Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/March 2009

Voting is now concluded.

Current time is 21:21, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Tally
edit

Candidate	Votes
Abraham, B.S.	47
Bellhalla	45
Cam	43
Eurocopter	39
EyeSerene	38
Ian Rose	29
Jackyd101	26
Joe N	20
Lordoliver	20
Maralia	35
MBK004	40
Nick-D	43
Patton123	14
Redmarkviolinist	11
Roger Davies	64
Skinny87	29
the ed17	39
TomStar81	46

Overview

The project coordinators are generally responsible for maintaining all of the procedural and administrative aspects of the project, and serve as the designated points-of-contact for procedural issues. They are not, however, endowed with any special executive powers.

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

Responsibilities

From Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators:

The primary responsibility of the project coordinators is the maintenance and housekeeping work involved in keeping the project and its internal processes running smoothly; this includes a variety of tasks, such as keeping the announcement and open task lists updated, overseeing the assessment and review processes, managing the proposal and creation of task forces, and so forth. There is fairly little involved that couldn't theoretically be done by any other editor, of course—in only a few places have the coordinators been explicitly written into a process—but, since experience suggests that people tend to assume that someone else is doing whatever needs to be done, it has proven beneficial to formally delegate responsibility for this administrative work to a specified group.

The coordinators also have several additional roles. They serve as the project's designated points of contact, and are explicitly listed as people to whom questions can be directed in a variety of places around the project. In addition, they have (highly informal) roles in leading the drafting of project guidelines, overseeing the implementation of project decisions on issues like category schemes and template use, and helping to resolve disputes and keep discussions from becoming heated and unproductive.

Practical information on coordinating may be found here and here.

The current coordinators are;

Name	Position	Standing for re-election?
Bedford	Coordinator	No
Cam	Coordinator	Yes
Eurocopter	Coordinator	Yes
EyeSerene	Coordinator	Yes
JonCatalán	Coordinator	No
Maralia	Coordinator	Yes
MBK004	Coordinator	Yes
Nick-D	Coordinator	Yes
Roger Davies	Lead	Yes
the_ed17	Coordinator	Yes
Woody	Coordinator	No

Election process

• The nomination process ends at 23:59 (UTC) on Friday 13 March.
• The voting period will run from 00:01 (UTC) on Saturday 14 March and end at 23:59 (UTC) on Saturday 28 March.
• Any member of the project may nominate themselves for a position by adding their statement in the "Candidates" section below by the start of the election. The following boilerplate can be used:

=== Name ===

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

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

*''What have been the achievements of which you are most proud within the Military history WikiProject?''
**
*''What skills/qualities can you contribute as a Milhist coordinator?''
**

==== Votes in support of Name ====

#

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

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

Candidates

Voting is now concluded.

Current time is 21:21, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Abraham, B.S.

Abraham, B.S. (talk · contribs)

I have been with Wikipedia for about two years now, but only became a seriously active editor after joining MILHIST during June 2008. Since then, I have sought to further develop and cultivate articles within the project’s scope, in conjunction with creating them. The majority of my contributions are to articles related to the MILHIST scope—particularly military biographies where my main interest lies—however I am also active in reviewing articles for A-Class, with a pitch in here and there with peer reviews, Good article nominations and Featured Article candidates. I am also a regular participant in the monthly contest, and discussions on the main talk page when possible. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 07:29, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Comments and questions for Abraham, B.S.

• What have been the achievements of which you are most proud within the Military history WikiProject?
  • I am most proud of my work on biographies of Australian Victoria Cross recipients, which currently boasts a collection of four Featured Articles, eight A-Class articles and a Good article. In addition to this, I am the primary contributor to a Featured List and a further two Good articles. However, I do not believe I can take all of the credit for the development and promotion of these articles; I have been assisted and guided by several of our esteemed colleagues and current coordinators. For my work, I was awarded the WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves in January this year.

• What skills/qualities can you contribute as a Milhist coordinator?
  • As an active contributor and reviewer to articles, I feel I have a sound knowledge of the article rating and assessment systems, and can both safely review articles as well as contribute in discussions related to this subject. I am also experienced in the workings of the monthly contest, and can assist in this area. I feel I am a diligent editor, a decent organiser and helpful when and where possible. These are just a few examples, but I am dedicated to fulfil and assist in any and all areas possible.

• Are you an inclusionist or a deletionist? This will not effect my !vote either way, I just want to know where you stand on the issue and why.
  • I don't think I could say I'm truly one or the other. The notability guidelines are open for wide interpretation on both an editor to editor basis but also on each article in question. As long as there are solid sources to back up the article along with a certain degree of notability, then the article probably should/could be kept as an article on Wikipedia. However, each article should be judged on their own merits. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 22:45, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

• What is your opinion on using the C-Class rank for assessing articles within this WikiProject? This will not effect my vote, I would just like to know what your opinion is and why.
  • There have been many good arguments both for and against the adoption of C-Class; however I would have to say I am leaning more towards against. I believe the article ratings system within this project is already adequate, and the addition of a trivial seventh is just overcrowding it. Personally, I do not think it is very hard for any editor to produce a B-Class article providing they have a few decent sources, and the adoption of C-Class could potentially hinder editors from taking that step further because an article has already hit C. Admittedly, there can be a large gap between Start and B-Class but I think most articles within the project's scope are a little further developed and wouldn't take much work to garner a B-class rating. However, these are my views but I am open to the adoption if the community sees fit to do so. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 22:45, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

• why do you consider that there are sufficient article gradations when 50% of articles are start and another 45% stub, so 95% fall in just two categories? Only 1% are spread over the top three categories FA, A and GA: what exactly is the purpose of GA anyway, and how does it meaningfully differentiate from or help progress from B to A? Surely a C, meaning something like 'some useful content', would be much more useful to both readers and editors than the GA category and probably involve less redundant work?
  • No matter what, there is always going to be quite a diverse range between the article ratings, and the majority of articles are going to reside in the lower classes. This is due to several reasons, such as availability of information on the subject, efforts and perseverance of editors, skill, etc. This also brings into question the subject below: quality and quantity. We should endeavour to bring as many of the stubs and starts up the quality scale rather then just cut them up into further quality groups. I can understand your point-of-view with supporting the adoption of C-Class, which I understand you believe would assist in limiting the large gap between some starts and B-Class articles, however if GA was cut out then there would be an even larger gap between B-Class and A-Class articles. GA serves as the next step above B-Class, and requires some substantial work to bring an article to that level. It can also serve to review and prepare an article if/when the contributor(s) wish to take the article further, such as A-Class. I hope this adequately answered your queries. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 09:13, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

• Which do you think MilHist should place a higher priority on: Quality or Quantity?
  • Both are important and influential factors when considering articles, but quality should be given higher priority. Quantity usually follows quality when an article or series of articles is developed. However, if more emphasis is placed on quantity, then there is potentially hundreds, thousands even, of created articles that are stubs and provide very little information to the readers, which is not what an encyclopaedia is about. Wikipedia is here to provide quality information to readers, not contain a bunch of articles with no useful information. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:14, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

• Would you be able to give-up/reduce your mainspace work (which is extremely constructive and widely appreciated) if coordinators' tasks and responsibilities would force you to do so? --Eurocopter (talk) 19:09, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Naturally, I wish to keep up my mainspce contributions as much as possible. However, as part of running for a position as coordinator, I have accepted that if I am honoured enough to be elected my commitments to the project as a coordinator would have first priority, and I would willing reduce my mainspace contributions as necessary. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 03:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Votes in support of Abraham, B.S.

1. Support TomStar81 (Talk) 00:04, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
2. Support Lord R. T. Oliver ^{The Olive Branch} 00:17, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
3. Support. – Joe N 00:31, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
4. Support —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 01:42, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
5. Support - sure. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 01:49, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
6. Support - sure. Deathlibrarian (Talk)
7. Support --Lady of Wisdom ^{Want to talk Wisdom} 01:55, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
8. Support -MBK₀₀₄ 02:08, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
9. Support ∗ \ / (⁂) 02:28, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
10. Support Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:07, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
11. Support - Spectacular article contributor, gentleman, will make a fine coordinator. Cam ^(Chat) 03:23, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
12. Support - Yep! AdjustShift (talk) 03:58, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
13. Support Nick-D (talk) 05:34, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
14. Support --Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:57, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
15. Support --Jackyd101 (talk) 11:26, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
16. Support Woody (talk) 12:08, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
17. Support MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:50, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
18. support--General Lafayette (talk) 15:20, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
19. Support --Ejosse1 (talk) 17:34, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
20. Support Maralia (talk) 21:49, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
21. Support Basketball110 ^{My story}/_{Tell me yours} 23:14, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Bellhalla

Bellhalla (talk · contribs)

I've been a registered user of Wikipedia since December 2004, and a member of the WikiProject Military History since late 2007, concentrating in maritime topics.

Comments and questions for Bellhalla

• What have been the achievements of which you are most proud within the Military history WikiProject?
  • I would say being honored with the WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves, several A-Class medals, and winning the Writing contest a few times are up there on the list, but I'm most proud of my work to improve coverage of Austro-Hungarian U-boats. From the very limited coverage that existed before, Wikipedia can now boast of Good Articles covering every class of A-H U-boat and for all but two of the individual U-boats (with the other two forthcoming), and a total of seven Good Topics related to A-H U-boats.
• What skills/qualities can you contribute as a Milhist coordinator?
  • I believe that my efforts at article-writing demonstrate my ability for consistent, high-quality work, which will be reflected in coordination tasks, should I be so honored with selection. I'm also a member of WikiProject Ships (which has no official coordinators) and help perform coordinator-like tasks there, such as updating the project's list of DYK articles, and helping maintain the review system there.
• Would you be able to give-up/reduce your mainspace work (which is extremely constructive and widely appreciated) if coordinators' tasks and responsibilities would force you to do so? --Eurocopter (talk) 19:07, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Well, I'd like to hope that this is a false dilemma and that neither area of work would preclude contributions in the other. But, with that said, by standing for election I'm making a commitment to the project, and would so honor that if selected by the members of the project. — Bellhalla (talk) 03:44, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Votes in support of Bellhalla

1. Support TomStar81 (Talk) 00:05, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
2. Support Lord R. T. Oliver ^{The Olive Branch} 00:17, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
3. Support, just don't completely ignore all those hundreds of ships waiting to be written about. – Joe N 00:33, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
4. Support, lol @ Joe's comment. I'm sure that you'll do fine, Bellhalla, especially with 15 coords. —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 01:42, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
5. Support, definitely. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 01:48, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
6. Support --Lady of Wisdom ^{Want to talk Wisdom} 01:56, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
7. Support -MBK₀₀₄ 02:07, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
8. Support ∗ \ / (⁂) 02:30, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
9. Support Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:07, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
10. Support - unbelievable article contribution, strong reviewer at GA and A level, will be a fine coordinator. Cam ^(Chat) 03:23, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
11. Support Nick-D (talk) 05:34, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
12. Support --Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:57, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
13. Support --Jackyd101 (talk) 11:26, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
14. Support Woody (talk) 12:08, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
15. Support McCain's Man (talk) 15:04, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
16. support--General Lafayette (talk) 15:20, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
17. Support --Ejosse1 (talk) 17:36, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
18. Support-- Dapi89 (talk) 20:22, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
19. Support Askari Mark (Talk) 20:59, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
20. Support - and not in the least worried about your article writing suffering for it. Superman could handle two jobs, so it should be a piece of cake for you. Maralia (talk) 21:57, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
21. Support Abraham, B.S. (talk) 23:00, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Cam

Climie.ca (talk · contribs)

I've been a member of Wikipedia since March 2007, having seriously begun editing in February 2008. In October 2008, I was elected to Tranche VI of the MilHist Coordination Team. In January of this year, I became the first Administrator to be appointed in 2009, and as a result have diversified my coordinator tasks and roles. I would like to think that I have been of help rather than hindrance to the project over the last six months, and as such willingly throw myself into the ring again for (hopefully) reelection. Cam ^(Chat) 06:20, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Comments and questions for Cam

• What have been the achievements of which you are most proud within the Military history WikiProject?
  • Outside of my coordinator work, I have written three Featured Articles, five A-Class Articles, numerous Good Articles, and have been relatively active on the Review Page, doling out meticulous reviews of ACRs and PRs. I've also been involved in a lot of dispute resolution on the vital articles, notably World War I, where I am now leading an attempt at a rewrite of the article with the aim of FA by December 2009. Last month, I was successful in promoting the Yamato class battleships to Good Topic - adding to MilHist's count in that particular area. I've done a significant amount of copyediting and technical support, and am also a member of the (in)famous FA-Team. I am also quite pleased with my work within the previous Tranche, as I think I developed significantly as an editor during that time - I would contend that my coordinator work was a large chunk of the reason that my RfA was successful.
• What skills/qualities can you contribute as a Milhist coordinator?
  • I generally consider myself to possess a strong work ethic and diligence at tasks, and as such am naturally good at highly repetitive work. In the coordinator realm, this has taken the form of logistical and administrative work, review closing (and the associated paperwork thereof), participating in WikiProject Council discussions (on occasion), and virtually anything else that comes up. I'm relatively versatile in terms of what I can do with regards to coordination of MilHist. I also have a strong knowledge both of the workings of the project and of how to address disputes and problems that occur. In the most contributional case, this has meant the "patrolling" of the main vital articles (WWI, WWII etc) and the dealing with disputes that occur on those major articles to ensure that they don't end up wrecking the page.
• What is your opinion on using the C-Class rank for assessing articles within this WikiProject? This will not effect my vote, I would just like to know what your opinion is and why."
  • Since the beginning, I've been against C-Class at MilHist for a variety of reasons. Most of these revolve around the ambiguity of the assessment ranking itself. How do you define Start/C-Class and where they break? In other projects - and to an extent this one - these questions have not been satisfactorily answered. The other question I truly have is this: Do we need C-Class? Yes, I recognize the whole issue of "breaking up the morass of start articles" and all that, but IMHO, anything below B-Class is below B-Class. The rating differentiation is only really applicable once you move into the B/GA/A/FA area. That said, were these questions satisfactorily answered (which I have yet to see sufficiently done) I would consider supporting C-Class; I'm not absolute in my opposition to the idea. At the moment, my stance on the issue is one of indifference leaning towards opposition. It really doesn't affect my role here, but I still feel that it adds unnecessary breakup to parts of the assessment scheme that don't need breaking up. Cam ^(Chat) 00:20, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
• Admittedly I don't have the statistics to prove it, but almost certainly 95% of reader hits end up on the 95% of articles which are either stub or start. Why do you not consider it important to address the articles which readers are looking at most? A few brilliant articles constitutes a useless reference source if the vast majority are of quality unknowable by the reader. Surely failing to differentiate and assess these articles is to ignore most of wiki and therefore fails to serve most of its readers?

I'm not saying that we shouldn't be addressing them, I'm simply saying that we don't need to break up their assessment schemes anymore. The leap from Stub-B and Start-B is the same, in that it requires low-quality to medium-quality. My point was simply that the difference between B-GA and GA-FA is much more distinct than that between Start and C. I think it should be a large priority to focus on the quality of individual articles rather than making more articles. My point above was simply that the distinctions between B/GA/A/FA are much more important than those between stub/start/C. Cam ^(Chat) 02:09, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Votes in support of Cam

1. Support TomStar81 (Talk) 00:05, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
2. Support Lord R. T. Oliver ^{The Olive Branch} 00:17, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
3. Support – Joe N 00:35, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
4. Support —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 01:42, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
5. Support - good admin throughout the wiki, should do fine as a continued coordinator. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 01:50, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
6. Support -MBK₀₀₄ 02:06, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
7. Support Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:07, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
8. Support --Lady of Wisdom ^{Want to talk Wisdom} 03:57, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
9. Support NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 04:35, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
10. Support Nick-D (talk) 05:34, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
11. Support --Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:57, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
12. Support --Jackyd101 (talk) 11:26, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
13. Support Woody (talk) 12:08, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
14. Support McCain's Man (talk) 15:04, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
15. Has experience. Admin=+. Ceranthor 15:14, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
16. support--General Lafayette (talk) 15:20, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
17. Support --Ejosse1 (talk) 17:37, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
18. Support Askari Mark (Talk) 21:16, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
19. Support Maralia (talk) 21:59, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
20. Support Abraham, B.S. (talk) 23:00, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Eurocopter

Eurocopter (talk · contribs)

I have been a member of the Military history project since March 2007 and a coordinator of it since August 2007, with more than 95% of my contributions on Wikipedia being made within this project. During my last term as a coordinator, I have been managing our A Class review system, our best and most active process. As an editor, I'm most active within Aviation, WWII and Cold War history topics. If elected coordinator for a fourth term, I'm willing to concentrate during the next six months to propose the adoption of a series of guidelines which would reduce the number of useless POV-dominated conflicts between users. It is just frustrating to me to see editors wasting their time and energy engaging in endless unconstructive debates on talk pages. One of my future ideas in this matter would be establishing an informal dispute resolution process within our project, in which coordinators would have a role of informal arbitrators, advising editors regarding the reliability of sources and nationalistic bias in case (it is far more better that milhist-related talk page conflicts would be initially managed/arbitrated by milhist coordinators, as we are almost all history buffs and in the proper position to assess certain issues situated in our areas of interests). Considering that most of the existent conflicts within our project are due to nationalistic and POV views, my scope during the next eventual term (probably the last one as well) would be to reduce them as much as possible by adopting this set of guidelines. --Eurocopter (talk) 18:03, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Comments and questions for Eurocopter

• What have been the achievements of which you are most proud within the Military history WikiProject?
  • My three terms as a coordinator, my contributions to several GA/A/FA articles, the Romanian military history task force, etc.
• What skills/qualities can you contribute as a Milhist coordinator?
  • Considering my experience as a coordinator, I can easily continue to perform any coordinator tasks and duties, as well as managing certain departments of our project. As I also mentioned above, i'm ready to dedicate myself for another six months in the service of the project. Thanks, --Eurocopter (talk) 18:11, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
• Above, you mention an "informal dispute resolution process within [this] project". To my eyes, this carries the risk of keeping disputes "in the family", appealing to group loyalties, and averting outside scrutiny (particularly since, as you yourself seem to indicate, the supposed POV issues are found within the project). Will this instrument be replacing/duplicating the formal dispute resolution processes? And, if not, what will its actual niche be? Dahn (talk) 10:23, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Well, our informal dispute resolution process could go alongside with the main formal dispute resolution process. I mean, you can't expect a regular administrator with no military history knowledge to decide who's right in a milhist-related conflict/debate, while our project coordinators would be in the proper position to do it. Our eventual dispute resolution process should be seen as a more efficient method to put an end to a conflict before appealing to the formal WP:DR, and of course the opinion of our dispute resolution committee should influence an eventual formal DR process. --Eurocopter (talk) 13:29, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Votes in support of Eurocopter

1. Support TomStar81 (Talk) 00:06, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
2. Support Lord R. T. Oliver ^{The Olive Branch} 00:16, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
3. Support – Joe N 00:39, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
4. Support —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 01:42, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
5. Support -MBK₀₀₄ 02:06, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
6. Support It's been a pleasure working with you for one tranche already, let's make it two. Cam ^(Chat) 03:23, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
7. Support NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 04:36, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
8. Support Nick-D (talk) 05:34, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
9. Support --Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:57, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
10. Support --Jackyd101 (talk) 11:26, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
11. Support --Tristan benedict (talk) 15:10, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
12. Support --Ejosse1 (talk) 17:39, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
13. Support Askari Mark (Talk) 21:00, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
14. Support Maralia (talk) 22:00, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
15. Support Abraham, B.S. (talk) 23:00, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

EyeSerene

EyeSerene (talk · contribs)

Current coordinator, Wikipedia editor and milhist member since late 2006, and admin since April last year. I was honoured to be one of those editors asked to step up when a few of us were coopted during the last coordination period, and it has been a great privilege to be able to give something back to the project over the last few months. I'd love to continue in this role; as my first actual election, this is finally an opportunity for my fellow editors in the milhist community to have your say, and I sincerely hope that you'll have me back for a second term.

Comments and questions for EyeSerene

• What have been the achievements of which you are most proud within the Military history WikiProject?
  • I hate these type of questions - I find it difficult to single things out, as I've found satisfaction in most of what I've been involved with on Wikipedia (in and out of milhist). This is a collaborative work, and I can't honestly describe any achievements as 'mine'. However, if I have to pick something, I'm very serious about both the quality and credibility of our encylopedia, and to that end I spend a lot of time helping to maintain and improve articles. I've been fortunate enough to have worked with some truly excellent editors, assisting with their GA and FA article preparation, and take great pleasure in seeing them rewarded for their hard work and knowing that I played a part. I don't record every article I work on, but there are a few FA and GA credits on my user page if anyone's interested ;)
• What skills/qualities can you contribute as a Milhist coordinator?
  • I'd see myself continuing as I have been, which is to say joining in with maintenance tasks that need doing as and when I come across them, and contributing to the general working of the project and its task-forces on talk-pages and in reviews and discussions. Of particular interest to me is our new Academy, which is something I'd like to develop further.

Votes in support of EyeSerene

1. Support TomStar81 (Talk) 00:06, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
2. Support Lord R. T. Oliver ^{The Olive Branch} 00:16, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
3. Support – Joe N 00:41, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
4. Support —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 01:42, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
5. Support, no problems here. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 01:51, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
6. Support -MBK₀₀₄ 02:05, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
7. Support Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:07, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
8. Support - Superb copyeditor, excellent technical support, all-around gentleman. Is (and will continue to be) an excellent coordinator. Cam ^(Chat) 03:23, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
9. Support --Lady of Wisdom ^{Want to talk Wisdom} 03:57, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
10. Support Nick-D (talk) 05:34, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
11. Support --Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:57, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
12. Support --Jackyd101 (talk) 11:26, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
13. Support Woody (talk) 12:08, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
14. Support --Tristan benedict (talk) 15:16, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
15. Support --Ejosse1 (talk) 17:39, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
16. Support Maralia (talk) 22:01, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
17. Support Abraham, B.S. (talk) 23:01, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Ian Rose

Ian Rose (talk · contribs)

According to my user page, I've been a part of Wikipedia for over 3 years now, and began contributing to military history articles about 2 years ago. Since then MILHIST has become easily my prime focus at WP, mainly in the field of RAAF biography, though my edits have ranged across many related areas. At the moment my significant contributions at MILHIST include 5 FA-Class, 3 A-Class, and 4 GA-Class articles. I take part in the monthly contest to see who can achieve second place to the amazing Belhalla, spend a fair amount of time reverting vandalism and other dubious edits in my long list of watched articles, do a good deal of reviewing, assessing and copyediting of articles, and generally try to help out where I can.

Comments and questions for Ian Rose

• What have been the achievements of which you are most proud within the Military history WikiProject?
  • Without wanting to get too philosphical about it, I think it's being able to write articles on subjects, especially people, about whom I may have quite strong opinions (pro or con), with the detachment necessary to create something fair and neutral but not bloodless. I don't consider it rocket science or magic, I think it just takes a certain discipline to make yourself as fully as possible the vessel through which the main published facts and viewpoints are presented - basically leaving your ego at the door. Of course the ego gets its boost from seeing one's article contributions make the grade at the various review levels from B through to FA. Personally, creating 4 out of 5 FAs from scratch and taking them to the top level has been very satisfying, particularly Morotai Mutiny, which was very much an article waiting for someone to come along and have a go at it (acknowledgement to Nick-D for his contributions and support there). Finally, receiving acknowledgement that my advice, copyedits, reviews, etc, have been useful always makes my day.
• What skills/qualities can you contribute as a Milhist coordinator?
  • The coordinators were kind enough to award me the WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves recently, mentioning not just the article achievements but also something about being civil, collaborative, and willing to offer advice and assistance. I think that covers a lot of what I expect to contribute should I be elected: experience, evenhandedness, transparency, and enthusiasm. To this I'd add organisational ability and willingness to work on project policy, processes and admin.
• Are you an inclusionist or a deletionist. This won't effect my !vote either way, but I am curious as to where you stand. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:07, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I used to think of myself as more an inclusionist, say a couple of years ago when I was primarily editing music articles. Since becoming involved with MILHIST I'd say I've simply tried to treat each case on its merits. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:38, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Votes in support of Ian Rose

1. Support Lord R. T. Oliver ^{The Olive Branch} 00:16, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
2. Support TomStar81 (Talk) 00:21, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
3. Support —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 01:42, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
4. Support ∗ \ / (⁂) 02:29, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
5. Support -MBK₀₀₄ 03:11, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
6. Support - Pdfpdf (talk) 03:15, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
7. Support - all-around excellent contributor. Will make a fine coordinator. Cam ^(Chat) 03:24, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
8. Support Nick-D (talk) 05:34, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
9. Support --Jackyd101 (talk) 11:26, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
10. Support Woody (talk) 12:08, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
11. Support MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:49, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
12. Support --Ejosse1 (talk) 17:40, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
13. Support Abraham, B.S. (talk) 23:01, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Jackyd101

Jackyd101 (talk · contribs)

Although I've considered standing before, I've always been dissuaded by Real Life commitments. However, this time I decided to give it a go and put my name forward as a co-ordinator. Ive been a registered editor here since March 2006, although an itinerent editor/user for about a year before that. In that time I've learned more from Wikipedia than I could ever put back into it: not just general knowledge (although I am much better at crosswords than I used to be), but in terms of writing style and skill, research techniques and the application of scholarly rigour, copyright law, academic interaction (my source is bigger than yours etc.), dispute resolution and many more. I don't think I have any formal awards beyond those awarded to the articles I wrote and a few much appreciated barnstars, but I might qualify for them. My most recent completed work was the 12 article series Good Topic on the Mauritius Campaign of 1809-1811.--Jackyd101 (talk) 18:08, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Comments and questions for Jackyd101

• What have been the achievements of which you are most proud within the Military history WikiProject?
  • Above everything else, what attracted me to Wikipedia in the first place with the ability to research and write about a topic I was enthusiastic about and interested in. Thus my proudest achievements are the 9 Featured Articles, 3 Featured Lists and 36 Good Articles I have written to date, as well as the literally hundreds of B, start and stub class article I put together to fill red links in the above articles. I also take an keen interest in Wikipedia's assessment programs and am an active reviewer at GA and a regular contributor to FA and A class reviews.
• What skills/qualities can you contribute as a Milhist coordinator?
  • Aside from my uses as a content contributor and reviewer discussed above, I have gained some experience in dispute resolution on Wikipedia and would be willing to operate as a mediator in any disputes that may arise: I usually find that calming a situation and the application of relevant Wikipedia policies can bring most disputes to a swift conclusion, although when one side is idealogically entrenched it can become harder and may have to be referred to arbitration if all else fails. I would also like to take on a stronger role in the assessment process as I feel that these systems are vital if the project (and Wikipedia as a whole) is to be taken seriously as an information resource and need all the help they can get (although I think this project already does it better than anywhere else on Wikipedia).
• Are you an inclusionist or a deletionist? This will not effect my !vote either way, I'm just curious as to where you stand on the issue.
  • I wouldn't say I'm one or the other: the right tools for the right job and all that. If pressed, I'm probably an inclusionist: I think that we should use a wide interpretation of the guidelines at WP:Notability to encourage greater participation. The more topics covered by Wikipedia the more people we can encourage to participate.
• What is your opinion on using the C-Class rank for assessing articles within this WikiProject? This will not effect my vote, I would just like to know what your opinion is and why."
  • I believe that the C-Class rank of assessment is a necessary one to bridge the wide gap currently covered by B class - there are many articles better than basic Start class that don't quite meet the requirements of B class, and C class is a useful tool in assisting the development and assessment of such articles, although the project's current assesment program should certainly not be reset to accomodate it. I think however that the establishment of an "acceptable minimum" standard, inline and probably in tandem with the current GA standard (or a tougher-to-achieve B grade), is a greater priority: if the project can standardise its GAs and use them to create "how to" guides for new users then I feel that quality levels across the project can be increased.
• Which do you think MilHist should place a higher priority on: Quality or Quantity?
  • Quality no question. There are certainly areas into which the project should be looking to expand, particularly warfare in Asia and Africa pre-20th Century, but one of the things I have learned from my own contributions is that quantity comes with quality: the better something is developed and sourced, the more avenues for expansion it will have.
• What is the purpose of the GA grade, and how does it help to differentiate or progress between B and A? Surely it is an unnecessary complication to the grading system which has arisen by historical accident and only serves to confuse the progression of an article and squander effort spent in achieving and assessing overlapping targets? Would it not be better to abolish the confusing GA, and add a clearly defined C targetting the better 10% of articles currently in start?
  • This is a leading question, which seems to be encouraging me to speak out against the GA process, and as such should probably have been much more clearly phrased to allow a fair answer. In response to the question itself: No, I categorically do not consider GA class to be an "unneccesary complication" or "squander[ed] effort". Military History does not exisit in a bubble: the Stub to A class rankings that are quite well defined within this project do not enjoy the same level of consistency across Wikipedia; some projects award A class rankings to articles without any formal review whatsoever and others have so few active members that their peer review and assessment programs have broken down entirely. However GA may have started, it is now the only Wiki-wide assessment process below the notoriously difficult to achieve FAC. As such, it seeks to establish a Wiki-wide "minimum standard" for articles: the minimum level of sourcing, quality of prose and compliance with MoS (among others) for an article to be a useful and accessible learning resource. The process is far from perfect, and continues to be tinkered with regularly to improve standards of articles and reviews, but it is, in my opinion, a successful program that encourages editors to develop their articles and teaches new editors how to do so. I have no prejudice against C class, I think it can be a useful tool, but I think that GA's "minimum standard" principle is more important for Wikipedia's long term development.

Votes in support of Jackyd101

1. Support —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 01:42, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
2. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 01:47, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
3. Support -MBK₀₀₄ 02:05, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
4. Support saw nothing of concern while looking through your contributions. Bon chance. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:16, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
5. Support - strong grasp of article writing, excellent at reviews and assessment. Will make a great coordinator. Cam ^(Chat) 03:31, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
6. Support Woody (talk) 12:08, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
7. Support Abraham, B.S. (talk) 23:02, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Joe N

Joe N (talk · contribs)

I've been on Wikipedia since January 2008, and have spent almost all of my time here with MILHIST. At first focusing on article development, mainly with articles relating to the Eastern Front of World War II, I've since changed to spending most of my time assessing and reviewing articles for the project. I participated in Tag and Assess 2008, and have done extensive work with our project's A-Class review process, reviewing almost every article that has been nominated in the last six months. Doing this, I have become very familiar with the ways that the assessment and review parts of the project operate. I was mentioned as a possible candidate for coordinator co-option last fall after TomStar81's resignation, and declined at the time because of real life commitments, but now feel like I am ready to take on the responsibility. If elected, I would make the successful completion of coordinator-related tasks my top priority, and, if a majority of the other coordinators thought that I was not doing my job properly, I would promptly resign and open my place so that the other coords could co-opt someone better able to fulfill the duties. That being said, however, I am confidant that I will be able to be a successful coordinator, and request a chance to prove it to the community.

Thank you for taking the time to consider me.

Comments and questions for Joe N

• What have been the achievements of which you are most proud within the Military history WikiProject?
  • Since I spend most of my time doing article reviews I have few specific article accomplishments that I can point to, but would instead say that being able to look at the list of A-Class articles in the project and remembering reviewing and pointing out problems with many of them is very satisfying. For my work assessing articles I have been awarded the Content Review Medal twice and the Wikichevrons.
• What skills/qualities can you contribute as a Milhist coordinator?
  • I am extremely organized and dedicated to any task I take on. I would devote my full time and effort to the task, and would not slack. I also have detailed knowledge of our project's assessment, and would be able to jump right in to the task, with minimal on-the-job time spent learning about how the project operates and functions.
• Are you a deletionist or inclusionist? This won't effect my !vote either way, I'm just interested to know where you stand.

• First of all, let me apologize to Tom and the other people who have asked questions, I was away this weekend going camping. For the question, if I had to I would say I am an inclusionist, although I have never participated in discussions related to this or had any major interest in it. It doesn't do anyone any harm to have an article about someone/thing that's not particularly notable, and there might be someone who's interested in learning about that person/event/place/etc. If someone is willing to take the time to write an article on something and it is covered in sources, I do not think that it should be removed. Now, if something has never been mentioned in reputable sources, then it should not be here, but if it is in sources than it should not be removed simply because it isn't something that a lot of people are going to look at. I know that I, personally, am always angry when I am searching for something and find that the article on it has been deleted, and I don't support the deletion of reasonable articles. – Joe Nutter 19:57, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

• What is your opinion on using the C-Class rank for assessing articles within this WikiProject? This will not effect my vote, I would just like to know what your opinion is and why."

• I support the ability to assess articles as C-Class. The criteria for B-Class have moved higher and higher recently, and there has been no accompanying increase in the start-class criteria, making the gap between the two very large. C-Class would help provide a stepping stone between the two and make it easier to track and measure the progress of an article, as well as compare articles. Implementing C-Class would not require a major reassessment drive, as The ed17 (talk) has pointed out on the talk page for the elections, it would be easy to change the template to automatically assess articles as C-Class with only a few minutes of work by one person. – Joe Nutter 19:57, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

• Which do you think MilHist should place a higher priority on: Quality or Quantity?

• I support a kind of blend between these two absolutes. I think that we should focus on quantity to get every article possible, or at least every article with over a set amount of pageviews per day, up to a basic standard, somewhere around B- or GA-Class. While we will never end the stub, at least we should try to get our 1,000 move viewed articles up to B-Class. Out of the top 100, over 30 are start or stub, which I consider extremely bad since it puts a bad face on the project for thousands of people a day to come to these pages and see an incomplete, badly written, or possible inaccurate article. Once we are well on our way to having the most popular articles at a basic level of content and accuracy, we can focus on quality, working carefully towards getting articles towards FA status. – Joe Nutter 19:57, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Votes in support of Joe N

1. Support Lord R. T. Oliver ^{The Olive Branch} 00:32, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
2. Support —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 01:42, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
3. Support Wow, lots of good contributions. Why have we not co-opted you? TomStar81 (Talk) 02:30, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
4. Support -MBK₀₀₄ 04:32, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
5. Support Your review work is impressive. Woody (talk) 12:08, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
6. Support - Excellent reviewer and wikignome. You have my full support. Cam ^(Chat) 22:06, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Lordoliver

Lordoliver (talk · contribs)

I have now worked with the Military history WikiProject for over a year now. In the beginning I didn’t think I would do much. I assumed I would just make a few articles about people I had heard of and that would be it. Well in September I carefully watched the Coordinator Elections and decided I wasn’t ready yet, but I would soon be ready to try it out. Well now I feel I that I am prepared to be a Coordinator and provide a well thought out input and a helping hand into the WikiProject. I work mostly in areas pertaining to the American Civil War, with most of my articles becoming DYK articles.

Comments and questions for Lordoliver

• What have been the achievements of which you are most proud within the Military history WikiProject?
  • I would have to say when it hit me that Wikipedia, and the Military history WikiProject in general wasn’t some thing that you could get on and just make random articles about, but something much grander, something that allows people from around the world to get on one site and read and create well thought out articles that give a broader insight to the many places of our world. When I figured this out I began to actually start righting meaningful articles that actually could help people out and show them things that they probably didn’t know otherwise. I am also very proud of the numerous DYK articles I have written, especially, the one that appeared on March 5, 2009 my article Joseph W. Revere which received over 20,000 views as a DYK article.

• What skills/qualities can you contribute as a Milhist coordinator?
  • I would say my enjoyment for creating useful articles and also assessing other articles. I would also help in arguments or Edit Conflicts if or when the need arises. I was also given rollback rights recently and will be able to help with vandalism. I also be able to learn how to be a great Coordinator quickly and be able to help others in the WikiProject.

• Are you a deletionist or an inclusionist? This will not effect my !vote either way, but I am curious to know where you stand.
  • To tell you the truth I haven't thought about this issue in a large scale, if not in a while, ever. I have not put my imput into a AFD yet (even though a couple of my articles have been there). I believe that being a deletionist or an inclusionist would depend on you interpretation of the Wikipedia:Notability. If I had to pick sides on what I was though, I would have to say that I am an inclusionist. The focus should be on if the article has the proper sources and if the article will be able to be added on to so that if it doesn't have the proper sources it can portray the proper information and meet the Notability Standard (if that makes since). I hope that answers your question, and makes since :). Lord R. T. Oliver ^{The Olive Branch} 15:33, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
• To answer my own question about using the C-Class for assessment so that everyone knows where I stand, I think it would be very good...it would help close in the large gap that is there between Start-Class articles and B-Class articles, but the WikiProject would probably have to have a seperate branch of users totally devoted to reassessing almost all of the B-Class and Start articles to see if they should truly be C-Class articles. So depending on how much time and effort that this WikiProject decides that it will put forward will most likely decide whether or not this will go through. So through all of that I am not really sure I would agree with the C-Class being implemented but whatever the WikiProject decides I shall go with it. Lord R. T. Oliver ^{The Olive Branch} 22:08, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

• Which do you think MilHist should place a higher priority on: Quality or Quantity?
  • Definitley Quality. Once we have the Quality factor down then the focus can partially be shifted to quantity, but even though the focus can partially be shifted to quantity the main focus still needs to remain on the Quality. Wikipedia is not a place for people to just create numerous random articles about whatever they please. It is a place that was set up to create accurate and inticing articles that people will learn from. Lord R. T. Oliver ^{The Olive Branch} 01:31, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
• I understood wikipedia was the encyclopedia anyone can contribute to. A definition of encyclopedia is 'a book or set of books containing articles on various topics, usually in alphabetical arrangement, covering all branches of knowledge or, less commonly, all aspects of one subject'. How is your stance on 'not creating articles on anything people please' compatible with being an encyclopedia, which is wiki's aim? Surely wiki would become worthless to most readers if all the articles currently below B grade (95%) were stripped out?
  • Good question, what I meant by 'not creating articles on anything people please' was that people should not just go off writing articles about themselves or their friends and pets (unless they are famous or well known). If people can provide the proper sources and references and meet the Wikipedia:Notability standard then I am fine with them writing articles about random things, they just need to meet those guidelines. Lord R. T. Oliver ^{The Olive Branch} 15:55, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
• I see a lot of project userboxes on your talk page. Do believe that you can remain active in the other projects and still function as a coordinator? TomStar81 (Talk) 02:42, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Good Question, I am currently a member of seven WikiProjects but If you look I have been active in only one , WikiProject Military History, for at least the past six months. I am only a member of the other WikiProjects so that I can assess articles for Multiple WikiProjects at once. On the contrary I think it will help me as a Coordinator because I will be able to do work for the Military History WikiProject and multiple other WikiProjects without leaving my main WikiProject, the Military History WikiProject, at all. Lord R. T. Oliver ^{The Olive Branch} 04:12, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Votes in support of Lordoliver

1. Support--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 01:27, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
2. Support --Lady of Wisdom ^{Want to talk Wisdom} 03:58, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
3. Support A good candidate for coordinatorship. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:33, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
4. Support NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 04:36, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
5. Support Woody (talk) 12:08, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
6. Support McCain's Man (talk) 15:05, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
7. support--General Lafayette (talk) 15:20, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
8. Support --Like your Q and A. Tristan benedict (talk) 15:46, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Maralia

Maralia (talk · contribs)

Hello! I have been on Wikipedia since mid-2007. I started out working mainly on USN ship articles, branched out into more general military history topics, and was co-opted into the current tranche of coordinators in late 2008.

Comments and questions for Maralia

• What have been the achievements of which you are most proud within the Military history WikiProject?
  • I particularly enjoy helping improve articles. To that aim, I have participated in a fair amount of MilHist FACs, as well as some peer reviews and A-class reviews. This typically involves (often extensive) copyediting and MOS cleanup; sometimes it extends to researching additional sources or images. I find it immensely rewarding to help dedicated editors put the finishing touches on some of our best work.

• What skills/qualities can you contribute as a Milhist coordinator?
  • I'm comfortable with the regular coordinator tasks, and excited about new initiatives in the works. The Academy is of particular interest to me; I hope to help develop it into a knowledgebase for best practices within the project. I am confident that a bit of guidance will help more writers and reviewers in the push for high-quality articles.

Votes in support of Maralia

1. Support TomStar81 (Talk) 00:07, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
2. Support Lord R. T. Oliver ^{The Olive Branch} 00:15, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
3. Support – Joe N 01:02, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
4. Support —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 01:42, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
5. Of course –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 01:52, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
6. Support -MBK₀₀₄ 02:03, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
7. Support Nick-D (talk) 05:34, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
8. Support --Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:57, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
9. Support Woody (talk) 12:08, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
10. Support Great work reviewing!--Patton^t/c 14:22, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
11. Support --Ejosse1 (talk) 17:41, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

MBK004

MBK004 (talk · contribs)

Wikipedian since July 2007, Administrator since January 2008, MILHIST coordinator since September 2008. I have an edit count of 40,000+ and I am listed as a Highly Active User. I am a recipient of the WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves, our project's highest award (awarded prior to my becoming a coordinator), and I have also been recognized many times throughout my wiki career, as seen here. It would be an honor to be given the opportunity to continue my tenure as a coordinator of this project for the next six months. -MBK₀₀₄ 07:04, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Comments and questions for MBK004

• What have been the achievements of which you are most proud within the Military history WikiProject?
  • Template:A-icon USS Texas (BB-35) — collaborated with TomStar81 through GA and ACR. Thinking about FAC this summer.
  • Template:FA-icon USS Illinois (BB-65) — brought to A-Class, then TomStar81 took it to FAC. Now a FA and part of a Featured Topic.
  • Template:FL-icon List of United States Naval Academy alumni (Astronauts) — collaborated with Rlevse when the information was still integrated with List of United States Naval Academy alumni.
• What skills/qualities can you contribute as a Milhist coordinator?
  • I have sampled every task that the coordinators perform over the past six months, but I have specifically focused my efforts on keeping up-to-date with our project's awarding of A-Class medals by keeping track of eligible articles and editors and nominating them when the requirements have been achieved. I have also extensively worked for the review department in notifying editors of new reviews on the task force talk pages along with closing A-Class Reviews when needed. As a certified WikiGnome, I have on occasion been asked by other coordinators to perform certain gnome-like tasks (coordinator specific and non-coordinator specific). I also have extensive knowledge and experience with article maintenance tagging via the use of semi-automated tools.

• What is your opinion on using the C-Class rank for assessing articles within this WikiProject? This will not effect my vote, I would just like to know what your opinion is and why."
  • Like many of my colleagues, I have been against the implementation of C-Class within this project since it was introduced; In fact I even opposed its introduction throughout all of Wikipedia. The major reasons for the reluctance seen within the project is the massive amount of re-assessing that would have to be done upon implementation. The solution to that problem would be to use a purely template-based C-Class, which as pointed out on this talk page. My stance on the issue has changed from being completely against to one of neutrality as long as the template-based approach was used. -MBK₀₀₄ 11:56, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
• Surely it would be better to abolish GA grade, which seems to overlap aspects of A and B, wastes effort in assessing an additional grade without a clear distinction from the others and which does not really help the progression from B to A, and use that effort instead to identify the better 10% of articles currently languishing on 'start'?
  • I will answer this question in a section in one of my sandboxes because it will be very long. I'll post the link to where it is when it goes live since it will take me some time to think and compose my response. -MBK₀₀₄ 05:26, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Now answered, I encourage anyone interested to take some time and read this: User:MBK004/Sandbox/MILHIST#Coordinators Election Expanded Answer -MBK₀₀₄ 21:07, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Votes in support of MBK004

1. Support TomStar81 (Talk) 00:08, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
2. Support Lord R. T. Oliver ^{The Olive Branch} 00:15, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
3. Support – Joe N 01:03, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
4. Support —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 01:42, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
5. Support –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 01:52, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
6. Support - Nothing in our first tranche together suggests that a second trance would be anything but a step in the right direction. Cam ^(Chat) 03:32, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
7. Support --Lady of Wisdom ^{Want to talk Wisdom} 03:59, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
8. Support Nick-D (talk) 05:34, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
9. Support --Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:57, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
10. Support --Jackyd101 (talk) 11:26, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
11. Support Woody (talk) 12:08, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
12. support--General Lafayette (talk) 15:20, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
13. Support --Ejosse1 (talk) 17:42, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
14. Support Askari Mark (Talk) 21:02, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
15. Support Abraham, B.S. (talk) 23:02, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Nick-D

Nick-D (talk · contribs)

I have been a coordinator since February 2008 and would like to stand for a third term. During my 13 months or so as a coordinator I've successfully carried out all the routine coordinator tasks, reviewed and commented on many of the articles nominated for peer and A-class reviews, helped develop guidelines and procedures, monitored the main listing of articles nominated for and tagged them for the military deletion sorting list, provided advice to editors and helped mediate disputes. In addition, I've continued to work on dozens (hundreds?) of military history articles. I believe that the main tasks facing the next tranche of coordinators are to maintain the momentum which has developed behind the A-class review process, develop aids and procedures to help editors take articles to FA status, review the status of task forces and continue to promote high article standards through the peer review and B-class assessment processes.

Comments and questions for Nick-D

• What have been the achievements of which you are most proud within the Military history WikiProject?
  • On a personal level, I'm very proud of the three articles which I played the lead role in taking to FA status (Axis naval activity in Australian waters, Australian Defence Force and Timor Leste Defence Force) and the two current A-class articles where I did much of the work which brought them to A-class status (Military history of Australia during World War II and Battle of Morotai). I'm also proud of my contributions to a number of other FA and A-class articles. In terms of my contributions to the project's administration, I'm particularly proud to have been elected to two terms as a coordinator, to have been asked for advice by editors on a largish number of occasions, to have contributed an early draft of the current A-class criteria, to have been awarded the content review medal four times since December 2007 and to have saved some worthwhile articles from deletion.
• What skills/qualities can you contribute as a Milhist coordinator?
  • I now have extensive experience as a coordinator, and am able to perform most of the routine tasks quickly. I've also developed what I think is good judgment on how to best handle issues which come up within the project, including when dispute resolution is needed and where this is best conducted. While it is not a requirement for coordinators, I also have administrator privileges and am a point of contact for tasks where admin intervention is needed (though I'd obviously continue to do this if this nomination isn't successful). Nick-D (talk) 07:18, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
• Do you have any project-improvement ideas for the next term? (just curious) --Eurocopter (talk) 17:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Some ideas for the next term are:
    • I'd like to see the task forces reformed - at present most are inactive and only function as an inefficient way of notifying editors of PRs and ACRs which they might be interested in. There seems to be support for disbanding or amalgamating inactive TFs, and this should be done.
    • It seems worthwhile to set up a small number of thematic talk pages to take some of the traffic of the project's main talk page and allow more in-depth discussions. Talk pages on topics such as naming conventions, how to cover medals/heraldry, template development and maintenance and referencing which require deeper discussion than is often possible on the main talk page might work well, and seem worth a try.
    • It seems worthwhile to develop a boiler plate message to successful A-class article nominees which congratulate them and point them towards advice on developing articles to FA status Nick-D (talk) 07:21, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Votes in support of Nick-D

1. Support TomStar81 (Talk) 00:08, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
2. Support Lord R. T. Oliver ^{The Olive Branch} 00:14, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
3. Support – Joe N 01:04, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
4. Support —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 01:42, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
5. Support -MBK₀₀₄ 02:02, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
6. Support Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:07, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
7. Support - excellent all-around coordinator and contributor. Here's to another tranche! Cam ^(Chat) 03:33, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
8. Support - Yep! AdjustShift (talk) 04:04, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
9. Support Pdfpdf (talk) 05:40, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
10. Support --Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:57, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
11. Support --Jackyd101 (talk) 11:26, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
12. Support Woody (talk) 12:08, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
13. Support Great work reviewing!--Patton^t/c 14:19, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
14. Support --Tristan benedict (talk) 15:21, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
15. Support --Ejosse1 (talk) 17:42, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
16. Support Askari Mark (Talk) 21:02, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
17. Support Abraham, B.S. (talk) 23:03, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Patton123

Patton123 (talk · contribs)

I've been a Wikipedian about a year now,and during that time I've contributed almost exclusivly in areas of military history. I take part in practically every discussion related to this project, and regard myself as a very active member. I've written a number of GAs and DYKs, but my article writing reached new heights with M249 squad automatic weapon, which is currently a featured article candidate. I do a lot of review work: I've done a few ACRs and I regularly participate in FAC. As a coordinator I hope to do even more review work, the current general organisation the coordinators do, and some dispute resolution work. I also hope to increase my activity in discussions even more.

Comments and questions for Patton123

• What have been the achievements of which you are most proud within the Military history WikiProject?
  • My biggest contribution to the project was writing M249 squad automatic weapon with a little help from the firearms guys. It's currently at FAC and I am confident it will pass. When I joined the project early last year I was originally interested in Roman military history, and I wrote a number of GAs on the subject. More recently I've become interested in twentieth and twenty-first century military history, which I why I wrote the M249 article. I also have a couple of DYKs, in addition to the many stubs and other articles I've contributed.
• What skills/qualities can you contribute as a Milhist coordinator?
  • I'm much better at reviewing and organising stuff than creating content, and I hope to help out a lot more at ACR and GAN, in additiion to my curent FAC work. I'm confident I can fulfill every task the coordinators currently undertake, and I'm exceptionally active in nearly every discussion related to the project. I feel I can help out a lot in disputes. I also know my way around other non-project pages, such as the administators' many noticeboards, so I feel I can help out a lot with POV pushers, nationalists etc.
• Are you a deletionist or an inclusionist? This will note effect my !vote either way, but I would like to know your position on the issue.
  • I suppose I'm an inclusionist. I don't believe in the widespread misconception that "notability" means notoriority or importance. In fact, "notability" is an incredibly bad name for those guidelines. On Wikipedia it simply means that an article has recieved coverage in reliable secondary sources, and I agree completely that articles which can never be verifiable should be deleted.
• What is your opinion on using the C-Class rank for assessing articles within this WikiProject? This will not effect my vote, I would just like to know what your opinion is and why."
  • I don't think C class would be as useful as B or A class in improving articles to GA/FA, though it could offer an incentive to editors by giving them a little morale boost and some feedback along the way. If we are to implement C class, we first need an objective set of criteria that aren't the same as B class. The V1.0 criteria are too broad. Maybe simply being well referenced, but not comprehensive would be ok.
• Which do you think MilHist should place a higher priority on: Quality or Quantity?
  • Definitly quality. A single featured article about a war, for example, is bound to be much more useful to readers a whole bunch of start class articles about battles and campaigns that occured during the war. Of course, it's much more desireable to get our large scope, high hitcount articles up to FA before the smaller scope, less read articles, but we don't want to tell people what to do, nor can we, and a single featured article on any subject is brilliant and further's our goal of bringing free knowledge to all.

Votes in support of Patton123

1. Support —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 01:42, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
2. Why not? –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 01:53, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
3. Support TomStar81 (Talk) 03:00, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
4. Support I have not seen much of Patton123 but what I have seen is very impressive --Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:57, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
5. Support Woody (talk) 12:08, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Redmarkviolinist

Redmarkviolinist (talk · contribs)

I've been a Military History member for 2 years this coming summer. I have taken part in many events that Military History has hosted and helped out quite a bit, and I think that I can further my services to this Wikiproject by becoming a Coordinator.

Comments and questions for Redmarkviolinist

• What have been the achievements of which you are most proud within the Military history WikiProject?
  • Battle of Marion is probably my best article, but I am proud of my A-class reviews, and other articles I have written.
• What skills/qualities can you contribute as a Milhist coordinator?
  • Organizing events, assessing A-class and FA-class articles, and anything else asked of me.

Votes in support of Redmarkviolinist

Roger Davies

Roger Davies (talk · contribs)

If re-elected, this will be my fourth term as a military history coordinator. I've been active as a coordinator so I've been involved in nearly all aspects of the project's recent development, working closely with the coordinator emeritus, Kirill, and the other coordinators.

A major part of my focus has been our review and logistics departments. The objective here is to give editors help, support and encouragement to progress articles from stubs through to featured content. This has mostly involved encouraging participation in our B-class, peer and A-class review systems; and a structured programme of rewards and recognition (barnstars). The contest department, which has been very much under Woody's wing and with which I have not been closely involved, has played an important role here too. Overall, the strategy has probably been very successful, as we currently have 348 featured articles and 162 A-Class articles, as against 206 and 69 respectively in January 2008.

Another focus has been "bringing on" new editors so that they can "grow" and develop, acquiring the specialist skills that are so important to the project. This is an absolute priority because, like all on-line communities, we have a high turnover of people. A very new initiative, the Academy, is designed – once it's fully up and functioning – to help new editors develop article-building skills as well as learning the crafts of copyediting; article reviewing; and MOS formatting.

Otherwise, I enjoy copy-editing and MOS stuff, and do it in my spare time. I've copyedited eight articles for FAC and, as a major content contributor, worked on five more. Finally, for the record, the résumé stuff: I've been an active editor since April 2007; a Milhist coordinator since August 2007; an administrator since February 2008; and an arbitrator since January 2009. For editcountologists: 20,000-ish.

Comments and questions for Roger Davies

• What have been the achievements of which you are most proud within the Military history WikiProject?

• Probably the improvements in project infrastructure and organisation, which have helped increase our flow of quality articles. I was also very involved in all three of our major drives (T&A07, BCAD and T&A08), which have been much copied since by other projects. As a complete contrast, I enjoyed working with Noclador on our new A-class barnstars, with Bellhalla on the logo for The Bugle; and Kirill on the project's new front page to improve the graphic look and feel of the project. — Roger Davies ^talk 11:42, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

• What skills/qualities can you contribute as a Milhist coordinator?

• Experience of both project and real life management; an understanding of the project's systems and ethos, and how it fits into the wider Wiki world; and (occasionally) a sense of humour. I also (sometimes) come up with Big Ideas which can radically change the way we go about things. — Roger Davies ^talk 11:42, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

• Do you have any project-improvement ideas for the next term? (just curious) --Eurocopter (talk) 16:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

• Yes. The Academy needs developing; and we need to bring many more reviewers and copy-editors on-stream. Attempts to recuit them from outside the project have not proved successful so we need to grow our own. The flow of articles is such that a lack of reviewers and copyeditors is creating bottlenecks: this needs fixing.
• I'm also acutely conscious that we have 44,000 start-class articles we really need to work on improving. As there are so many of them, the trick here, I suppose, will be devising ways of getting the maximum improvement from a minimum of work. It needs thought but could probably go hand in hand with an initiative to re-activate our task forces. — Roger Davies ^talk 11:42, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

• If you could make any one change to WikiProject Military history, without regard to Wikipedia policy or guidelines, or consensus and the will of the community (even outside of WPMILHIST), what would it be? bahamut0013 (talk) 05:23, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

• The crucial one is company cars for all past and present Milhist coordinators. If that is problematic, I'd really like to see the reliable sources guideline become policy. — Roger Davies ^talk 11:42, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, you'll certainly have my vote then (you would had it anyway but the idea of a company car convinces me even more) :). --Eurocopter (talk) 12:48, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Company cars...I like the sound of that. I'll take it in dark blue please ;) Cam ^(Chat) 22:42, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll take a silver Mazda MX-5 in lieu of an Aston Martin V8 Vantage. -MBK₀₀₄ 22:51, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd settle for a white Ford Super Duty, but since you are buying I'd upgrade to a aquamarine Lamborghini Murciélago. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:30, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

• Do you believe you will be able to balance the needs of the project with your duties as an Arbitrator? I ask in part because Kirill was asked the same thing upon his election to the board, and to be fair, as was noted in post below, we do need people who can committe the time needed to the project to make it run like a well oiled machine (no pun intended). TomStar81 (Talk) 00:30, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

• It's unlikely to be an issue. Apart from anything else, in real life I'm freelance/self-employed, which gives me lots of scope for juggling time about. If I need to cut anything out, it will probably be major copy-edits/re-writes, which are usually extremely time-consuming (typically 20–40 hours). Milhist coordinating is likely to remain a high priority, because it's such a pleasure :) — Roger Davies ^talk 13:52, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Votes in support of Roger Davies

1. Support TomStar81 (Talk) 00:09, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
2. Support Lord R. T. Oliver ^{The Olive Branch} 00:14, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
3. Strong support – Joe N 01:06, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
4. Support - duh. :P —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 01:42, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
5. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 01:49, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
6. Support, obviously. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 01:54, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
7. Support -MBK₀₀₄ 02:00, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
8. Support Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:07, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
9. Strong Support - I don't know how we'd run the project without you. Here's to another tranche! Cam ^(Chat) 03:34, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
10. Support --Lady of Wisdom ^{Want to talk Wisdom} 03:59, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
11. Support - Yep! AdjustShift (talk) 04:01, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
12. Support Nick-D (talk) 05:34, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
13. Support Pdfpdf (talk) 05:39, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
14. Support --Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:57, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
15. Support --Jackyd101 (talk) 11:26, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
16. Support Woody (talk) 12:08, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
17. Support MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:48, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
18. Support Wouldn't be a great project without you :-)--Patton^t/c 14:21, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
19. Support McCain's Man (talk) 15:05, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
20. support--General Lafayette (talk) 15:20, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
21. Support --Tristan benedict (talk) 15:26, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
22. Support --Ejosse1 (talk) 17:43, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
23. Support Askari Mark (Talk) 21:03, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
24. Strong Support Abraham, B.S. (talk) 23:03, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Skinny87

Skinny87 (talk · contribs)

I've been a member of the MILHIST Project for a little over ten months now, and I've enjoyed every second of it. I want to gove something back to the Wikiproject and help out new and established users, and improve the project even more. I was recently awarded the Bronze Wiki for coming in third place for Military Historian of the year for my work on WWII and airborne warfare articles; I have a number of other Barnstars from other editors for my article work, and have over 6,000 edits overall.

Comments and questions for Skinny87

• What have been the achievements of which you are most proud within the Military history WikiProject?
  • My proudest would probably be getting Operation Varsity to FA-Level, and it will soon be Today's Featured Article on 24 March. I have also written another two Featured Articles, two A-Class Articles and another eight Good Articles, all relating to airborne warfare in some way. I am also quite a prolific ACR and GAN reviewer for the Project, and pride myself on making comprehensive and helpful reviews.
• What skills/qualities can you contribute as a Milhist coordinator?
  • Whilst I have no previous Coordinator experience, and neither am I an Administrator, I have been following closely the activities undertaken by the Coordinators and am confident I could perform them all, and master them quite quickly! I would particularly like to focus on continuing my reviews of ACR and GA MILHIST candidate articles, areas where reviewers are always needed; however, I would also take care of closing/announcing reviews of articles, help my fellow MILHIST editors in their tasks, and try and help mediate the disputes that occur from time to time on the Project talkpage and the talkpages of MILHIST-related articles. Finally, if elected as Coordinator, I look forward to helping out with various drives on GA or A-Class articles, tagging new articles or (the ever-present bane) adding taskforces to MILHIST tags on article talkpages.
• Are you a deletionist or an inclusionist? This won't effect my !vote either way, but I am curious to know where you stand and why.
  • Erm, I haven't really thought about that issue, I only ever vote in a few AFDs. I go by notability guidelines and the such, look for sources online and in print, and then vote from there. I'm not entirely sure what that makes me. Skinny87 (talk) 08:14, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
    • It makes you an honest person. It speaks to your character that you would answer such a question by stating your are not sure, and it tells me you will evaluate each xfd on a case by case basis. All of this is good, both for you and project. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:20, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

• What is your opinion on using the C-Class rank for assessing articles within this WikiProject? This will not effect my vote, I would just like to know what your opinion is and why."
  • Well, I won't oppose C-Class being introduced if consensus suggests that it should, but personally I think it's just another level of bureacracy that won't achieve anything; it wouldn't surprise me if a 'D-Class' gets introduced in another year or so because someone claims B and C-Class aren't accurate enough. There's also the fact that it would takea fair few hours for someone to assess all Start & B-Class articles to see if they qualify - time which could be spent on better things. Skinny87 (talk) 08:31, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
• And if C-class is implemented as an automatic grade so no additional work is required, for an article with the last three b-grade criteria but missing either or both of referencing or content, as other projects have done?
  • Well, as I've said above I certainly won't oppose it's implementation in that case. I still believe, however, that it will simply lead to grade-creep, and we'll get demands for a 'D-Class' or somesuch in a year or so for articles with only two of the B-Class criteria fulfilled. Skinny87 (talk) 21:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
• Which do you think MilHist should place a higher priority on: Quality or Quantity?
  • Oh, quality most definitely. That's why our ACR and Peer Review system is so vital, and so excellent - it helps produce quality articles without rushing. I see this question as I see my MA work - why rush and get a poor mark, when taking it at a slower pace will achieve more quality work with fewer mistakes. Besides, the size of our wikiproject means that we're producing quantity at quite a rate anyway, and it's also quality! Skinny87 (talk) 08:31, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Votes in support of Skinny87

1. Support Lord R. T. Oliver ^{The Olive Branch} 00:14, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
2. Support – Joe N 01:07, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
3. Support —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 01:42, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
4. Support - thoroughly a gentleman, and a superb contributor. Will make a fine coordinator. Cam ^(Chat) 03:35, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
5. Support Good contributions, liked what I saw. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:52, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
6. Support -MBK₀₀₄ 04:34, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
7. Support Nick-D (talk) 05:34, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
8. Support Deserves it for the hard work put in --Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:57, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
9. Support --Jackyd101 (talk) 11:26, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
10. Support Woody (talk) 12:08, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
11. Support --Ejosse1 (talk) 17:44, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
12. Support Abraham, B.S. (talk) 23:04, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

the_ed17

the_ed17 (talk · contribs)

Hello everyone. I've been an active editor of Wikipedia since March 2008 and a member of MILHIST since August or September of that year. I was one of the co-opted coordinators back in November, and I've decided to throw my name into contention for this tranche. I was primarily an article-builder in the naval maritime history world even after I was co-opted, but as of late (around the beginning of February), I've been very active in A-class reviews and have gone through and assessed quite a few articles. I'd be honored if you would select me for a second term as a coordinator. Thanks and cheers, —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 02:51, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Stats: 3 FA's, 2 A's, 3 GA's, 15 DYK's, ~17,000 edits (with alternate account).

Comments and questions for the_ed17

• What have been the achievements of which you are most proud within the Military history WikiProject?
  • My first FA, USS Nevada (BB-36), easily takes the cake. I had mostly become a single-purpose account while I was working on that, so its passing was a momentous achievement for me. —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 02:51, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
• What skills/qualities can you contribute as a Milhist coordinator?
  • As a coordinator, I would mainly stick to what I have been doing; commenting on A-class nominations and closing reviews where needed (if I manage to get there before Eurocopter, that is ;), assessing articles listed at WP:MHA and in Category:Unassessed military history articles , and commenting on questions at WT:MILHIST and WT:MHCOORD. —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 02:51, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
• "What is your opinion on using the C-Class rank for assessing articles within this WikiProject? This will not effect my vote, I would just like to know what your opinion is and why."
  • I support it. With our admittedly high B-class standards, it might be helpful to divide up our extremely large number of Start-class articles. To go through and reassess all of our start articles would have been a massive undertaking and one that have probably taken up to much of too many people's time, but as it would be entirely template-driven, I believe that it can only help. That said, I would vehemently oppose any "D class" or a "B+ class". A stub is a stub, and GA does the job well enough so that we do not need a B+. —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 02:51, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Votes in support of the_ed17

1. Support TomStar81 (Talk) 00:09, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
2. Support Lord R. T. Oliver ^{The Olive Branch} 00:13, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
3. Support – Joe N 01:08, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
4. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 01:49, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
5. Support –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 01:55, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
6. Support -MBK₀₀₄ 02:00, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
7. Support Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:07, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
8. Support - fabulous at reviews, technical work and coordination stuff. It was a smart decision to co-opt, It'll be an even better decision to make him a full elected coordinator. Cam ^(Chat) 03:45, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
9. Support Nick-D (talk) 05:34, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
10. Support --Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:57, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
11. Support --Jackyd101 (talk) 11:26, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
12. Support Woody (talk) 12:08, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
13. Support --Ejosse1 (talk) 17:44, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
14. Support Askari Mark (Talk) 21:17, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
15. Support Abraham, B.S. (talk) 23:04, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

TomStar81

TomStar81 (talk · contribs)

I've been absent from the project on an on-and-off basis owing to school, and I have had some personal issues for which I have been trying to deal with. Both have occupied a lot of my time off line. For the same reasons I have not been as active within the project as I usually am, either. Truth be told though I love helping this project; I've been honored to serve as a coordinator for a little over 1.5 years. I've been helping the project ever since I joined, and I will continue to help in what ever capacity I can for as long as I am able. After putting a few weeks thought into the matter, and after weighing the pros and cons, I have decided that I will return for another term if the community will have me back.

Comments and questions for TomStar81

• What have been the achievements of which you are most proud within the Military history WikiProject?
  • Getting the Iowa-class battleships to featured topic status. It was a three and one-half year project, and I am greatful to so many contributors for helping with the FT push, among others MBK004, The Ed17, Maralia, Cam, Cla68, FTC Gerry, & Bschorr. If you helped and your name doesn't appear here I still thank you.
• What skills/qualities can you contribute as a Milhist coordinator?
  • By and large, I think. A number of my ideas have been integrated into the project, among others the suggestion that the oak leaves award be awarded by the coordinators, the inclusion of the FAC toolbox with the A-class reviews, the issuing of the 5 and 6-star insignias to coordinators (MBK later designed the user boxes that go with them), a/an FAQ page for those contemplating coordinatorship, the integration of portal usage coding in the milhist template, and other ideas, some of which were adopted and some of which were not. Aside from thinking, I also try to answer questions, and when time permits I make a point to at least try to go through the ACR-lists to comment.

• What is your opinion on using the C-Class rank for assessing articles within this WikiProject? This will not effect my vote, I would just like to know what your opinion is and why."
  • Both sides have put forth good arguments for and against C-class. I remain against the class, though I see its benefits I also see that there is no uniform system of implementation for the class across the site. I think C-class will invite edit warring by some members over the criteria, where as the absence of C lays out clear criteria for Start and B. The solemn pride that remains ours is to lead the entirety of wikipedia towards greater things, and I deem C-class to be a giant step backwards rather than a great leap forward. That said, I will bow to consensus on the use of C-class within the project, whether we or not we adopt it. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:55, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
• Do you have any project-improvement ideas for the next term? (just curious) --Eurocopter (talk) 16:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Among other ideas, I'm thinking about suggesting work groups, TF awards, and revisiting the motto suggestion, though I do want to stress that these ideas are not yet fully formed in my head, and as a result I am not yet entirely sure how I want them to work or what I think they would accomplish. Consequently, some ideas suggested above may be mentally scrapped before reaching the suggesting, others may be retooled before being suggested. TomStar81 (Talk) 18:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
• Tom, just to clarify your statement, do you think that you'll be able to be fully active as a coordinator for most of the next six months? (this obviously shouldn't come at the cost of your schoolwork and other commitments) Nick-D (talk) 07:37, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I think so. The spring to fall tranche covers summer vacation, by far the longest vacation students get. Even if I take summer school, it will only be one or two classes, so my ability to be active here is assured from the early part of may until August at least, maybe even into September. Additionally, as I am now a Senior, the classes I need to take to graduate narrow spectacularly; this semester, I managed 15 credit hours and thus am here sporadically, but next semester it may be only 12 or 9 hours. For these Reasons I believe I'll be active enough for this tranche to stand as a cooridinator.
    • Thanks for that response Tom. Nick-D (talk) 10:27, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
• Follow-up to the above question: Should your personal life interfere with your time more than you estimated, how will you ensure that there is no "gap" in coodinator coverage of your responsibilities? Would you step down if necessary? bahamut0013 (talk) 05:14, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
  • On point one: Alternating days between real work and school work is what I have done in the past. It works well for the most part, save for finals week when I pour everything I have into school. On point two: Yes, I would step down if necessary. It would not be first option, but I would make that sacrifice to ensure that no gap in coverage emerges. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:37, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Votes in support of TomStar81

1. Support Lord R. T. Oliver ^{The Olive Branch} 00:12, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
2. Support – Joe N 01:08, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
3. Support--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 01:29, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
4. Support —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 01:42, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
5. Support NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 01:50, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
6. Support - yep. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 01:55, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
7. Support -MBK₀₀₄ 01:58, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
8. Support Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:07, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
9. Support - Glad to have you back on board this ship. Cam ^(Chat) 03:36, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
10. Support --Lady of Wisdom ^{Want to talk Wisdom} 03:59, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
11. Support --Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:57, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
12. Support --Jackyd101 (talk) 11:26, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
13. Support Woody (talk) 12:08, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
14. Support MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:51, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
15. Support--Patton^t/c 14:24, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
16. Support McCain's Man (talk) 15:06, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
17. support--General Lafayette (talk) 15:20, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
18. Support --Ejosse1 (talk) 17:45, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
19. Support Askari Mark (Talk) 21:03, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
20. Support Abraham, B.S. (talk) 23:04, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

General comments

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

C-class referendum

Discuss this

Background: military history does not currently support C-class. The argument for doing so are that it will make start class more manageable by identifying articles that are close to B-class and this can be achieved effortlessly by modifying the existing template. The arguments against are that it is "class creep", an unnecessary additional layer and an administrative overhead.

Motion: that template changes be made to implement C-class by an automated process.

Support C-class

1. Support - I think that we need an additional level between our high B-class criteria and our start-class level. With a automatic reappraisal of articles (see the talk page), this would be virtually painless. I don't think that any other levels would be added after this; there will be and is no need for D–Z-class. I just think that we need a midway point between Start and B. —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 00:55, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
2. Support. This would be extremely easy to implement and would not require any more work by anybody. It would adequately divide start and B-classes, and there would be no need for a "D" class - that's what start is for. We have A in the relatively large gap between GA and FA, so why not C for the large gap between B and start? – Joe N 01:10, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
3. Support It just makes common sense to do this as well. Too many Start articles are not Starts at all, even if they are not B.--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 01:28, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
4. Especially with your new template based system. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 01:51, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
5. Support. It makes sense to have a class between start and B. I'd oppose further class creep, though :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 04:24, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
6. Support provided that the automated system is used.--Jackyd101 (talk) 11:26, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
7. support as long as we dont start making more classes --General Lafayette (talk) 15:20, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
8. Support To the extent that C-class can be automated, then it is not an administrative burden. If it encourages editors to put in the little extra work to advance them fully to B-class, then it serves to identify “low-hanging fruit”, and automating it makes sense. Askari Mark (Talk) 21:14, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
9. Support Considering that there are ways of adopting this ranking without more administrative work (see WP:SHIPS), there is no reason why we shouldn't adopt it. --Eurocopter (talk) 23:03, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Oppose C-class

1. Oppose for all the same reasons as before but to echo Skinny I also believe it would eventually lead to 'D' 'E'..........'Z' class --Jim Sweeney (talk) 23:27, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
2. Oppose as per my above statement, all previous reasons given, Jim Sweeney's comments above, and anyone else's comments that follow mine. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:11, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
3. Oppose I have made my opinion clear, and also believe as Skinny and Jim have put it that this will eventually lead to even more classes to feed the craving members that wouldn't think that C-Class was good enough. Lord R. T. Oliver ^{The Olive Branch} 00:21, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
4. Oppose - I'm opposed to C-Class in general, as it can only lead to instruction creep. The assessment scale is meant to be a rough guide as to how much work an article needs to become featured, not an exact measurement. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 01:57, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
5. Oppose No system is perfect but I believe the number and type of classes we have now is working satisfactorily; I can only see instruction creep and more bureaucracy with an additional class. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:34, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
6. Oppose - Completely unnecessary. Cam ^(Chat) 03:46, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
7. I Oppose another classification layer of poor articles. Woody (talk) 12:10,14 March 2009 (UTC)
8. Oppose - Will lead to unnecessary administrative workload. Tristan benedict (talk) 15:31, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
9. Oppose - for all the reasons already stated. MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:12, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
10. Oppose - per my comments above. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 22:58, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Cooption referendum

Discuss this

Background: this allows the coordinators to make personnel changes by majority vote inbetween elections. The project works best with about a dozen coordinators and other commitments sometimes mean that elected coordinators are unable to fulfil their responsibilities.

Motion: that the military history coordinators may coopt or remove coordinators.

Support cooption

1. Support Been doing this for a while now, no reason not to ratify the measure. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:13, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
2. Support I agree, many good coordinators have come from cooption Lord R. T. Oliver ^{The Olive Branch} 00:18, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
3. Support. – Joe N 01:14, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
4. Support - I see no reason why we should not codify our standard operating procedure -MBK₀₀₄ 01:50, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
5. Support Let's ratify what's effectively in practice. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:36, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
6. Support Cam ^(Chat) 03:47, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
7. Support --Jackyd101 (talk) 11:26, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
8. Support Woody (talk) 12:10, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
9. Support --Ejosse1 (talk) 17:45, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
10. Partial Support Yes to coopting, no to removal by peers. This WP has been fortunate to have long been blessed with responsible coordinators. When one has found real-life responsibilities arising that stand in the way of their effectively carrying out their duties, they have usually responsibly made that known. Allowing such voluntary withdrawal without prejudice and responding with the cooption of a replacement – or even a temporary stand-in – seems to me the best way to continue. If we have a coordinator who proves inactive and unresponsive, or even disruptive, then that should be handled by a recall here rather than removal by the remainder of the coordinators. Askari Mark (Talk) 21:29, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
11. Support - Abraham, B.S. (talk) 22:57, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Oppose cooption

Problem

• I am a bit concerned that the military history coordinators may remove a coordinator that has been voted into that position by their peers. But in favour to coopt if required. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:07, 14 March 2009 (UTC)