperor, obviously very disappointed in this display, said: "I see you are not up to the task. The gnat is not dead?"

The Jewish Samurai just smiled and said: "Circumcision is not meant to kill."

"Have Nice Day"

Archives
Archive 1 (2006-2007)
Archive 2 (1-15 Jan 2008)
Archive 3 (16-30 Jan 2008)
Archive 4 (1 - 28 Feb 2008)
Archive 5 (2 - 15 March 2008)
Archive 6 (16 - 31 March 2008)
Archive 7 (1 - 15 April 2008)
Archive 8 (16 - 30 April 2008)
Archive 9 (1 - 15 May 2008)
Archive 10 (16 - 31 May 2008)
Archive 11 (1 - 15 June 2008)
Archive 12 (16 - 30 June 2008)
Archive 13 (1 - 15 July 2008)
Archive 14 (16 - 31 July 2008)
Archive 15 (1 - 15 August 2008)

Causes of Wikipedia erosion

1. Good-faith change of referenced information (or even direct quotations) by subsequent editors who don't read the sources
2. Partial change of values in lists, tables and the like, while the rest is not updated, rendering the whole structure misleading.
3. Suppression of referenced information some users dislike, sometimes citing WP:NPOV, WP:NOT, WP:BLP etc.

User:Colchicum

• Wikipedia:Overcategorization

Ban

Per Roger's note above, I am banning you from the Soviet invasion of Manchuria article for one month. Raul654 (talk) 23:36, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Why, you think the name of the operation will change during that month to the one that you think sounds better?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 23:43, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps if you actually presented a convincing case for why the current name is not correct, someone might be inclined to listen to you. Instead, having failed to convince even a single person why the current article name is not acceptable, you have made repeated ad-hominem attacks on others (myself included). So I will gladly take a month of peace and quiet and not having to deal with you.

In a month, if you are willing to sit down and peaceably discuss what is wrong with the current article name, I'll be more than willing to hear you out, as will others. But if you resume your current disruptive editing, you can expect another ban to be forthcoming. Raul654 (talk) 23:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I think you haven't actually read either the cited references or what I wrote in the so called discussion you call the straw poll.

• 1. There is no Wikipedia policy or guideline that a subject entry of the article, the title, must be aesthetically pleasing, which is what your suggestion is.
• 2. The article title Soviet invasion of Manchuria is an idiom and not a name of the operation. Anyone can call any operation an "invasion" of something, and in the books that deal with the subject in a more cursory way, they do. See Allied invasion of France, or German invasion of USSR (sometimes Russia!), or American invasion of Iraq, etc. Just because an author who has not bothered to do the research and cite the correct name does not mean the correct name can be substituted. A reference work informs the masses, not repeats what they already know.
• 3. By its innate meaning "Soviet invasion of Manchuria" means Red Army, and only of Manchuria. However, the actual operation, carried out not "later" but within 9 days, in strategic terms - simultaneously, included also the Mongolian troops, the Communist Chinese detachments in the Japanese rear, and included smaller operations that were not located in Manchuria, but were important to the operations in Manchuria, notably in Korea by striking at the Japanese lines of communications. This means that the Subject title does not match the subject article content. That's for those who say "but its just a title".
• 4. There was a political reason why the operation was not called an invasion in Soviet literature, ever. In theory, Manchuria was a Japanese puppet state, but in practice it was a part of China. Soviet Union could not be allowed to be seen as "invading" china because they were ostensibly coming to liberate it. The term "invasion" is therefore a literary invention derived from people who have never read Soviet sources like Glantz, who had done so. In fact you are perpetuating bad research by others in Wikipedia. Not one of the supposed GoogleBooks citations is actually referenced. At least I made that assumption based on the first ten pages in the list provided by Biru. That means there is no secondary or primary sources for used by those authors! It is, just like the "August Storm" a book-cover invention, and you are introducing this original research into a factual reference article in the name of the article title "sounding better"! It is a travesty of military history research and writing which depends on exacting facts and figures in any work that can be accepted for quality of research rather than its volume of paper. Not every book published is worth reading (quote I like from my university days economic history professor).
• 5. Yo can block me all you like. That is not and never be a solution to producing a quality reference source. I assure you that I will be on, and all I have to do is change the IP address. Eventually I will go to the Foundation Board if I have to because what you have done is not just about changing a title in one article but goes to the root of the problems and issues in Wikipedia quality control.

Civilly yours--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 00:21, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

First, re: this edit - in case you are not familiar with the mechanics of being banned, banned means that you are not permitted to edit the article. While there are not (yet) any technical obstructions to stop you, if you do so, you will blocked from editing Wikipedia. If you restore it, or make any others, I'm going to block you. And I assure you that if you try to avoid this by using sockpuppets, I will know (via checkuser) and there will be further reprocussions. I've reverted your last edit there.

Second, the policy on Wikipedia is to use the common english name. Others have already found numerous sources, both popular and academic, that use the "Soviet Invasion of Manchuria" terminology. "Manchurian Strategic Offensive Operation" is virtually unheard of in the literature on the subject. Therefore, according to Wikipedia policy, that is what the title should be. Raul654 (talk) 02:01, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually I was not aware that a ban from editing an article is your say-so based! I do not as a matter of course read though administrative measures available to those with administrative status for lack of time.

Sockpuppets! In case you are not familiar with the concept, its a free world and you can not stop me from editing because you don't like what I say, even if you can through technology deny me access. You certainly can not stop me from changing my CPU and my IP, and resume editing under a different user name. You may call it sockpuppet, but I call it persistence in being committed to quality. What I do note is that administrators tend to quickly develop a penchant for labelling editors.

Have you an understanding what an idiom is? It is "a term or phrase whose meaning cannot be deduced from the literal definitions and the arrangement of its parts, but refers instead to a figurative meaning that is known only through common use where no "defined subject name" also known as proper name is available. An idiomatic expression can be adopted for every proper name in the English language. Although the history of Soviet union for its perspective has no "invasions", any military operation can be so labelled where Soviet troops entered disputed territory, such as Estonia in 1944 for example. Now, inc ase you think I am the only one disputing your use of the idiom "invasion", take a look at this. EACH entry here is a journalistic use of the word that describes a military offensive with a proper name, officially recorded but probably unknown at the time of the execution. Each entry represents a degree of sloppy research. To counter this, reference works are used that define where the name came from in the first place, with reference to primary or secondary sources, and the correct usage of the proper name. An example is the "buckstop (military)" which is a brass marker placed on the wardroom table in a warship. Also known as a "buck" it is - an arbitrary object on the wardroom dining table, determining at which place food is first served. The buck moves from place to place between meals, to insure that every officer has a chance to be served first. Said to be involved in the expressions "pass the buck" and "the buck stops here." What I'm saying in arguing the toss is that we are not comparing Apples and oranges here. You are shoving a convention down my throat that "is a generally accepted standard that editors should follow, though it should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception." and that "the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things.", which I allege it does, namely the supplied references which ARE, per Wikipedia:No original research (policy) provide the specific name for the event (not covered by common names) because "Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented.", and the title of the article is a part of the article. So, in effect you have expressed a dislike for the cited name, and User:Biruitorul had sourced a bunch of books that use your suggested preference which are all idioms and have no basis in fact other than the fact that a bunch of authors used it due to ignorance or laziness to do the research, and were allowed to do so by their supposedly professional editors.

This brings us to the resolution of this little tèt-a-tèt because there exists another convention, the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (precision) which says in a nutshell "Be precise when necessary; don't title articles ambiguously when the title has other meanings." This is because in Wikipedia:Naming conflict it says "A Wikipedia article must have one definitive name. This is required by the MediaWiki software on which Wikipedia runs. However, multiple synonyms can be used for a term.", but of course as I have strenuously pointed out, the reverse is also true, and the real operational name and an "invasion" are not synonymous by a long shot. Here you will see that a distinction is made between proper nouns and Descriptive names. Under the "objective criteria" it says -

• Is the name in common usage in English? (check Google, other reference works, websites of media, government and international organisations; focus on reliable sources) - well, it is disingenuous to guess that a "common" name will be more often used because there are more common users than the "proper noun" use. However, the reason it is in "common use" is because it is ambiguous in EVERY case! Note my other disputes such as the "Battle of Atlantic" asserted to be a single six-year-long campaign, but in fact a series of campaigns by five navies that can be broken down into operations by four different Naval Combat Arms (surface combatants, air operations, coastal vessels, and submarine operations) and their respective merchant marines!

The word "invasion" is certainly ambiguous enough to be constantly used in newspapers as was to sensationalise the event, which is what journalists paid for.

• Is it the official current name of the subject? (check if the name is used in a legal context, e.g. a constitution) - "Soviet invasion of Manchuria" has never been an official name of the subject either in the Soviet Union or anywhere else.
• Is it the name used by the subject to describe itself or themselves? (check if it is a self-identifying term) - The operation staffs involved never used to refer to themselves as Soviet invaders of Manchuria, and neither did the Soviet Allies of the Second World War, then or since!

So, what it all comes down to is that you, rather than increasing the precision of Wikipedia reference as a source, insist on using names already "common" even if completely wrong. Not that I disagree entirely as you will note that I added the name you suggested as a redirect because I realise that the common user may in fact type in the more ambiguous and commonly used name as a search keyword. However, how a user searches for information has nothing to do with that information being presented as it is, rather than as someone, wishes it to be.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 03:45, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

1. Actually I was not aware that a ban from editing an article is your say-so based! - then I suggest you re-read Roger's message above. Any admin may (at his discretion) ban you from any article he judges you to be disrupting.
2. You apparently do not understand the difference between literal and figurative language. "Kicking the bucket", an idiom meaning to die (which I got straight from the article to which you linked but apparently did not read), has nothing to do with either kicking or buckets. "Soviet Invasion of Manchuria" is not an idiom; it is intended as a literal description of what happened. It has plenty to do with Soviets, an invasion, and Manchuria. That you happen to disagree with calling it an "invasion" is irrelevant to this fact.
3. You are claiming that we should ignore the numerous published, reliable sources that back up the current name because they are "all idioms and have no basis in fact other than the fact that a bunch of authors used it due to ignorance or laziness to do the research, and were allowed to do so by their supposedly professional editors." Please cite a source that backs up this claim. The people publishing those books are reliable sources. You are not.
4. Yes, the name is the common english usage, per numerous sources provided on the talk page already, and the fact that (other than "August Storm") nobody have provided a single alternative that has any any significant English language usage.
5. Is it the official current name of the subject? - Even if the Soviets did give the invasion an official english name (they didn't), our policy is to use the common name.
6. I am not going to rehash the debate on this talk page. That's what the article talk page is for. Therefore, this will be my last message on this subject. Raul654 (talk) 04:38, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Common cause

I'm contacting you because of one small excerpt from a larger thread:

• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Proposal to dismiss Nick Dowling as Assistant Coordinator of the Military history Wikiproject

Strong oppose - This is a joke right? You want someone dismissed as a coordinator because they disagreed with your position on an article's name????????????????????????? Heeheeheehee! Thanks for the laugh - I need it! And thought maybe he had done something really bad, like support me in a dispute on whether a Japanese DDH was an aircraft carrier or not. Whewwww! - BillCJ (talk) 02:29, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

BillCJ, no, I am not asking to dismiss Nick because he disagrees with the historical name of the article, but the way he is going about achieving this, by using a straw poll to change it to a fictitious name unsupported by references which is completely contrary to Wikipedia policy and community consensus on straw polls--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 03:15, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I wonder what you made of BillCJ's odd observation? I would have thought you found it obscure or otherwise inexplicable? No matter -- I can explain. I'm the one he was angry with in this sentence, not you ... or at least, I'm the one who had the temerity to add a one-sentence edit to Hyūga class helicopter destroyer and he didn't like it. In scanning the page where I found this trivial exchange, it was the "DDH" which caught my attention.

I stumbled into your further response only as a secondary matter.

If you're interested, I'll try to explain at least a tiny part of what you can't learn any other way, I suppose ....

What intrigues me even more than whatever is going on with BillCJ is your observations about Nick Dowling, whose words and actions demonstrate that he seems to espouse a non-standard disdain for WP:Verifiability.

Nick Dowling's unique notions about citations and references have caused me a great deal of what I would like to think of as otherwise avoidable difficulties; and it may be helpful to introduce myself.

Perhaps you may be able to help me learn more about this narrow aspect of your experiences with this difficult Wikipedia administrator. At best, something unforeseen may lead to something constructive?

In scanning your messages, I have to say that you sound like a bit of a loose cannon; but I fear others may describe me in the same way. I would have thought we were very, very different -- similar only in that we've both managed to blunder within range of Nick Dowling's highly-developed personal radar? Does that make us "peers" ...? --Tenmei (talk) 00:58, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Peers?

Click on show to view the contents of this section

Hmm, I'd have to thank you for calling me a "loose cannon" given my current project article is Artillery. :) I find reading you quite interesting. At a guess you are a very well educated citizen of the UK, right?

Actually I do not harbour particular ill feelings towards most editors I have come into conflict with, but I am particular about statements of fact. Your own predicament may have been resolved earlier if Nick and others had been pointed to the Moskva class helicopter carrier which is actually an attempt to marry a light cruiser hull with a function of an anti-submarine carrier, though the class did not exist in the 60s because helicopters had only been introduced in that role late in the 50s (I think), and mostly operated from conventional carriers. Militaries of course have agendas that reference works are not supposed to :)

I don't know how peer-oriented I am given that the first person I offered to cooperate with turned into someone who constantly uses any pretext to oppose me, and stalks my edits with a vengeance. What I found objectionable about Nick's behaviour is the way he pursued his agenda, or rather that of User:Buckshot06 who was the one to raise the straw poll.

The world of Wikipedia is far more complex than one supposes. Not sure how long you have been editing, but you see, what happened originally is that Buckshot wanted me to help him in his articles on the Russian/Soviet topics, and I was not prepared to commit due to my own plans. Further, I had the temerity to point out that what he considered to be a Featured Article had many failings, all largely due to his lack of knowledge of Russian, and access to sources. After that he went after me trying to rename ubiquitous "Battle of..." articles into their proper named operational entities, largely basing it on works by a former US Army Colonel whom even BS06 acknowledges to be the expert in the field. The argument: it seems that by doing so, I am trying to Russify the English Wikipedia, that the names are "too long", and that "people don't know what a strategic offensive operation" is. All these are of course his point of view unsupported by any Wikipedia policy, convention or guideline, the last of two which he holds to be "as policy" despite explicit references in them to citing sources taking precedence over use of "common English names".

In any case, while all this was going on, I got involved in a defence of another "loose cannon" who was trying to edit the Battle of Stalingrad article by adding sourced statements who had been apparently battling bureaucracy for years, and having returned from a year's block was blocked again within a couple of days. One person who was explicitly against giving this editor another chance was, Raul654. Of course BS06 followed my participation, and Raul is also a member of the MilHist Project.

The editor who came up with "references" is User:Biruitorul who is a Rumanian editor whom I encountered in the dispute over the naming of Yassy-Kishinev Strategic Offensive Operation renamed to Jassy-Kishinev Operation, my primary arguments being that German names (Jassy) of Rumanian cities have no place in an English Wikipedia, and that one should be less ambiguous in the article title by using official names. You will note that although there was a flurry of activity on the article from Rumanian editors around the time of the protracted debate over the name of the article, it has since ceased despite the article being far from complete. The article was initialy brought to my attention because it had been renamed by User:Eurocoptertigre, also Rumanian, who renamed it into Rumanian because the two cities were (without a proper RM!) :) Note that Eurocopter is the editor who in the end renamed the Manchurian Strategic Offensive Operation into the "Soviet invasion of" on this occasion also. Eurocopter is also a Military History Project coordinator, but authors predominantly Rumanian articles with the exception of some Soviet articles where he had replaced me in assisting Buckshot06 because I suppose he also knows some Russian. Oh, Nick and Buckshot are very close through their co-participation on a range of articles related to Australian and New Zealand defence forces, Nick being Australian, and BS06 being from New Zealand.

Others present were User:Wwoods whom you probably met during the Hyūga class helicopter destroyer "discussion". User:Davewild is an admin who does a lot of article deletion, and doesn't seem to participate in military history, so I wonder what brought him to the article talk; Raul? And that's about it. So you see, all things are connected :)

Had I been more attention seeking and networked more, I may have put together my own "coalition of the willing" to counter the straw poll, but in any case, between them the other participants can call on about three dozen people, and one admin usually stays out of the poll to block anyone as an "uninvolved" admin as soon as there is any mention of "incivility", "trolling", being "disruptive" or "wikilawyering" in Wikispeak. The only one missing was Piotrus who represents the rather vocal Polish contingent in English Wikipedia. I have also had a run-in with a member of the former Yugoslavia brethren who calls himself a DIREKTOR (yes, in capitals) that almost immediately on me asking for sources in an article called it a "dispute", at which point BS06 appeared to offer him support as he always does. All the Eastern Europeans usually come in lots of 1/2 dozen, so I can only guess that Manchuria, seeing me isolated, was not a priority.

As for the endemic issues of Wikipedia, please email me on the subject and we can chat further. I do agree with most of what you have said in the AN/I, but prefer to stay out of there in case some enterprising admin decides to take an interest in my editing and I have to get into yet another "discussion" with someone who prefers "common" to exceptional quality standards.

Read your post again. I have to say that I really like the elegance of your expression. Wish I had it in me to emulate that, but alas. In any case, Verifiability is a huge problem in Wikipedia. I see that you mostly edit Japanese articles, so it may not apply, but in may subjects citations are drawn from what is available in GoogleBooks, which is not necessarily a bad thing, however I find that research by keywords means editors who do so do not bother to read the entire paragraph, chapter, and certainly not the book, or several books on the subject to gain subject perspective and context. The outcome is edit warring when someone discovers a Wikipedia article that offers far less than a reference article should.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 08:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

ASIDE addressed to unknown, unidentified readers

Aside: This small bit is oddly addressed to anyone and everyone other than the one user whose talk page it is supposed to be. This was composed for those readers other than Mrg3105 who are studying these words: I encountered an unexpected response to the carefully drafted thread I sought to begin above -- a brash observation, not from Mrg3105, but from an unexpected, unsympathetic commentator:

Trying to rally others towards the same sort of disruptive approach to dispute resolution not only affirms the view I hold but is also unhelpful to the extreme.

Aside: On one hand, I don't know how to respond to this distinctly unfriendly writer, but I've no doubt that simply re-posting these poorly-chosen words becomes a response of sorts. If I can somehow juggle the flow-chart reasoning needed here -- what happened is that I posted a message for Mrg3105 on this talk page; and my words were then copied and linked within the body of another message posted somewhere else by someone else. So, does that mean that in responding here, I'm acknowledging in a forthright way that I got the message? I did read it. I did think about it. I don't understand -- not yet.

Aside: I can't be alone in recognizing that this talk page represents a unique venue. The often strident prose in most, if not all of the threads which stretch out ad nauseam above is impossible to parse without knowing much more ..., but I'm guessing anyone can take the measure of the headings, including:

• 2 Insulting people
• 5 Discussion at AN/I
• 6 Editing restriction reminder
• 30 Formal warning
• 33 AN/I discussion
• 56 Civility and inappropriate accusations
• 66 Blocked
• 77 WP:Civil
• 92 Blocked (2)
• 93 Editing restriction
• 97 Ban
• 98 Common cause?
  • 98.1 Peers?
  • 98.2 ASIDE addressed to unknown, unidentified readers
  • 98.3 Focusing attention towards a constructive objective
• 99 Ping

Aside:In this demonstrably non-standard talk page, I would have thought it well-established that "rallying" Mrg3105 to adopt a more measured, thoughtful approach to anything and everything within Wikipedia's ambit deserves approbation, encouragement, applause. I don't think that's what the writer meant -- no, probably not.

Aside: I will continue to try to fathom the depths of whatever it was I was supposed to have known a priori; but I just don't "get" it. In the meantime, I don't want to delay reiterating a sterling phrase:

" ...Trying to rally others towards the same sort of disruptive approach to dispute resolution ...."

Aside: If the problem isn't so much what I wrote, but rather that I had the temerity simply to contact Mrg3105, that would seem like using a sledgehammer to crack a nut -- an apt simile. Perhaps it will ameliorate misunderstandings by explaining that the genesis of the idea to contact Mrg3105 was suggested by imitating BillCJ and Nick Dowling. Imitation is a form of flattery, I know; and I wouldn't want this to be taken that way. Nevertheless, I recognize that these two are "established users" in ways I wouldn't have imagined before chance intervened. I admit frankly that I wouldn't have thought of this on my own. --Tenmei (talk) 03:57, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Focusing attention towards a constructive objective

Mrg3105 -- The odd, awkward, voyeur's context above was not created by you or me, but what is to be done except to acknowledge it. In light of that intrusive audience, do I need to say frankly that I disagree with a great many things you've written? Do I need to announce that I'd not be willing to endorse much of what I've read on this page? What matters most is this: even if you were wrong, wrong, wrong in all sorts of ways I can't even begin to enumerate, that would not affect my belief -- my near certainty -- that some of what you've alleged is credible, not proven or demonstrated, but plainly credible.

Separating wheat from chaff becomes a labour-intensive chore ... but I'm persuaded to invest in that winnowing in order to protect the other opportunities which attend participating in the Wikipedia project.

I can only guess about the issues implicit in the Aside, but it seems undeniably dark and only obliquely related to WP:V and WP:NPOV. On the other hand -- looking on the brighter side -- I guess we should have reason to feel gratified that our writing is likely to garner a much larger readership than I would have otherwise speculated. If the consequences prove ultimately beneficial, then the term "voyeurs" would seem less relevant perhaps? For an unsolicited audience, the following becomes a timely, wholesome rejoinder? I'm at a loss for words ....

Ian Hamilton, British India military attaché, in Manchuria with Japanese forces (1904).

Foreign Officiers and Correspondents, in Manchuria. (1904).

The range of your Wikipedia experiences is wider than mine; and the subjects which seem to attract your attention comprise a broader array as well.

Please forgive my narrow-mindedness, but I think I need to admit a priori that I've not much interest in Russian or Soviet subjects. I can't easily recall having made any contribution to Russia-related subjects, except in minor edits to Sergei Witte and articles about other Russian negotiators who hammered out details of the Treaty of Portsmouth. In fact, what little attention I've even given to Russo-Japanese War -- other than the treaty which ended the conflict -- has focused only on the Western military attachés serving with Japanese armies: Herbert Cyril Thacker, John Charles Hoad, Ian Standish Monteith Hamilton, etc.

When you think about it, the fact that our interests are so divergent could be a good thing. It might help limit and focus what we might be able to work through together. In varying ways, we both seem to have stumbled over issues and consequences flowing from WP:V. That alone won't be enough of a fulcrum to leverage anything worthwhile, but it's a start. I've only scanned your talk page threads, not studied them; but sometimes, maybe -- not always -- I think you're trying to get a handle on issues or topics that I'm trying to grapple with as well. I don't have any suggestions about what to make of whatever we might have in common, no plans yet; but if we could figure out how to manage something both small and constructive, the effort could be worthwhile.

There's no particular reason to rush, of course; but I'm eager to try something new. I'm guessing that you generally move along faster than I do sometimes. You might be more impulsive than I am. So what?

Time is an unknowable element in whatever we need to do. It is inherently impetuous to propose inventing something different from tactics and strategies which haven't worked nearly well enough thus far.

Changing tone a little bit: I wonder if a couple of coincidences are worth mentioning:

1. When I read what you had written above, the first and only Russian who came to mind was Sergei Witte, which caused me to think of his Japanese negotiating counterpart at Portsmouth, Komura Jutarō. As it happens, Baron Komura's family comes from the region of eastern Kyūshū which was once known as Hyūga province ... and, as you know, I only happened to notice something you wrote because BillCJ mentioned 16DDH (Hyūga class helicopter destroyer) just before a contribution you made to a tendentious and ineffective thread.

2. When I re-visited Talk:Sergei Witte, I was reminded of a trivial incident I'd forgotten about entirely. An anonymous reader had posted a plausible question about Witte's official government title in Russia; and another editor had simply endorsed the question as a seemingly valid one. The short thread focused on one of the very, very few aspects of the article in which I actually had something to offer. At Talk:Sergei Witte#Relevant?, the question has to do with whether Wikipedia should or should not identify Witte with what seemed like an Americanized title -- assuming his position was just like that of the American Secretary of State? Obviously, a thoughtful question with easy-to-parse ramifications ....

What pleases me has nothing to do with Witte or the answer -- rather, it's the reasoning which underlies this trivial contribution in April 2008. As you can see for yourself, I posted:

• If the term "Secretary of State" is an error in this context, it's at least an error which we can attribute to the New York Times in 1905. Does this help, perhaps, to better focus this discussion or perhaps to move it forward constructively? --Tenmei (talk) 19:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I could have typed out in April 2008 (as I did in July 2008) --

• Please see Wikipedia:Verifiability. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth — that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true ... which, as you may know, is really nothing more than the first sentence of the official policy page explanatory text.

I could have drafted wiki-jargon in April 2008 (as Bellhalla did in July 2008) --

• Also, I want to add that the policy is verifiability, not necessarily truth. NYT meets All three sources meet the WP:RS standard. — Bellhalla (talk) 18:29, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Again and again and again over the past month, I've witnessed this kind of salutatory reasoning rejected, twisted, ignored, blocked, etc. I don't have an adequate vocabulary to describe what I felt about the combination of stonewalling and disingenuous spin and who-knows-what-else. In July, I found myself on the fringes of an odd "event" which still feels overly-orchestrated in retrospect. Although I tried my best to pay attention, my participation -- even as a passive witness -- was ineffective.

In contrast, finding this thread from last Spring feels like a refreshing drink of water on a hot day.

What an odd chain of lucky links: Your introductory exposition/narrative mentioned a number of Russia-related subjects ...; and THEN that inspired me to think of Sergei Witte ...; and THEN that caused me to check-out the talk page ...; and THEN I chanced across this helpful illustration of something small which worked out nicely .... It's good to be reminded of something good. I don't know where to go with this, but maybe we can manage to work together towards a modestly encouraging start. What do you think? --Tenmei (talk) 22:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Framing the issues

Mrg3105 -- It is clear that you and I are very, very different. You seem not especially reluctant to confront disagreement head-on; and I tend to be risk-averse, avoiding conflict and disputes as a general rule. As you know, sometimes that becomes impossible. I'm dealing with just such an unavoidable impasse now. Having exhausted other dispute resolution options, I sought help in a formal mediation process. As you know, the first attempt faltered -- see Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Hyūga class helicopter destroyer; and I promptly re-filed with modifications based on what appeared to have been mis-steps -- see Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Hyūga class helicopter destroyer2.

Curiously, this thread -- yes, your talk page -- was mentioned in that remote context; and I'm not sure what to make of it, nor whether I should or should not let you know -- see Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Hyūga class helicopter destroyer2#Framing the issues#Disagreement with issues raised in request for mediation. By posting this excerpt now on your talk page, I show that I did indeed make up my mind about what to do. Nick Dowling posted the following:

... I don't really think that mediation is necessary but am willing to enter it to end the dispute. As per WP:M, I reserve the right to withdraw from this mediation if it goes ahead if I judge that Tenmei is continuing to not engage in a good faith and civil discussion of the article. Given that he has been canvassing support against me from other disruptive editors ([1]) I don't have high hopes but will assume good faith. Nick Dowling (talk) 00:18, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Mrg3105 -- My full attention was aroused by a difficult-to-overlook phrase: " ... has been canvassing support against me from other disruptive editors ...." I have invited Nick Dowling to explain or withdraw sentences which would seem to have been unhelpful in any context, but he has declined to respond. Despite this, I proceeded to with what I considered to have been a plausible, constructive approach.

As you can see, my writing style is not like yours; and my "negotiation" tactics are not like yours, but perhaps I can profit from your unique perspective as my newest failure seems to be playing out in the lines below -- see Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Hyūga class helicopter destroyer2#Framework based on points of agreement:

Framework based on points of agreement

A bridge lies open before us, waiting for one small first step.

It is possible that we can make some small steps together before a mediation process begins. For example, in the context of Issue 1 below, it seems reasonable to hope that we could find a way to agree on the specific date when "unanimous consensus" was reached? There may be other points of agreement as well. Maybe there will be points on which one or more agree and one does not. That information may help the mediator to assess how best to proceed. --Tenmei (talk) 20:25, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll let the mediator assess how to best proceed, and am not going to invest any time in this until the mediation goes ahead, especially as you seem to want to discuss how to interpret weeks-old discussions, including some which you chose to sit out of at the time. By the way, there's no need to post vast amounts of text all the time. I'm not going to read blocks of text which are so large that they have to be hidden to avoid them filling up this talk page and the various messages are available on the article's talk page, complete with edit history and the posts you're leaving out. Nick Dowling (talk) 08:01, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Nick Dowling -- That's a clear statement, very clear.

Just for a moment, why not try again to look at what I've tried to create here. Why not try again to parse what is posted -- not parsing in the way you do now, but in a different way? What if the time and work which went into creating the following template was an authentic attempt to communicate meaningfully about enhancing the quality of this article?

what if ...? = MAJOR PREMISE A = WP:AGF

In as clear a way as I can, I've tried to address the propostion that you or anyone else can't understand what I'm thinking, what I'm doing -- or why? I've proposed a plausible plan to help answer at least part of that complicated set of nested questions. My oft-repeated, preferred strategy would have been to start with something on which we can agree, and then to use that common understanding as foundation from which to build, just as Bellhalla did do - see here -- in that process which resulted in what you describe as "unanimous consensus" in your re-statement of what you identify as ISSUE #1.

strategy ≈ plan = MINOR PREMISE B = WP:CONSENSUS

Now you seem to be asking me to accept that you cannot or you will not or you are unable to identify a single point of agreement, not even when I try using your own words?

• POINT I: Date of unanimous consensus ... pointless waste of time? no agreement?
• POINT II: Substance of unanimous consensus ... pointless waste of time? no agreement?
• POINT III: Changes affecting corollary articles and template ... pointless waste of time? no agreement?

I see the blank wall that Nick Dowling presents now -- today, is sadly characteristic; and that's a problem for me personally and for Wikipedia more broadly. The dull record of talking past each other is expressly verifiable; and I'm wondering anew about what part of WP:V is just too subtle to be understood?

• Wikipedia:Verifiability -- The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth — that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true.
• Wikipedia:Citation.
• Wikipedia:Citing sources.

Kyoto -- Marker at location of the outbreak of the Ōnin War (1467-1477).

persuasive verifiability = MINOR PREMISE C = demonstrated credibility

A + B + C = what? QED?

neutral assistance is needed? = CONCLUSION = WP:Request for mediation

Am I supposed to take this new twist to mean that the serial attacks on one sentence in only one paragraph of Hyūga class helicopter destroyer are now going to end? Was this no more than an Ōnin War (応仁の乱, Ōnin no ran)? To clarify, here is that paragraph -- just two sentences:

The first Hyūga class vessel resembles a light aircraft carrier or amphibious assault ship such as the Italian Navy's 13,850-ton Giuseppe Garibaldi, the Spanish Navy's 17,000-ton Principe de Asturias or the Royal Navy's 21,000-ton Invincible-class carriers. The JDS Hyūga is the first aircraft carrier to be specifically constructed for Japanese marine forces since the end of the Pacific War.

QED -- consensus reality? Is that all there is? --Tenmei (talk) 16:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

What can you make of this?
Mrg3105 -- What would anyone make of all this? It is frustrating, vexing and tiresome. On the other hand, the above demonstrates that you are not the only one who has trouble from time to time in awkward wiki-communication disputes about small matters.

The fact that my approach attempts to be more conciliatory than yours is at least interesting.

Should I take away from this experience a lesson that I need to make a concerted effort to be more brusque, more assertive, etc. Maybe? Perhaps I should pay less attention to those who complain that I use too many words?

Should I just decide to give entirely?

I do know this: No one is driving me away from the opportunities which I perceive as inherent in the Wikipedia project; and I urge you to show a little back-bone as well. Don't let anyone push you away from what you also seem to recognize as a worthwile pursuit.

I know this as well: Your blunt, abrasive style and manner don't bode well in an environment devoted to a massive collaborative writing project. You do need to re-think, re-format, re-package ... and the only way to do that is to keep trying. An alternate approach would be to spend a little less time on subjects which truly interest you; and instead, you might generously devote a little bit of attention to mentoring me.

In other words, let's assume that 50% or more of your investment in the Wikipedia project has been counter-productive -- not satisfying for you, not encouraging for others, and not particularly helpful for readers you'll never meet. If so, then aren't you looking at a glass half empty, rather than recognizing the same glass is also half full? Do you see my point?

What about this? Let's hypothesize that you're even worse than a "problem" (whatever that might be)t -- let's proceed on the basis of syllogistic reasoning:

MAJOR PREMISE: Let us assert as a fact that you are a disruptive editor; and while we're both skulking in the shadows, let us also assert as a fact that I am a disruptive contributor.

If this premise were true, the best thing anyone can hope is that I continue to work on this thread, because while I'm writing here, I'm not causing trouble elsewhere. And, fortuitously, while you're reading this treacle prose, you're not causing trouble elsewhere.

MINOR PREMISE: Let us assert as fact that I have been "been canvassing support from other disruptive editors" like you.

If that were the case, I've no problem in admitting that what I've written here is an improbable trouble-making strategy. Still, let us carry this forward fully and assume that you and I were obsessed with no other object than to be against Nick Dowling, how could we go about that? Well, to begin with, we would have to agree a priori that the world -- our focused weltanschauung -- revolves about a center-point which is located somewhere in the antipodes ...? Already you see where I'm going with this -- Reductio ad absurdum.

CONCLUSION: ______________________ what to do?

If my off-kilter world did revolve around Nick Dowling, then what could be worse than defying his derogatory definition of me. What alchemy would then needed to convert me from disruptive dross? Yes -- now I'm getting into the spirit of things. What could I do to become anything other than a disruptive figure. Yes, yes ... and I'm going try to drag you into my miserable little plans. Yeah, I know -- Reductio ad absurdum gets tired quickly.

On a more serious note: Although I'm trying to diminish the power of that label by making fun of it, I have no doubt that Nick Dowling was crafting no well honed joke. Frankly, I'm not really laughing, nor should you be.

As I see it, circumstances have united us in two distinct, but related aspects of the Wikipedia project: WP:V and WP:Consensus.

I can't really speak for you, but I'm very pleased to have discovered the first line of the first paragraph of WP:V; and my worst experiences in a Wikipedia venue have all had something to do with someone else's unwillingness or inability to recognize that this has to be a sentence on which there needs to be universal agreement. In brief, Wikipedia:Verifiability has to be an agreed-upon starting point or all else becomes a house of cards, or in other words --

• The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth — that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true.

That's why the phrase "core content policies" has been disseminated so widely throughout the Wikipedia project. Is this wrong-headed? No, not really ....

As for WP:Consensus, I learned most of what I need to know about WP:Consensus when I encountered the children's story about The Emperor's New Clothes and another well-known fable about the Blind Men and an Elephant. Both stories are summarized by the wiki-phrase: consensus reality; and I'm at a loss when I confront another editor who either will not or cannot join me in acknowledging the Wikipedia core content policies as a mutually understood basis for moving forward. Am I being thick-headed? No, not really ....

I've been a bit distracted lately, but even if you do decide to leave Wikipedia for a short time or forever, I'd urge you to postpone that wiki-break just for a short while. Your unique "voice" may be more valuable than you think ...? --Tenmei (talk) 19:33, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Meatpuppet

--Meatpuppet is a Wikipedia term of art meaning one who edits on behalf of or as proxy for another editor according to Wikipedia:Sock puppetry. --Tenmei (talk) 05:09, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm wondering if I might have been mis-recognized as your evil sock puppet? The angry tone escalated so fast, too fast.

One sentence with supporting in-line citation on a page with no "Notes" or "References" sections is usually a good step in a constructive direction. My edits aren't the kind of contribution which ordinarily inspires a response series like the ones I encountered. BillCJ wrote: "you are a liar" and "I will not engage in a bad-faith confrontational discussion"?

So I'm asking a strange question: Can you tell me what you were editing on July 11th and July 12th? Have you any recollection of a noteworthy dispute in early- to mid-July involving WP:V or WP:Cite or something similar?

When I innocently mentioned WP:V in a context where I thought such a mild reference would be non-controversial, did I ruffle feathers which you had only recently ruffled as well?

I know this becomes an odd leap; but, there you have it. --Tenmei (talk) 21:15, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Temerity in posting anything here?

The mere fact that I posted anything at all on this page was proffered as reason enough for Nick Dowling to withdraw from mediation. I do not see anything I regret in the paragraphs which are posted here -- in fact, the only thing I can be sure that Nick Dowling does read is here on your talk page. He says that he can't be bothered to read what I post elsewhere; ergo, this becomes an odd, but effective back channel mode of communciation.

I've asked the Arbitration Committee to address the gravamen of Nick Dowling's concerns about my "bad faith" and "disruptive behaviours" at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Tenmei and Nick Dowling. If successful, it is my hope that this will remove any remaining barriers to re-initiating the mediation process focused on content issues. --Tenmei (talk) 03:50, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Please strike out your comments at Request for Arbitration

Mrg3105 -- Please strike out what you've offered with the best of intentions at Wikipedia:Request for Arbitration. In my view, your comments muddy the waters, distracting from the crucial focus on framing and confirmation bias, which are conceptually distinct from the points I think you're trying to make.

I almost reach understanding your remarks in the context of Wikipedia:Verifiability: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth — that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." However, your contributions may be distracting from WP:V and WP:NPOV. At worst, your "help" lends credence to a re-framing which trivializes what I've tried to do here --Tenmei (talk) 15:35, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Again, thank you for the intentions which motivated your statement in this instance. My reasons for asking you to strike out your comments remain unchanged, but I'm not sure that it would be best to leave it there.

A further thought came to mind in the context established by WP:Canvassing. The emphasis in this guideline focuses on inappropriate calls to action. I thought that the verb choice was inapt when first introduced by Coldmachine, and I did not recognize this as another of those words which have taken on an additional wiki-meaning beyond that which is to be found in the OED. Even after I stumbled into the concept of wiki-canvassing, I continued to believe it had nothing to with you and me because you had never offered any opinion or joined in consensus-building at Talk:Hyūga class helicopter destroyer. Generally speaking, it appeared to me that your areas of interest and edits were mostly limited to Euro-centric subject-matter. Therefore, I reasoned, not even a "wiki-appearance" of "wiki-wrong-doing" could be alleged.

The context and implications of whatever Nick Dowling was complaining about leaves me wondering if some bizarre stretch of reasoning could be contrived in which I would have been wrongly "canvassing" to lure you into commenting in an as-yet-to-be-drafted request for arbitration? It would seem that I have still more work to do as I struggle to understand how it can be seen that WP:AGF and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Tenmei and Nick Dowling#Statement by Nick Dowling are not mutually exclusive. Some of what I studied seemed like a bit of a stretch. This led me to begin to wonder about what I would have thought is a plainly dubious logic-chain.

Some of what I read in Nick Dowling's "Statement" seemed Byzantine to me; but for the time being, I probably do best by assuming that whatever Nick Dowling writes is merely conventional, which means I should be guided accordingly. I suppose this perhaps deserves more thought, but not today.

Another line of inquiry I wondered about, but not today: How was I to have guessed that by communicating with you at all, I was myself to be tainted with the opprobrium which forever diminishes the community standing of a "banned" malcontent?

Aha -- tainted by association?

My first thought was of Apartheid and the consequences which would have attended being seen talking to a banned kaffir.

In South Africa of that period, the ambit of banning was published, recorded, well-known, but I gather you were as surprised as I when you read about it. Perhaps this aspect of Nick Dowling's statement deserves further thought -- perhaps not? In any event, it only right to acknowledge this distinct context in which I need to thank you for standing up. This becomes especially important in that I didn't realize that innuendo had become such a well-developed aspect of the Wikipedia conventions.

That's all for now: I'm going to turn my attention to the Olympic Games' opening ceremonies. The Sydney games still stand out in my mind as the best -- Advance Australia Fair and all that -- but this aspect of the Beijing games may equal that 2000 high point. We'll see. --22:41, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

The opening spectacular far exceeded my expectations.[2] I was particularly delighted by that part of the grand show in which a Confucian saying was high-lighted:

• Isn't it a great when friends visit from distant places?

As you may know, this proverb comes from the opening of the Analects.[3]

Later, I explored what was to be found at Wikisource and at Wikiquote. I was reminded of another familiar Confucian proverb which seems on-the-mark in terms of the work which brings us together:

• "Isn't it a pleasure to study and practice what you have learned?"[4]

In my view, the obvious next question then becomes slightly different -- something to do with efficacy. At one point or anther, we all have to ask ourselves how effective and meaningful our Wikipedia contributions really are? Do you see where I'm going with this? --Tenmei (talk) 19:17, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't watch the opening to the Olympic games. I appreciate the contribution sports medicine makes to humanity, but fail to appreciate the waste of resources on spectacle, particularly in a poverty-stricken communist nation like China.

All this talk of "canvassing", "good faith" and "consensus" is so much wikispeak, which I do not "buy", and which has no place in production of a reference source. It is a social construct of an imaginary "culture" that has already been rejected once, and will be again. One need only nudge.

I have, and continue to struggle with your penultimate question. On the one hand one has the avenue to inform and enlighten, but on the other one must immerse in the morass of diatribe which for me tends to lapse into either irony or satire, both regarded as uncivil.

It could be that I should be accused of assuming, but if you are unfamiliar with the "culture" of the Soviet Union, and its modes of information and behavioural controls, then you will not be able to fathom what is transpiring within the bowels of Wikipedia, even as Nick does not, for a dedication to a cause demands sacrifices--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 02:53, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Efficacy

A controversial bit of musing?
I wonder what you think of this -- a bit of froth or perhaps something more meaningful?

From my point-of-view, I can't see why other Wikipedians aren't more interested in the thought process which led you to focus on the names given to military operations -- why does that appear to be a consistent thread which runs through the long list of disputes which mark your editing history? In my view, that's possibly your most valuable contribution to Wikipedia (although it is not much recognized as particularly valuable). In this, I'm not paying any attention at all to the names themselves, which are, as you know, articulated on the basis of a consensus which incorporates a range of factors you would clearly identify as non-relevant. No, no, no. -- it's not the individual names of battles or military operations which seems at all important to me. It's rather that you seem to have a knack for determining which pressure points are likely to induce consequential developments and which are not. Viewed form this perspective, yours would not appear to be an exercise in quixotic tilting-at-windmills but rather an attempt to make a much more substantial contribution to Wikipedia's ultimate configuration and quality.

On the basis of what little I've been able to gather from this talk page, you take only one small step to far. You would appear to proceed from an informed analysis which identifies a significant nexus from which a number of logical analytical threads are likely to commence. Having located such a logical leverage point, you then seek to affect its composition; however, regretfully, it's only that last small movement which consistently betrays you.

The fact of the matter is that those who disagree in serial arguments have not reached that nexus along the same path your reasoning will have trod. Is it possible that you and they both misconstrue the argument when you knock heads with just one editor or with several? If so, could it be that the differences in the framing of whatever it is you're disputing is more important than you'd previously considered? Whether the editor holding a non-congruent view is merely being perverse-for-the-fun-of-it becomes irrelevant ... as does the editor whose view is as well-informed as your own. You're putting the focus of your attention in the wrong place -- on the point at which an argument begins. In other words, you mis-apply the metaphorical fulcrum and lever.

If this reasoning has any appeal, it suggests that you might hope to be more effective, and you might hope to find yourself wasting less time and effort in pointless disputes which no one really wins or looses. The question becomes: where is the best (or a better) locus to position a logical fulcrum, and where is the best (or a better) application of the force of a logical lever?

What I find attractive about your approach is that you would appear to have taken something of an Archimedes-like template -- the notion that you can move the world if you can identify a fulcrum and lever and can bring them together in a dynamic relationship?

I wonder if you actually need to apply the pressure of your logical analysis at some other point -- somewhere which will allow momentum to build toward the movement you seek to affect. Just a thought? Perhaps useful, helpful ...? Your analytical skills could be more effectively applied; but where? how? why? I can answer none of these questions, but perhaps this might become a line of thought which will induce unanticipated consequences.

In other words, I wonder if you would reap more ratification if you focused your efforts at some other nexus -- at some point prior to the evolution of a confirmation bias which excludes your informed perspective as non-congruent, and hence irrelevant.--Tenmei (talk) 03:58, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Turning the ship

Following up on that last paragraph, your edit history would seem most often to focus on military campaigns on land rather than water. Regardless of the reasons for this curiosity, I wonder if the nature of the serial topics which have been the cause of serial disputes has affected your basic mind-set. To some degree, of course it has ... and that's why it might be useful to remind you to give some passing thought to the way ships move in water.

The area needed for a ship to turn is a function of her maneuverability and the length of the ship. A vessel's displacement tonnage and forward momentum are factors affecting the arc of her turn in calm seas; but the varying nature of ocean conditions is a factor independent of the ships design and specifications. The maneuverability of today's super-tankers is less nimble than that of a WWII warship -- for example, the HMS Hood.[5] I'm persuaded that this context provides a useful metaphor for examining the effectiveness of your tactics and strategy as you edit Wikipedia's military history articles. This unremarkable metaphor is conventionally found in a variety of non-maritime contexts, e.g., in Australian national government;[6] in Milwaukee County government;[7] in New Zealand penal reform;[8], etc. Harvard University hosted a 2007 symposium on environmental transformation and green restructuring called "Turning the Ship."[9]

It is not inapt to liken the stowed bulk of Wikipedia's extant articles and its editing culture to a slow-moving supertanker. Extending the simile, it is not too much of a stretch to identify editors as being something like tugboats which nudge the article in one direction or another. For both of us, the problem-to-be-solved began with a process of identifying the best positioning point for the most effective "nudge." The kind of a priori analysis which necessarily informs contrasting views in any academic controversy was essential, of course -- and I suspect that those who know more than I about the Soviet invasion of Manchuria or the Silesian Offensives do recognize the not-insubstantial preparation which preceded your edits. In that regard, you seemed to have fared better than me.

We both encountered an under-appreciated extrinsic barrier in the self-selected group of editors who have made themselves part of WikiProject Military history. It only makes sense that these volunteer military specialists would likely have a military background in common; and this would have given them a greater than average appreciation for the advantages of unit cohesiveness, mutual support, etc. A tendency or willingness to frame novel situations in "us-against-them" terms would seem predictable or at least not-inconsistent with the paradigm. In general, this is a good thing; but in more nuanced circumstances, this otherwise admirable teamwork may begin to betray the larger objectives of the Wikipedia project. The generally-understood consensus-building assumptions may become a little bit skewed; but on balance, I don't see this as a problem which needs fixing. As a general principle, I'm disinclined to disturb an animated balance in which advantages outweigh disadvantages. However, in specific, narrowly-focused instances, the substance of that disinclination erodes.

The problem then becomes one of defining wiki-disruption, which isn't necessarily congruent with the wiktionary definition of "disruption."[10] Wikipedia's disambiguation of Disruption explains that the word "generally refers to the normal workings of something being interrupted." Two of the plausible alternate pages are:

• Information security specialists also may refer to a disaster as a disruption when an event interrupts normal business or technical processes.
• Disruptive innovation is Clayton Christensen's theory of industry disruption by new technology or products.

What kind of "disruption" do your edits present? What about mine? In articles which fall within the broad ambit of WikiProject Military history, any edit which triggers the otherwise beneficial "us-against-them" frame is defined too quickly as "disruptive," which is a wiki-term with loaded wiki-connotations beyond conventionally understood parameters.

After the label "disruptive" is pronounced, the relative significance of wiki-consensus is then mistakenly elevated above the nominal balancing effect of WP:V. This re-balancing harmfully diminishes the ordinarily reliable mitigating force of a salutatory maxim: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth — that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." The significance of the informal fallacy is then obscured by a subtle kind of wiki-sophistry. In this context, please ponder this anecdote from modern Japanese history:

Yukio Ozaki (1858–1954) was a Japanese politician, who served in the House of Representatives of the Japanese Diet for 63 years, from 1890-1953. Ozaki was opposed to militarism; and was sometimes confined by the authorities for expressing unpopular views. He could also applaud those whose beliefs differed from his own. For example, in 1921, would-be assassins rushed into his house while he hid in the garden with his daughter, Yukika. The father of one of these dangerous young men later approached Ozaki to apologize in person for the actions of his son. Ozaki immediately responded by with a 32-syllable tanka poem, which he handed to the surprised man:

If it was patriotism that drove the young man,

My would-be assassin deserves honor for it.

I'm bringing this to your attention as a way of reminding you of something you already know -- that the individual Wikipedia editors who devote their time and care to defending military history articles are not like Ozaki; and the range of comments on this talk page aren't likely to include poetry any time soon ... and you may take comfort in predicting that none of the daughters of your wiki-critics are likely to come to the attention of the Nobel Peace Prize committee.

Others may wonder whether your critics meant to be constructive or destructive in pointing out that "2+2 does not equal 7"; but consensus reality is not nearly as important as simply checking to see that the arithmetic is correct. In the broadest possible sense, I'm asking, "Is your arithmetic correct?" Has your arithmetic included all the indispensable elements? Has mine?

I hope this has some value as food for thought? Your edits seem to be perceived as "turning the ship," but your contribution produces ineffective consequences in a massively distributed collaboration. Can you now identify another locus? Is there now another nexus[11] from which introducing a well-modulated "nudge" induces consequences somewhat like the ones you ultimately hope to see? Can you now redefine the issues? Does it now make sense to re-visit your perceived modus operandi? Should you now focus on framing a new modus vivendi? All good questions .... --Tenmei (talk) 21:35, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Ping

Ping! --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 10:15, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Featured article issues

Hi Mrg. Noticed that you said that early in our acquaintance - the peers section above, you made some comments, you said, on an FA - you said it had some issues. If you mean the Russian Ground Forces article, I'm always looking for ways to improve it, so please, list your criticisms anywhere you want, and we can figure out ways to improve it. Regards Buckshot06(prof) 11:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

This comment has proven to be noteworthy. Although tersely written, these words did stick in my memory. When deciding how to respond to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Buckshot06, this one almost-forgotten posting became an unanticipated "tipping point" -- see here. --Tenmei (talk) 16:06, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

You are mistaken. For Buckshot06 the RGF article is a focus article, but to explain what's wrong with it, and to comment on it would require me to devote as much time to it as he did. I am not interested, and that was one of the reasons we parted company. Buckshot06 wanted me to work on Soviet Army and Russian Army articles and provide support, and I said that I am primarily interested in the Eastern Front articles. RGF can not be understood as a stand-alone without consideration of it being a legacy of the Soviet Army, and that in turn links to the war experience. I think the approaches he and use are somewhat like two people looking at an apple tree, with one admiring the fruit and the other wondering about the roots, the trunk, and the rest--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 23:08, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Judaism Newsletter

Worship of the Golden Calf Now with 200% more Jewishness! Yes, folks, we're moving on up. This newsletter is now the newsletter for both WikiProject Judaism, WikiProject Jewish History, and WikiProject Kabbalah. In the future, I may split them, but for now I think we'll be just fine with one. As always, any questions or comments should be directed to me, L'Aquatique. A Special Dispatch Just a note, not aimed at anyone in particular. By order of the administrative cabal, it is officially not cool (and possibly dickish) to call someone an anti-semite when they aren't being anti-semitic. Anti-semitic is a very charged word, and it's important only to use it when you're absolutely sure it applies, lest it become the subject of a Godwin-esque law. Remember Hanlon's Razor: never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity. In the News A new class on the importance scale has been added- C Class- which covers articles better than start but not quite to B Class yet. It is up to the WikiProjects to decide whether to adopt them or not. Currently, there has been little discussion within our Projects, so if you feel strongly either way be sure to note so at your Project[s]. There is a proposal to reword the section on NPOV regarding religious articles. Please see Wikipedia_talk:NPOV#Religion section - Disputes between historians or scientists and religious_views to weigh in. Thanks largely to the efforts of Xyz7890, a new navbox has come into being featuring Halakha topics. See: Template talk:Halakha to join in the conversation about how it can best be improved. To Do The Simple English Wikipedia is beginning a project of creating and improving articles related to religion, including Judaism. At the present time, volunteers are needed to propose our most important subjects for articles to be created. The official working list is here and a more extended list is here. If you are unsure of proper topics, you might try checking our lists of top importance level articles: Judaism and Jewish History. (WikiProject Kabbalah currently doesn't have such a list) [Simple English] WikiProject Christianity is considering running a monthly drive wherein two or three top importance articles from English Wikipedia are simplified and moved over to S.E. They have extended an offer to work with us in creating a similar project for Judaism related articles. For questions or volunteer opportunities, please contact User:John Carter. WikiProject Kabbalah is in dire need of an article rating system for quality and importance. If you are familiar with that system and have some time on your hands, please create one. It could also use some infoboxes... New Members Judaism: Big maybe, Janirai, Jfdwolff, Joseph.mahal, Joshua Weiss, LisaLiel, Rcjavid, Yehudi, YY, Agent204.15, Gilad73, Joseph.mahal, Noah03 Jewish History: Noah03 Kabbalah: None. Won't you join? New Articles Habib ben Elisha Faturechi (Thanks PhatJew!) There are some 40 odd standing requests for Judaism related articles. Please make them! I would, but I'm too busy writing this. . Menorah Quick Links Judaism Portal Kabbalah Portal Articles for Deletion Request for Comment Article Requests WikiProject Judaism Stats 281 Project Members 6155 articles 2342 of which are Stubs 15 of which are Good 8 of which are Featured WikiProject Jewish History Stats 69 Project Members 1124 articles 241 of which are Stubs 10 of which are Good 10 of which are Featured WikiProject Kabbalah Stats 12 Project Members 165 articles 87 of which are Stubs 1 of which is Good 1 of which is Featured Wikipedia ads file info – #148

This newsletter was automatically delivered because you are a member of one or more Judaism related WikiProjects. If you would like to opt out of future mailings, please remove your name from this list.

• Newsletter delivery by xenobot 02:50, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

AfD:Silesian Offensives

FYI, I've fixed the links etc on this, which were malformed. The discussion page is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Silesian Offensives --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 04:40, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 04:41, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

We're very confused by your nomination of Silesian Offensives on WP:AfD. If you could provide specifics such as why it is against CFORK and why that's so bad, and link to the article it's a fork of, that'd improve the chances of it being deleted or (better yet) merged. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 05:42, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

RE:RSN

You got no replies to this mammoth post because it did not fall under the scope of the noticeboard. I said to use that noticeboard if you have any issues over a source. You would list www.unreliable.com there and ask others to investigate its reliability. That noticeboard is not for content disputes, that is what WP:DRAMA is for, as you are aware. Woody (talk) 09:52, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

The offer of a JCB still stands, other than that, there is nothing I can, or will, do. I am not getting involved in these battles, not least because I don't have hours in the day to read your your posts.

Oh, and to make clear, ANI is not for content disputes; if you can't remedy the situation in a civil manner, then WP:DR is where you should head. Regards. Woody (talk) 14:53, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

August 2008

Please do not attack other editors, which you did here: Soviet invasion of Manchuria. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 14:16, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Your message

I did not spend much time browsing through edit histories, so please forgive me, but I couldn't help but notice that you were stating that Ncmvocalist was applying restrictions to you. Ncmvocalist is not an administrator; in what sense is he applying restrictions? Antelan 04:50, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Funny you should ask given you are on an enforced break! In nay case, whoever you are, look here--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 06:42, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

re:HMS Royal George

The reason I said it was an invented term is because the term 'Hunt class' doesn't appear in the book. In the Ship List X, Royal George's section is headed as 'Royal George (Hunt)' - Hunt referring to Sir Edward Hunt, the designer. Queen Charlotte was built to the same draught, as the text of the book verifies, but because Lavery hasn't explicitly used the term 'Hunt class,' and because Wikipedia isn't about inventing terms (ie there are is no article on DKM Bismarck, etc) we can't use it. And if we were to follow the format set out by Lavery, then it would be the Royal George class (which would also include Ville de Paris, despite her being draughted by Henslow). So that's why I removed the term. Classes during this period are really only ascribed by modern historians anyway, as the differences between classes of these ships was much, much less noticeable than between two classes of modern destroyers, for example.

As for Admiral Duckworth's squadron, I have nothing to hand right now, but I'll see what I can find for you. Martocticvs (talk) 16:26, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate that the word "class" meant something different then. In fact, it is closer to what we would now call "type", so that in the sailing era one would talk of a "100-gun class" of ship. The most appropriate word to use to describe sister-ships built to the same set of plans would be "design" or "draught". However I should mention that to convey the meaning to present-day readers I use the word "class" in its modern sense, so that you could quote my books as a source (e.g. I refer to the "Royal George Class" because a modern reader will understand that I mean a number of ships built to the same design - and yes, by the same designer). It would certainly NOT be correct to use the designer's name as a "class" name (so to talk of "Hunt class" is definitely wrong, both in the 1790s and the present day!) Rif Winfield (talk) 17:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

2008 South Ossetia war

Do we need to revert this edit by user Tocino ? :

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2008_South_Ossetia_war&diff=231158071&oldid=231158017

Greetings,

--Krzyzowiec (talk) 04:11, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

2008 South Ossetia war

Do we need to revert this edit by user Tocino ? :

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2008_South_Ossetia_war&diff=231158071&oldid=231158017

Greetings,

--Krzyzowiec (talk) 04:12, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Ban warning: Silesian Offensives

Please don't disrupt this article as otherwise I shall be obliged to impose an article/talk page ban. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 06:16, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about Roger? Not one of these books mentions Silesian operations as they are presented in the article. No citations are offered. What is it exactly that I am "disrupting?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 06:28, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

You are subject to both a personal editing restriction and the Digwuren restriction. In the circumstances, your best course in your future edits on this article is probably circumspection. As for the citations, my best advice about the citations is either fix them or move on. Many editors will see a slow edit war and serial tagging as tendentious, especially when it follows on the heels of an unsuccessful AfD. 06:46, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

You must realise I don't give too hoots about Wikipedia bans and restrictions. If someone creates an article, and adds works to it, they ought to also provide verifiable sources for the article. At the least they should recommend works where they may be found. I happen to know Glantz an Duffy quite well, and don't think of Beevor very highly. I am not going to fix every article Piotrus decides to create because he feels like it. The onus is on him to fix it. I have every right to see what the relationship between the works he added to the article is to the content of the article, and that is actually irrespective of the whatever administrative tools you choose to keep me from maintaining quality standards at higher then high school level in Wikipedia. You may want to discuss these with Kirill. I love how the wikitalk comes out. "Personal editing restriction" - includes any article where the sources provided do not match contents? Digwuren restriction - includes any articles where tag-teaming editors like to keep unverifiable information by using consensus? The AfD only highlighted the way Wikipedia works, not that the article has any notability or substance to it--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 06:59, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

There's the rub. You have your own individual take on quality and sources, reinforced by enormous self-confidence and extraordinary stubbornness. These attributes can either be seen as charmingly quixotic or highly disruptive, depending on whether one shares your personal vision. Like it or not, Wikipedia is a cooperative venture, relying heavily on consensus for its smooth-running, and it is beyond your power to change that. Simply put, no one is compelling you to edit but if you continue to do so, it must be on the project's terms and not your own. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 08:15, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, NOW I GET IT, Wikipedia is information Kolkhoz.

Project terms change depending on who is interpreting them Roger.

My enormous self-confidence is based in a lot of reading. In 60 years not one author I know of has connected the two Silesian operations, and yet, here we are in Wikipedia with a new hypothesis

Extraordinary stubbornness is neither quixotic nor highly disruptive. People who disrupt, or destroy rarely have the stamina to create as I do, and the windmills I tilt at, are far from imagined evils--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 08:28, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

RE: Med squadron 1807

This is a tricky area, whilst the presence of Apollo, Tigre and Wizard are all easily confirmed, the expedition (at least in naval terms) is not as highly regarded and thus as widely featured in the related histories on the period, as some of the naval events of the area and period. That is, at least to the extent of including a complete order of battle. User:Jackyd101 has written a number of articles on the naval history of the period, and has covered the Napoleonic Mediterranean naval campaigns. Perhaps he might have some specialist sources to hand that include a complete list. Benea (talk) 22:06, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

RE:Blockade

As far as I am aware it is more American-English to say Blockade off and it is more British-English to say Blockade of. I much prefer blockade of though they are both correct, depending on the context. I'm afraid I can't find any information/sources to back up or refute either saying, it is just my opinion. Woody (talk) 09:34, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Your recent contributions

		The WikiChevrons
		For adding, over the past week or so, a remarkable amount of high quality content to an extraordinarily broad range of military history articles, I am delighted to award you the WikiProject Military history Chevrons. --ROGER DAVIES talk 04:26, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Image Issues

I have put the images within thumbnails now, though the caption for the first sword image is way too long, you may want to revert me. In terms of image issues, see Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Problem_images and Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive466#Images not resizing?. It seems to be a general Wikimedia issue in terms of images, so not just you. Regards. Woody (talk) 10:38, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Vyborg-Petrozavodsk Strategic Offensive Operation

Hi, as one of our resident Soviet experts, your opinion is required. I have changed the result in this article to a limited Soviet success. But perhaps consensus is needed to avoid conflict, what do you think? Dapi89 (talk) 21:26, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes I agree on all points (with the exception of Stalin and his intent toward Finnland). I was hoping you were going to resign yourself to the fact the best we will get on wikipedia is a "tactical xxxx, Strategic xxxx" text in the info box and make your selection accordingly! However I can see you cannot dispense with common sense that easily. I fear if I add three separate results in that format I'm just going to trigger a conflict over it. But I suppose we could give it a try, and see what happens? Dapi89 (talk) 10:37, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Charge (warfare)

You've made edits suggesting the Italian cavalry charge in Russia in 1942 was not the last cavalry charge, successful or otherwise, in history. Which other cavalry charges have taken place since then? --NEMT (talk) 04:25, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Red Cavalry had made numerous charges after 1942, the last one I have read about was in Hungary in 1945 I think. They are not documented in Western sources so the Italian charge is commonly reported as the last one. The truth is that we will probably never know which unit and where made the last charge. There were Mongolian cavalry units operating in the Far East in August-September 1945 which also may have charged against the Chinese and Japanese troops, but I can't say with certainty at this time--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 05:05, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I see, are you certain these were mounted cavalry charges; and do you have any Russian sources? --NEMT (talk) 06:06, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I was not there if that is the degree of certainty you require. I need to look, but I am fairly certain I can provide a couple of sources, one for use of cavalry during Operation Bagration. Is this urgent? Are you unhappy with Italians being "denied" the last charge?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 06:21, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Are you certain you haven't confused limited presence/participation by cavalry units with actual cavalry charges? Cavalry were likely used in recon and scouting operations in Bagration, but I can't find any information on actual charges. --NEMT (talk) 07:10, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'm certain because the unit in question was a division (Soviet cav division was about 2,000 troops total), but they were charging a retreating column of German troops mid-way through Operation Bagration. Maybe not the "ideal" charge against formed troops, but then again I'm not aware that Wehrmacht trained its infantry to form squares in 1944 either :) I will try to find out which unit, where and a reference--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 07:51, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Without looking it up, I remember 'The Road to Berlin' by John Erickson describes a Soviet cavalry charge during the attempted breakout from the Korsun Pocket in 1944. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.96.191.138 (talk) 11:33, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

RE:Category problems

Post a note at WT:MILHIST inviting discussion as this is a top-level change. If that discussion thinks that there is enough justification then open up a CFD, or do that now, and then wait for a consensus to form. Woody (talk) 14:01, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Clean straw for nothing

Changing the subject: Vaucluse? Darling Point? Clontarf? Wondering how often you think about Yarralumla? --Tenmei (talk) 05:13, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments?

[12]? --Tavrian (talk) 20:45, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

PIRAZ

Thank you for the additional information regarding USS Wainwright and the Son Tay Raid. Could you check your reference regarding Wainwright's status for this raid? I don't have a reference that says otherwise, but I was a CIC watchstander aboard USS Chicago on PIRAZ station from 1200 20 November 1970 until 0300 19 December. There were two SAR stations near the PIRAZ station which were fairly routinely occupied on a temporary basis whenever air strikes offered a high probability of SAR work. I would guess Wainwright might have been on one of those SAR stations; but I know good authors have often confused the circumstances of guided missile cruiser assignments during Gulf of Tonkin evolutions. The information was released piecemeal and was difficult to correlate. Thewellman (talk) 01:28, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

WWII

Here are my general comments on your proposal about WWII articles. Frankly, I see several problems that may become unresolvable. Your intentions are too global, so I am not sure if we are able to do everything properly (at least, better than the present version). Remember, the article must have a reasonable size, and it is extremely difficult to tell everything in few phrases. I see at least three types of editors that have completely different visions of the problem and that may oppose the editing you are intended to do. First type is a peoples who generally accept a standard recent Western vision, plagued with a spirit of "Saving private Ryan". They will oppose any non-simplistic and non-Americanocentric POV. Second type peoples are editors from former Warsaw pact countries who consider the USSR was "equally" evil as Nazis did during WWII. Of course, for the war period it was not correct, whatever Stalin did before and after WWII. Although majority of their arguments can be refuted comparatively easily, it can make normal work impossible. And third type editors are those who, along with Oberiko, created the present version. They may start arguing against significant modifications for very common psychological reasons (and I would understand their concern). As a result, all our efforts would be wasted in fruitless discussions. I have recently been involved in such a discussion about the WWII start date and I think I would spend my time more fruitfully. Writing the article and fierce discussions about every sentence is too much for me if it is not just a time spending. And for me it is not a time spending. I really want to make this very article reasonably good. Therefore, I propose you to start with something not so global. We already started our work on the "War Becomes Global" section. Let's bring it into a good shape leaving section names and general shape of the article unchanged (at least, for a while). And then, if our efforts are successful, we can think about something else. I will be more than happy to help you with that. Sincerely, --Paul Siebert (talk) 05:13, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I generally share your vision of WWII history, although I don't share your manner to conduct a discussion. Frankly, for me the latter is absolutely not a problem, truth is always truth, even when it is represented in a rude form; as regards to your moving up my post, I simply didn't pay attention to that. However, majority of people pay exaggerated attention to politeness.
Unfortunately, it is impossible to simply disregard that fact, because I see no other way to change this concrete article then via achievement of consensus. I would say, the ability to convince is even more important than ability to wright.
There is no problem to create a good article even using exclusively Western sources, simply by taking only government documents and academic scholarly papers, and by throwing out lousy popular books, magazine articles and similar bullshit. The real problems will start after that.
The issue is not a history. It is the ethics, personal ambitions etc. that create real problems.
Let's take Estonian conscripts as an example. Generally, I am inclined to think your point of view is more reasonable than that of Ericpoeg (who included them). However, formally he is right: his used solid sources and these details are not irrelevant, although they can be considered minor. The relevance of mentioning Estonians can be substantiated from formal point of view, and Ericpoeg will do it for sure if you try to remove it. As a result, 50% of your arguments will be refuted. However, to prove that event was a minor would be much more difficult: judging by raw numbers or duration this battle, it is comparable with the Battle of Guadalcanal, for instance, so it would be impossible to exclude it for formal reasons. Therefore, a consensus or mediation will be necessary. And how do you plan to reach a consensus or to convince politecorrect Americans and tactful Europeans if you "don't care much for ethnic passions"?
--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:09, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Once again, I have a feeling you don't have to convince me in anything. Everything you write is reasonable, but it doesn't make a situation easier. I know you had been blocked and I don't want it to happen again during your work on that article. Everything you tell about Estonians and others is correct. However I doubt it would be easy to remove it. Once again, if you tell that Narva offensive is small and irrelevant, you therefore imply that 50% battles mentioned in the article - in Pacific, Asia, Western Europe are small and irrelevant too, ergo the whole structure of the article should be re-considered. Majority editors would oppose it.
The only think I propose is to do everything gradually and, if possible, politely.
By the way. I noticed one more issue. New editings started to appear in various war articles where the role of Baltic nation in resistance to Soviets is overemphasized, so de facto those nations are promoted to the range of belligerents. At the same time, the editors insist on neutrality of Balitc countries during WWII. This is self-contradictory, so I plan to rise a discussion on this account. However, that is possible if, and only if, I can find anubody who supports my vision and if I can do it politely. Otherwise just spoil everything.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:41, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

RE:Duckworth

I will have a look at it today, give a mini-PR. In terms of DYK, I don't think they will have it as it doesn't fit the criteria. Woody (talk) 09:06, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Done a quick assessment for you. (I completely forgot about it, sorry; that is what you get for using an old section header). As I said there, if you want a more in-depth review, open a milhist peer review. Regards. Woody (talk) 22:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Correct Template

Hi,

I noticed that you've used the no reference tag on some pages with strong references but few footnotes. You might prefer to use {{Template:Nofootnotes}} to be more specific. Cheers! --Kevin Murray (talk) 02:52, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

• Well by deciding to use the wrong template and changing reference sections to "further reading" you are kind of setting your own policy. You are entitled to your opinion, but you should be following policy and custom. Please! --Kevin Murray (talk) 03:09, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

The Judaism Newsletter

Sir Moses Montefore, a Jewish activist who died 123 years ago this month "Censorship" of names of G-d There is an interesting discussion currently taking place regarding whether or not it is acceptable to censor (i.e. G-d, HaShem->YodHey) names of G-d in articles to protect Jews who may be reading or editing the article. You can weigh in here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Judaism#Yahweh. Article Cleanup Lists User:B. Wolterding has generously offered us use of his bot to generate lists that show which articles of ours are tagged for cleanup. You can read more about this service here: User:B._Wolterding/Cleanup_listings and if you would like to take him up on his offer, contact him on his talk page. In the News The Jewish Barnstar The New Jewish Barnstar There is a collaboration drive to get Holocaust in Lithuania to good article status. For information about how you can help, see the talk page or contact User:Piotrus. WikiProject Kabbalah's only Featured and Good articles have been removed from the WikiProject, on the grounds that neither article (Diane Keaton and David Beckham, respectively) actually mention the subject's affiliation with Kabbalah. If you have sourced information linking either of these people to Kabbalah, please add it so the articles can be returned to the WikiProject. After a rather heated discussion, there are now two barnstars for use by the Jewish WikiProjects, {{The Jewish Barnstar}} and {{The New Jewish Barnstar}}, and you can choose which one you would like to use.. Remember: barnstars are for rewarding users who are doing good work on the project or on Judaism, Jewish History, or Kabbalah articles, and anyone can give anyone else a barnstar. If you see a user who you thinks deserves a thank you, give them a barnstar! To Do/Help Requests If you have some spare time on your hands, we could use an article about a Kabbalah scholar named Moshe Idel. According to HG there are quite a few sources easily available, you can contact him if you have questions. Be sure to nominate it for DYK if the finished article is eligible. The folks at Shimon Peres need some assistance from someone familiar with both the Hebrew calendar and language to help them figure out the subject's birthday. If you can help, please see Talk:Shimon_Peres#Birthday. New Members Judaism: Arigont, Avi, CheskiChips, Pini00001, Shirulashem, TaliaNadel, Tyciol, yehoshuafriedla Jewish History: 5768altalena, AniMate, User:Yosef.garibaldi.gmail, Pinnecco, Shirulashem, Tyciol Kabbalah: Shuliavrumi New Articles Bezalel Rudinsky (thanks Shirulashem!}, Jewish tartan (thanks Briangotts!), Hebrew spelling (thanks Epson291) We get a lot of articles that are being created and not announced! By announcing new articles, you attract attention to them, and the more people looking and editing the better they will get. If you would like your new article to appear in the newsletter, add it here for Judaism and Kabbalah and here for Jewish History. There are some 40 odd standing requests for Judaism related articles. Please make them! I would, but I'm too busy writing this. . Menorah Quick Links Judaism Portal Kabbalah Portal Israel Portal Articles for Deletion Request for Comment Article Requests WikiProject Judaism Stats 291 Project Members 6248 articles 2356 of which are Stubs 18 of which are Good 6 of which are Featured WikiProject Jewish History Stats 77 Project Members 1141 articles 244 of which are Stubs 10 of which are Good 10 of which are Featured WikiProject Kabbalah Stats 13 Project Members 165 articles 87 of which are Stubs 0 of which are Good 0 of which are Featured Wikipedia ads file info – #148

This newsletter was automatically delivered because you are a member of one or more Judaism related WikiProjects. If you would like to opt out of future mailings, please remove your name from this list. As always, please direct all questions, comments, requests, barnstars, offers of help, and angry all-caps anti-semitic rants to my talk page. Thanks, and have a great month. L'Aquatique[approves|this|message] 20:31, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

• Newsletter delivery by xenobot 21:30, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

The War Becomes Global

Hello , Mrg3105. Could you please have a look at the new version of The War Becomes Global section. If you are satisfied (or not satisfied) with that, please, let me know. I removed your references to non-existent pages (we can do it later when these pages will be created). I also am not sure about the references on general papers. It seems to me that reference campaign sending a reader to the definition of military campaign is somewhat distracting. It is more useful when such a reference provides additional specific information on the subject. Here is the example explaining my point of view:
Good: ....allowed the Soviets to launch a massive counter-offensive along 1000 km front, although it was halted soon after Axis troops were pushed 100-250 km west....
Bad: ....allowed the Soviets to launch a massive counter-offensive along 1000 km front, although it was halted soon after Axis troops were pushed 100-250 km west...

By the way, do you know by a chance how to create a reference not on the article as whole, but on the specific section in this article?

Best regards, --Paul Siebert (talk) 19:08, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Have a look at my talk page.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:54, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

European Theatre of World War II

I have recently found the European Theatre of World War II article. It seems to be a good "sandbox". What do you think about extensive editing of it before we start doing something with the main WWII article? --Paul Siebert (talk) 14:28, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand: are you intended to work on this concrete article? If yes, what do you propose to start with?

Regarding the WWII article I would like to say that my only purpose is to fix the most flagrant bullshit. I have no illusions about possibility to create something really good (also I don't mind to try :-) ). Therefore I would appreciate any comments on the "the war becomes global" version that is currently on the WWII talk page. I realize that it is not a final version, so if, in distant future, you decide to edit it again I will have absolutely no objections. I am intended to replace the current version "The War Becomes Global" with this variant in close future, so all your comments are warmly welcome. --Paul Siebert (talk) 03:23, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Pioneer

What is your problem with this article and the disambiguation? Pioneer is rarely used in the meaning "settler" today, and even less so in the meaning "inventor". It is however used by a variety of military organisations, still. The military noun meaning was the original meaning, and if you look at other articles, defining etymology is usually the good start to writing an article--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 02:49, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi there, thank you for contacting me about this. I'm sorry for my part in escalating this dispute, we should have discussed from the outset instead of reverting each other. Let me give you my take on both issues on the respective talk pages, Talk:Pioneer and Talk:Pioneer (disambiguation). I'll add a note at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages) and Wikipedia talk:Lead section requesting further input. Regards. --Muchness (talk) 03:45, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

"Topics with the same or similar titles for different things are found in different articles. For example: backup (to move backwards) and backup (save computer data)." WP:NOTADICT. Please try to explain how you can say that settlers and military engineers are the same thing.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 05:10, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Pioneers are not same as military engineers. I did not create Pioneer (Military) and it needs to be deleted. If you want to create separate articles for American pioneers or Pioneers in science, be my guest. However, while these two subjects are on the one hand very specific in the first case and very general in the second, the military occupation is a unique term, and there is no need to create a Pioneer (military) article to accommodate it. However you can ask for an RfC--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 05:15, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

The thing is, pioneer (as in innovator) already exists as does American pioneer/Settler. As WP:NOTADICT says, articles in the wikipedia are by topic, not article name. The article pioneer is completely incorrectly scoped and has large overlaps with other articles as well as not being on a single topic. What do you propose to do about it? Given you seem to be trying to own the article, my options are get you suspended for 3RR or get the admins involved. Or you could start following policy. Your call.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 05:31, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be confused. Just because something is in a dictionary, or the article name is a single word, does not mean they are not a topic.

Let me introduce you to Category:Occupations. Pioneer is an occupation. As such it can be further expanded, including history, units that were/are known as pioneers, pioneer skills, pioneer tools, pioneer uniforms, operations pioneers were used in, and maybe some other areas of expansion.

On the other hand, in the settler sense pioneer is primarily used in the United States, and the article is so named. There is really no need to wikilink to the military occupation article because other than the basic concept of using some of the 18th century skills and tools of the military profession, civilian pioneers had little in common.

As for the innovators, if someone is called a pioneer in the field, then it is a figure of speech that has nothing to do with the original meaning and use, although one can say it is the literal meaning of the pioneer's work. That article can also stand on its own, but I wonder if there is a need for it given the existence of the innovator article. I note that pioneer is not mentioned in the innovator article even once!

So, why are you so adamant to reinvent the wheel? As you will note, I had not performed 3RR, I was in fact in the process of adding citations and references which you deleted. Besides that you also took unilateral action to drastically alter the article, using another editor to create the pioneer (military), without participating in the discussion ongoing in talk.

As for my ownership of the article, I don't accept that. I am simply the person who largely expanded and referenced it from a stub that it was, and quite happy to discuss its development--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 06:06, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Disambiguation pages

Please note that disambiguation pages are not for dumping grounds for external links, red links, or any definitions that you may find inconvenient on another article. Disambiguation pages are for the purpose of navigating to Wikipedia articles, nothing more. Thank you. H.G. 06:59, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I never thought they were for dumping grounds for external links, red links, or any definitions that I may find inconvenient on another article. Sometimes however a disambiguation is required where no article exists. I find that creating a redlink encourages creation of the required article which certainly benefits Wikipedia. Are you referring to the references I left after placing the other possible usages of pioneer?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 07:05, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm referring to the material I recently removed. Please review relevant guidelines on disambiguation. Cheers. H.G. 07:48, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion process

As you appear to misunderstand the policy on proposed deletion, I'll quote the relevant part to you:

Contested deletions: If anyone, including the article's creator, removes a {{prod}} tag from an article for any reason, do not put it back, except when the removal is clearly not an objection to deletion (such as blanking the entire article). If the edit is not obviously vandalism, do not restore the tag, even if the tag was apparently removed in bad faith. If you still believe that the article needs to be deleted, list it on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion.

I have removed the template again. Please do not replace it. If you still wish to pursue the deletion of this page, AfD is your next step. Thank you. H.G. 07:47, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Category:Scientific organisations of World War II

Hi, I just came across Category:Scientific organisations of World War II and was very interested to see what articles were in it. So I was surprised (and disappointed) to find only a single article. I'm pretty sure there must be some other articles that could go there, though it may depend on how "organisations" is construed. (For example, what about something like the Manhattan Project?) Are you planning on populating the category in the near future? Cgingold (talk) 10:22, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Cgingold, there are lots. However, after I was told to stop reorganising WWII categories, so not only was not supported, but threatened as if I was actually doing harm, I became frustrated and now generally do not contribute to the WWII cleanup and articles. WWII categorisation is a mess, but I don't need the pain of having to fight people to do something good because one or two editors can't handle change--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 10:34, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Military incompetence

An article that you have been involved in editing, Military incompetence, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Military incompetence. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? ~ Jafet • business • pleasure • voicemail 14:32, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Behaving yourself

Did I tell anyone you were, or were not, behaving yourself? The only time I've said anything of the sort is in my private sandbox, which I've told precisely one person about. The only way you could have found that was by stalking my edits! On your blocks, did you notice I did not contribute one thing to your edit restriction? It's not by me you've been blocked by, it's by the whole community. And while we're at it, do you not consider two featured articles 'expansion' of articles, not to mention the massive amount of new ones - Russian divisions and armies - and expansions, ie Armed Forces of Liberia? Should you wish to contribute freely, all you need to do is follow policy and guidelines fully - mostly the consensus one - and take a little notice of what others say. Buckshot06(prof) 08:15, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Addition - I've just discovered you were changing and editing inside my sandbox. Would you kindly explain why? This is extremely rude. Buckshot06(prof) 08:39, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't know about Congo, but the Russian Ground Forces article was rated FA by someone who has no idea about RGF.

Your Congo FA article is interesting. You have one source in French in Bibliography, and seven references to French language sources cited. Did you know the country's official language is French? Do you understand French? I believe you said you are studying it. Have you spoken to anyone in the Congo military? They have internet also.

Russian divisions and Armies? You have copied the information often from one or two sources. How do you think it is possible to write articles on Russian units without knowledge of Russian?! I can create lots of articles on any unit in any country, but actually making them balanced, covering the subject fairly well, and providing appropriate sources is something else entirely. Armies are even a greater issue since being more operational and even strategic formations in nature, they need far greater contextualisation and therefore more sources. Compared to US or British Armies your efforts are stubs at best, and I have never gone over them for accuracy.

Now you are doing Turkey! You don't know Turkish. Not only that, but when I tried to insert the Turkish terms into the article, you removed them! You don't think that a Turkish military article should have Turkish terms in it? Is it your Anglophilia, or do you just dislike any other language?!

And here is an interesting point of view, readers are interested in the Second World War, so you write about modern armies of Congo and Liberia! When I try to do anything on the subject readers ARE interested in, you take every pain to make this as difficult as possible. And the reasons you give are based in insistence on following guidelines and conventions as if they were God-sent! And you call me single-minded?

You are right, I am not interested in what others say, and I don't care how many dozens of editors say it. Opinions are worthless without proof. Surely you have heard of the great discovery that Earth is not a flat disk? Many people who "edit" in Wikipedia are full of opinions. Yours are usually wrong on the subject of the Eastern Front, so every time you resorted to votes rather than research to force your opinion down my "throat". Result, next to 0 editing on the Eastern Front articles. I was going to give you a gold barnstar with oak leaves, swords and diamonds for that one; campaign well fought.

Consensus is nonsense. As practised in Wikipedia in my experience and elsewhere, I'd call it block voting - see UN or Eurovision. I don't know the people who participate in these vote exercises from a "bar of soap", so why should I take their opinion for granted? It is a great Wikipedia ideal, like communism, but it doesn't work. Look in the talk pages and you will see that people are still trying to define what it means and how it is used four years on. In the building trade, the word of wisdom is, don't build foundations on loose sandy soil that can shift. Wikipedia's foundations, policy-wise, shift all the time.

And yes, I have to watch your talk, because I know that if trouble comes my way in Wikipedia, it is more likely than not going to have your user name on it somewhere.

Hey Nick, more incivility I bet. You must live in Canberra--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 02:28, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Editing restriction

On the basis of these highly uncivil edits [13] [14] I am invoking your editing restriction and am banning you from editing User:Buckshot06‎'s personal pages. This includes his talk page unless he specifically invites you to post on it. Please also consider this a warning that further uncivil comments will lead to a block being imposed. Nick Dowling (talk) 10:06, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

BTW, just to remind you - I do not recognise my editing restrictions, whatever they were. I will edit whatever I want and in whatever way I want--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 02:31, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

greeting

Thanks for saying hi. First I had to read my own user page to check what it says, since it is some time since I last looked at it. Debating referencing on the history project has to some extent moved me towards the usefullness of references. The debate there has included some of the better arguments for it which I have seen anywhere, perhaaps mostly the pragmatic argument for using refs for quality assessment. However, I was also struck by the number of people there commenting about a particular article who said, 'the article is great, it just doesn't have references'. They were assessing it as a good article except for a technical lack. Editors are capable of doing this. I am not an acknowledged expert on anything, yet I am capable of becoming sufficiently familiar with an article to make basic judgements about it.

The history project seems to view references as a basic minimum requirement for an article to get any kind of rating, whereas I regard it as an advanced level criteria. The editorial team is content that a below average rating, ie a B, merely requires one or two general references and referencing for contentious points only. The difficulty seems to me to stem from the evolution of the rating system, with maybe three (?) different quality measures having been amalgamated, with consequent overlap of top grades and conflicting, and competing, standards. If the system went, A,B,C,D, start, then we might not be having this difficulty. There seems to be a race amongst editors to collect brownie points by creating top rated articles, and a lack of interest in the great majority of articles. All this seems to have promoted the 'B' to a high rank, which looked at objectively, it should not be.

I presume this is why the C has been invented. Yet once again, history project don't like that either. They remain disinterested in the great body of articles, refusing to acknowledge they have any merit. Worse, it sems to me, they are refusing to implement a simple framework which would cause them no difficulty, but make those who feel a C grade is useful, happy. This is not very cooperative. If asked the question, would C grades add or detract from wiki's usefullness, I can't place them anywhere except on the 'add' side. Denying the grade cannot help the project, and must, to whatever degree, harm it.

Re your last point, while it might be nice to resolve disputes on the basis of evidence, wiki is run by relatively few people. If enough people are interested in one page to have an argument, that is probably above average interest. Getting a dispasionate view of evidence needs a jury, and there isn't the manpower. Which is not to say I think one person cannot rate an article. It is very likely in a page dispute that both sides will be committed to that article (or they wouldn't be arguing!), and either could make an assessment of its quality. Just some particular detail they are arguing about. I don't generally see a difficulty in removing unsourceable material. I think it important though, that people DO NOT go around arbitrarily insisting on sources unless they have a reasonable believe there is an inaccuracy.

Which brings us to the the fundamental wikipedia policy position, that sources are generally not required. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia which anyone can edit. Not simply anyone with a degree and a vast library. I remain of two minds over referencing. While in principle I don't object to it, indeed think it beneficial, I do feel that every time I add a ref, I am contributing to an unhealthy obsession, so perhaps I should not. Should I offer an alcoholic another drink, when I have the odd glass myself?

(sorry, gotta go, hope the above is coherent) Sandpiper (talk) 08:06, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

It was coherent, and I can offer only a few additional points.

While everyone can edit Wikipedia, few understand what editing actually means in a reference work. By an large it means adding or substantiating factual content worthy of reference (notability). While anyone can edit, not one editor in Wikipedia carries the authority of an expert by definition because few are willing to explicitly identify themselves as such.

I form the view that a reference work must in the first instance serve 80% of the needs of 80% of the people who access it. Its a starting point. Ultimately 99% would be the targets in both cases. The depth to which this is required is not necessarily great. It is better to have 100 articles that address their subjects to an intermediate level, than 10 articles that provide advanced level of understanding because it leaves 90% of the readership wanting, and 90% of the given field of knowledge not addressed. Hence I have no fascination with FA articles, and have only devoted time to one B article as a sort of personal hobby because I didn't see why this individual should be forgotten. I am working on what will be an FA article (if I don't get blocked in the process) of a subject that is extensive and complex, and I judge to be beyond the average Wikipedia editor, but is important enough in its field to be covered in depth and be well referenced. The peculiarity of the subject demands what Wikipedia calls FA standard, so I am not doing it because I want a star on my user page, or because I have any particular desire for symbolic self-esteem boosters (barn stars).

I have also tried to add more mundane articles in the Military and War categories that explain concepts frequently used in other articles, often with no understanding of them. This has led to conflicts because suddenly people find they are still talking in 19th century terms.

My own self-imposed standard is to create articles with a minimum of three references that offer page citations to the basic premise of the article. Often I see articles with citations to only parts of their content, and periphery contents to the main subject of the article at that, and yet they are not referenced, or tagged as such. Often they are unclear, and even misleading, and yet I suppose they are read daily with no correction made because, as you say, there are few people actually involved. My experience is that for every "working" editor there are 20+ "gnomes". This is unhelpful even if I know that my spelling mistakes and less elegant grammar will be fixed. Given anyone can and does edit minor grammatical transgressions, few have the serious article creation commitment. The 2,500 or so FA articles are in fact hugely inefficient. The biographical article I worked on that is close to FA level probably took up as much as 20-30 smaller article creation effort, but on the other hand I enjoyed the research. Do I support personal gratification in place of expanding Wikipedia quantitatively and qualitatively? I think not. I may bring to the attention of the World the life of a deserving historical figure, but one that is unlikely to have been a reference need for most of the English-speaking population (sadly even in England). It lacks what in the commercial world is known as market satisfaction and customer focus--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 12:09, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I edit wikipedia for fun. If it does some good in the process, thats fine, but its not a cause. I'm the sort of person who enjoyed exams. So what I do here is patchy and depends upon what has recently caught my eye. I don't believe in banning passers by from editing wikipedia, because what it has gained from such people (ultimately, everything) is much greater than harm some may do either wih deliberate bad edits or mistakes. Any process of writing an article begins with collcting together information and random passers by are as good as anyone at adding a pont here and there, or even starting off an article on something which interests them. The difference between them and me is I understand better how wiki works, so am better placed to make information fit in well. But others can come along and organise material left for processing. That is all part of a cooperative effort.

I would agree with you that effort going into refining high quality articles is a less efficient use of people's time than if they worked on less well developed articles. But I wouldn't criticise them for that. Volunteers are entitled to do what they want, and if that is what they enjoy, then i am happy for them to be here. It's not as if FA articles are evil, just slightly anacronistic. (well, there are too many of them to be the wiki featured article of the day, which is what it means). I also think, contrary to the views of some I have debated, that wiki needs to be useful to everyone who wants to know something. If they are bright enough to find a link to here, the article they get should be understandable to them when they arrive. This is not always true. i alwys felt a wiki article should work on at least three levels: the one-line definition of ther topic, the simple introduction, the longer explanation. It also needs the more difficult extending into daughter articles where the topic is just too vast for one page. On the whole I just see it as a random walk into the dark, where we all wander of in some direction slowly filling in pieces. Sandpiper (talk) 08:33, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

It continues to amaze me how many like-minded (for the most part) individuals I find in Wikipedia, and also on reflection how many individuals in Wikipedia see it as something else entirely. I do agree that wiki needs to be useful to everyone who wants to know something. I'm not sure I would describe my contributions as being fun, because for the most part gaining military capability and conducting military operations is serious business. I think the problem in Wikipedia is with the process that often lacks that research phase you mention which is also the only requirement stipulated every time someone starts an article. Why, I ask, can't people note down where they got their information as they create it? I have no problem with anyone and everyone contributing, but I do like to know where they get their data from. I think your proposal of a three-tiered approach is an excellent one, and I have seen it proposed elsewhere by others. There is a larger logical derivative from it. If the author can not define the subject simply, it clearly means he or she does not really understand the subject. The result is often a presentation of a convoluted and complex prose that on occasion left me dumbfounded as to how anyone would consider presenting such information as a source of reference. A source of reference is of course one that leaves no questions unanswered in the mind of the reader at the end of the subject article. Am I the only one who thinks this should be the defining rule in content creation and editing? Clearly not since I have read some very good articles which are not even B rated--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 21:08, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Deutschland class cruiser

Hi, Mind if I ask why you removed the category ship type? Regards, Ben Aveling 22:53, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Its too general to apply to a specific class--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 22:54, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Help

there is a issue i need solving Battle of Longewala which is being vandalised by Shovon he keeps deleting sourced information because hes a patriotic indian and does not want the controversy section included in the article also the sino indian war has unsourced additions on Pakistan which are just put there without reason and most of all NO SOURCES please help cheers 86.156.208.40 (talk) 14:55, 28 September 2008 (UTC) I appreciate your non pov edits on longewala have a good day freind 86.158.237.205 (talk) 13:32, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Buckshot06's RfA

Mrg, in case you missed it, you have been warned for your comments in this RfA: [15] and I am now also warning you. You have every right to oppose Buckshot's nomination and explain your concerns, but there is no need to argue with Buckshot's answers and use this as a platform to push your own views on Wikipedia's policies as you are doing in edits such as: [16]. Nick Dowling (talk) 02:18, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

List of academic disciplines

Sorry, I have deleted your edit of List of academic disciplines, as expository materials do not belong in a "list". Your contribution on "Military sciences" properly belongs to the Military science article. With best regards. --Palaeovia^talk 23:05, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

List of academic disciplines

I have protected the article for 24 hours, in order to stall what appears to be a nascient edit war. If you wish, I will lower the protection level so that you may edit it. Bearian (talk) 00:36, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

On second thought, perhaps you and the other editors fighting over this need a break for 24 hours. You may always suggest changes on the "Talk page" here or appeal to the incident page here. See this for the purposes of lists and this for editing a neutral article. Bearian (talk) 00:40, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I protected this particular article because it interests me, as I am an academician, and, because it is so closely linked to the main page, it often needs strict scrutiny. Therefore, I placed it on my "watch" list, and the "diff" alerted me that something was amiss here. A brief investigation, and then a second look, confirmed that to me. Take a break, it's not the end of the world. Happy editing, as I did not block any editors. You can always draft any proposed changes onto your sandbox. Bearian (talk) 14:23, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Re:Battle of West Ukraine (1944)

Please read the B-Class criteria. I was not reviewing it for GA/A/FA, I was reviewing it per the the B-Class checklist. Battle of West Ukraine (1944) covers the main points and they are cited. I see from the history that Tom assessed it as B and you reverted that. The naming of the article is immaterial and unrelated to the B-Class criteria. I stand by my assessment. You are welcome to ask for a reassessment at WP:MHA#REQ. Woody (talk) 10:17, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Merging Russian projects into one project - your input requested

Hi, you are receiving this message as you are a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Russian history. I have made a proposal to merge several Russian related projects into WP:RUSSIA. You can view the proposal at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Russian_history#Proposal_for_overhaul_and_creation_of_a_single_WP:RUSSIA_project. As a member of the Russian history project, your input is requested; so that all editors are reading off the same page please limit discussion to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Russia/Proposal. We all look forward to your input. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 10:30, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Ban: Operation Overlord

In the light of this diff, your suggestion here is pointy and disruptive. With immediate effect, you are banned from editing Operation Overlord and its talk page, and from participating in any activity related to a name change for Operation Overlord. This ban, per your editing restriction, may be enforced with blocks. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 06:24, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh how funny Roger. I needed a good laugh :) So naming a Soviet operation as you approve of i,t is acceptable and not disruptive, but renaming something you don't approve is "disruptive". Just another proof that administrator "tools" are given out way too freely. The point is that you can't enter into a discussion on same basis as you are forcing me to every time, so you ban me! Hooray for the Wikipedian approach to editing--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 07:03, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I have yet to see any evidence that you respond positively to discussion, which is why you are under an community-imposed editing restriction, but I would be happy to be proved wrong. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 08:04, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I didn't see a community banning me. A community would be a majority of contributing registered editors in Wikipedia. Did you see anything like that? So I simply accept that currently I am bullied by administrators like yourself.

I think I am very positive. I have continued to contribute although rather than being offered assistance I have had barriers placed before me at every opportunity. One has to be very positive to keep contributing although I nearly gave up at one stage.

What I am not, is accepting of unfounded points of view and original research being portrayed as a "compromise" or "consensus".

I'm not interested in proving you wrong about anything to do with how I behave. I am not here for behaviour modification where I have to fit to some Roger Davis "mould".

I have proven you wrong on the subject of the correct name for the fictitious Battle of West Ukraine, but you, having taken over from Nick, show no sign of being accepting of evidence, so who is being "positive"? I can move the article again, but I'm sure you will just revert and block me because you don't like the name in the same way that Raul654 though a name should be changed because it "sounded lousy". I wonder, have you written into the Military History Project manual of style that military history needs to "sound nice" before being accepted in Wikipedia?

In any case, I will wait a few more days. After that I get tired. I have been bullied, and I don't like it.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 08:19, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm indifferent as to what the Battle of West Ukraine is called. What I do care about is endless arguments in endless locations against almost unanimous opposition about the same basic point. In my view, it is highly tendentious to start an article move discussion about a second article to prove a point in the first. Hence, the ban. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 08:42, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I think that is part of the problem, you are indifferent, as are Nick, Bucksho06, Raul, etc. I am not indifferent to the subject.

The arguments have not been endless. The refusal to accept my provision of evidence to support my arguments has been endless. For example as you are doing now as Nick asked you to before he went on a break.

You contravene every policy of Wikipedia that relates to article content, and yet you and nick, and soon Buckshot06, and God knows how many other administrators, sit there with your administrative tools and bully me into accepting your imposed name on the article while not having to provide one iota of evidence

And that basic point is - some, very few, less then a dozen counting Eurocopter tigre's mob, Wikipedia editors don't like the look of translations of Soviet operations!--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 09:02, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I didn't ask Rodger to do anything before I went on holiday. Nick Dowling (talk) 11:15, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh sorry, I meant to say "Roger just stepped in by accident into the discussion he cares nothing about just as you left for a holiday"--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 11:41, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I do care as a matter of fact but this is just one of a great many things on my plate at the moment and I am forced to prioritise. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 04:11, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Offensive naming

Mrg, you may wish to contribute [17] here. Buckshot06(prof) 09:06, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Email

I have just received your email: any comments should be made on my talk page. I have added your email address to my mail server's blocklist. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 07:10, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Map

Interesting map, thanks for showing it to me. Do you know if it's in the public domain? If so, maybe someone can translate it into English and we can place it on the article's page, instead of the very general map there now. Joe (Talk) 14:37, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I have three sources which discuss it in detail, besides Road to Berlin and When Titans Clashed, as well as a variety of other sources which only give it a paragraph or two and are therefore probably useless to the article. These are the Ziemke source, Russia at War 1941-1945 by Alexander Werth, and the Reader's Digest source that is already mentioned in the article. The Ziemke and the Reader's Digest have the most information from the German point of view, while the Werth, along with Erickson and Glantz, focus on the Soviet point of view. If you wanted to, you could go ahead and spend the next several days adding the information from the Soviet point of view from those two sources, since you're probably more familiar with them, and then I'll go ahead and supplement that with Werth, and add the other two to balance it out a bit with the German point of view. Then after a couple weeks once we've done that, we can go back through it and see what's missing and what needs to be improved. If you're OK with that you can go ahead and start adding those now, while we continue to work towards resolving the naming dispute. Joe (Talk) 23:08, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Joe, you may think that I am being hard-headed and trivial about the naming of articles, but let me explain how the title relates to the process of writing a good article.

The Soviet General Staff used a uniform convention for naming operations for a reason. The name had to be a sort of summary of the operational orders to the commander by:

• Stating that it was to be a military operation. A military commander is bound by regulations during a military operation which stipulate his and his forces behaviour and performance
• Stating the posture of the forces: offensive (advancing), defensive, withdrawal, or other
• Stating scope of the operation: strategic where appropriate. In general operations at Front level were considered operational manoeuvres performed towards some strategic goal, and this was left unstated. Tactical operations are named for their objectives, and these were rarely planned below divisional level.
• Include the staging positions - in this case the Dnepr eastern bank
• State a clear goal or objective for the operation - in this case the foothills of the Carpathian mountains (because offensives in the mountains require special preparations and training)

For the purposes of the Wikipedia history articles the nature and application of military regulations in the Red Army is not important (for the most part)

The rest of the offensive followed a common process shared by all armed forces.

Conception of the operation is fairly clear by its stated goal - the reaching of Carpathian mountains. The sources for this need to deal with the Stavka and not the Front commanders

The Soviet and German intelligence planning for the operation are covered by Glantz in his books on Soviet military intelligence and military deception in WWII

What the codename of many operations refer to is the military operation plan

Administration is where we say what forces were involved, what their combat worth was, and their OOB (separate article)

Commencement of any operations is very important in the article because it shows how well the previous sections reflect success or failure of the preparation

The next section is likely to be the largest and most demanding in research because it details the success or failure of the operation - in this case the Red Army's victory. It will consist of two parts: phase one, and phase two. Each phase has its own structure.

Lastly, the section of on the aftermath of the operation needs expansion. In this case the strategic nature of the operation was for the first time not just military, but had other considerations: economic as Soviet Union would be regaining substantial resource areas, political as for the first time German allies Rumania and Hungary were threatened with invasion, and morale because the average German officer and soldier found themselves at the 1941 border. There were also ramifications for relationship with the Western Allies as the set-backs of trying to relive Leningrad in 1943, were forgotten and this offensive proved that Kursk was not a one-off success, and that the Red Army had the capability to defeat Germany. Planning for Overlord was redoubled now that the possibility of Soviet domination in Central Europe became real

So tell me what you think. Since you are interested in the promotion of this article, I will offer the support as you need it and work on the smaller components--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 00:33, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

You mention that the "operation" in the name is unnecessary for Wikipedia, and I agree with you on this, which is why I'm OK with Dnepr-Carpathian Strategic Offensive. You've convinced me that all the other parts of the name are useful. I agree with you that a section "Background" needs to be added (perhaps your Correlation of Forces can be a subsection to this?). I would merge your "commencement" section and the one that details the success and failure into one section with two subsections, one for each of the two phases. The Aftermath section obviously needs expansion, from the list of territories recaptured and modern view sections that are there to something more coherent, and that lists the long-term effects of the operation, that you listed above. I think that you can agree on pretty much everything that I said, and I agree with the vast majority of what you said, besides my few changes that I suggested. That way noone needs to be either hard-headed or trivial. Joe (Talk) 00:50, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Sure Joe. We seem to agree on quite a bit, so go ahead and edit. I have not had that many problems with your editing except that I see some sources as less reliable or useful, but that will "come out in the wash" later. --mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 01:28, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Various things

First, I didn't imagine for a moment that you were User:C:3PO. But thanks for the confirmation. Second, I'm about to nominate a handful of small articles on generic milhist subjects for deletion. I see you've edited: nothing personal, this is coincidental. The objective is to get the articles improved. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 08:05, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

The one below plus these two: Counterattack and Defense (military). --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 08:13, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll comment on the moves later today (UTC-ish) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 08:13, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

What, you couldn't say "mrg3105, please expand and add citations to these articles"?! --mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 08:39, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Strategic offensive

I have nominated Strategic offensive, an article you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Strategic offensive. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 08:10, 8 October 2008 (UTC) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 08:10, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Coincidence?! And you think I believe that? This is a funny way to ask for the expansion of an article synonymous with military history. However if you are in any doubt, see it used in an example for MilHist infobox template--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 08:29, 8 October 2008 (UTC)