Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 10:33, 15 November 2008

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4

Mosley

What do you think about including a link to Alan Donnelly, will a reference to http://www.planet-f1.com/story/0,18954,3411_3726064,00.html be good enough? Possibly the place I added it a reference to isn't the best but in light of Jacky Stuarts latest comments http://www.planet-f1.com/story/0,18954,3213_4056632,00.html I thought it seemed relevant. Information on Alan Donnelly seems hard to come by on wikipedia and he isn't mentionedin the Mosley article but apparently he's now Mosley's official representative at Grand Prix's now. I realise there are lots of POV to avoid! Cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.173.86.208 (talk) 18:42, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

FPaS RFC

As a participant in the recent discussion at WP:ANI, I thought you should be informed of the new RFC that another user has started regarding FPaS's behavior.

• Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Future Perfect at Sunrise

Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 17:52, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Nominations for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on September 14!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:08, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXX (August 2008)

The August 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:53, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

No Worries

No worries, I'd said my piece and intended to leave it alone. You watch out for WP:3RR mind. Happy editing :-). Justin talk 20:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

It looked like you were sailing close and 4 reverts isn't a right remember. You have to watch these POV types don't drag you down with them. Justin talk 21:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

86.xx.xx

Hello Narson. I'm growing concerned with that IP's behaviour at British Isles & his/her refusal to register in (though it's not required). GoodDay (talk) 21:41, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't even know what a gobbie is. Perhaps, it's better that I don't. GoodDay (talk) 21:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Giggle giggle; IP 86.xxx.xxx is too entertaining to have blocked. I'd say let him/her rant. GoodDay (talk) 21:57, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Please, do not block him. Audiatur et altera pars Bogorm (talk) 22:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

The thought never crossed my mind, Borgorm. GoodDay (talk) 22:02, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Quite true. IMHO the page movement proposal was DOA. PS- I think this is my third British Isles page movement discussion. GoodDay (talk) 22:45, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

The IP must be a speech writer. He/she is quite good at it; I'm impressed. GoodDay (talk) 23:16, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I've chosen (hours ago) to leave the discussion at British Isles. IP 86.xxx.xxx? has pushed me over the edge (I congratulate him/her). GoodDay (talk) 00:26, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, I've had better days. GoodDay (talk) 00:32, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

He he. Ironically, I'm an athiest & a republican. GoodDay (talk) 17:06, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The September 2008 Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting nine coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of fourteen candidates. Please vote here by September 30!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:58, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Re:Garling

They can only be speedied as orphaned if they're non-free- this will probably be left lying around on the off-chance that he becomes notable. I don't actually know what the procedure is with things like that. J Milburn (talk) 15:47, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Can you urgently help Milhist please?

We've had a rather large bombshell dropped on us. The Misplaced Pages editorial team are aiming to release a version of Misplaced Pages on CD/DVD in time for the end of year holiday season. They've provided us with a list of 1333 Milhist articles they intend including.

The problem is that the quality of these articles varies considerably.

We've put together review page listing all the articles, in twenty-five article worklists. I'm hoping that 15-20 trusted editors can work through the list, weedying out problem articles and identifying suitable versions for release. The work is as far away from a tagging and assessing drive as you can imagine though, for convenience and ease of use, we've closely followed the traditional Milhist drive format.

This is, at the moment, an invitation-only review. The reason is that time is short and we can't afford too many mistakes. I'm only contacting experienced editors who performed very well indeed in the last two Milhist drives. I guess that working through a worklist of twenty-five articles will take between one and three hours to do. We're aiming to get the preliminary work done by next Sunday, so it's urgent too.

I do hope you can help but – if it's not too much trouble – if you are unable to participate at the moment, would you please let me know on my talk page? Thank you for your time, --ROGER DAVIES  17:15, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Pacman_Jones#Requested_move_to_Adam_Jones_.28football.29_revisited

I would like to solicit feedback concerning moving this to Adam Jones (football). It makes sense to me, but is there consensus? Please opine in the section of the article talk page. Cheers, Dlohcierekim's sock (talk) 20:50, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Generalmesse is back

Cheers can you also add Military history of Italy during World War II‎ as another favourite for sock puppetry. Oh and thanks for the Falklands War revert, can't understand that guy's agenda, for several edits he insisted on adding some weirdly wrong information to the infobox. Justin talk 16:13, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Israel Navy

Hi Narson! I have replied to your comment on the Israel Navy discussion, and would like your input, if possible (assuming you were not already watching the article). See Israeli navy#Name of this article. Cheers, Ynhockey 15:35, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXI (September 2008)

The September 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

Hi there Narson. Just to let you know that I have removed vandalism over at Talk:Gibraltar, and as your recent edit was related only to that vandalism, I have removed it too. Hope that's ok with you. Regards, --Gibmetal 77 19:09, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

The last to ever sail in Gibraltar waters were Barbary pirates led by Barbarossa in September 1540 ;o). --Gibmetal 77 19:28, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

USS Liberty

Discuss? It has been discussed ad infinitum, and we still have comments such as:

"...what is the basis for the removal of sourced material under WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE. What is specifically in error? CasualObserver'48 (talk) 11:19, 14 October 2008 (UTC)"

Note that this request has not been answered.

In effect, after discussion by several persons, we still have the question of why the entries are removed and why are they perceived as being against WP:Undue and WP:FRINGE. And we still have no answer to that question. (I don't believe one will be forthcoming.)

However, I am a patient man and see no reason why I can't wait for, say, 7 days.

The 7 days is to give time to those willing to discuss the item further. If more time appears to be needed as evidenced by a lively discussion continues, it will be given. Do understand however, that I do not plan to allow a 'discussion' to provide for infinite delay.WorldFacts (talk) 22:20, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

As per your Liberty talk page request. The full name of the Moorer commision as entered into the Congressional record is "FINDINGS OF THE INDEPENDENT COMMISSION OF INQUIRY INTO THE ISRAELI ATTACK ON THE USS ‘‘LIBERTY,’’ THE RECALL OF MILITARY RESCUE SUPPORT AIRCRAFT WHILE THE SHIP WAS UNDER ATTACK, AND THE SUBSEQUENT COVER-UP BY THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT". The short form of the title I bolded. I also found this link which mentions the commission http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6690425.stm. Enjoy Wayne (talk) 14:45, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

re: Camel Corps Express

That deserves my very own "thinking completely out of the box", utterly surreal, "this is not a fish" barnstar. (Congratulations! You're the first recipient!

		The Ceci n'est pas un poisson barnstar
		For the deliriously inspired nomination of "Camel Corps Express" as the new name for the military history newsletter. --ROGER DAVIES  18:08, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, if not actually greatest, certainly one of the oddest :) I see there's an article on the WWI reincarnation. --ROGER DAVIES  18:28, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Gibraltar Media

When I'm not engaged in wikipedia, people pay me for writing software, designing websites, and taking photographs. All these things are done on a professional basis, I sell my work and some times give things away - the product of my labours are thus not necessarily mine legally.

Gibnews.net belongs to a Gibraltar company. If you read the terms and conditions of use, its pretty plain where the content comes from and if the GoG publishes a press release using it, that has equal standing to any on their website, despite what some might claim.

you might like to read and make a comment on

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Gibnews.net_and_User:Gibnews

I may change my username to something less likely to confusion as to my intentions, like Admiral_Rooke or G17900. --Gibnews (talk) 12:51, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Gib

Nah, editing while slightly drunk, probably not the best of ideas. Justin talk 09:18, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Tsk, national stereotypes, you'll be talking about "rebellious scots to crush" next and I don't think thats going to happen. Justin talk 20:38, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi there!

Hi Narson, If you don't mind, I am adding my revision of your suggested intro to the East India Company page for now. I am doing this only because some people have begun to add citation needed tags etc. The discussion about the appropriate wording will of course continue on the talk page and the consensus there will form the final version. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:47, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

South Georgia

I really didn't want to revert but the way he chose to introduce it was against MOS. I'm sure it will be a useful resource but the best way to introduce it would be to use it as a reference and then include it as an external link. Justin talk 22:00, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Edit war at USS Liberty incident

Hi. Though mindful of WP:DTTR, I want to point out that the situation at USS Liberty incident has moved beyond simple content dispute into the neighborhood of edit war. I've advised User:WorldFacts of the WP:3RR rule; he has gone over it, but had not been notified. I expect that you're already familiar with it. But in the heat of the moment, you might have lost sight of the fact that you're skirting a bit close. I hope that the group of you can resolve the matter through discussion at the talk page. I can see that it's quite heated. (P.S. I watchlisted the article on dealing with the copyright concerns at Moorer Report. Prior to reviewing that, I had no familiarity with the issue.) --Moonriddengirl 23:22, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

It does look complex. :/ Since the reversions are ongoing, I've temporarily permanently protected the article. Given what you say about the length of the dispute, it doesn't seem likely that a 24 hour moratorium is likely to resolve the matter, but perhaps it'll allow time for more discussion at the article's talk page. Good luck resolving the matter. --Moonriddengirl 14:19, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Edit War at War of 1812

Thanks for the warning. Just trying to get to a non US NPOV bias without creating pro British Bias. I had initially started the talk page so this very topic could be discussed, so hopefully people will discuss it and some kind of compromise will come about. Definitely needs more non US users for their opinion.

USS Liberty

Yes, whenever new, single issue editors show up, defending each other on very narrow points, it is quite suspicious. Jayjg 07:35, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Though they have a similar POV and MO, they seem different enough that a RFCU isn't warranted at this time. Jayjg 05:47, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

USS Liberty

Its been on my watch list for ages, ever since some conspiracy nut posted Invincible conspiracy theory nonsense on the Falklands War and then some anti-semitic nonsense on the Liberty article. BTW Palestineremembered just made an appearance. Ho Hum. Justin talk 15:43, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Know what you mean, I've thought about it a couple of times but haven't made a start on cleaning the article up because it would only be disrupted. BTW did you notice that ADL source was quite complimentary about Cristol's book. As an aside with your student status do you have access to JSTOR? Justin talk 12:12, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

JSTOR gives access to a ton of documents in PDF format on a range of topical historical documents. I'm forever finding Falklands references there but then have the frustration of no access. You'll probably find it invaluable with your history degree. Justin talk 12:42, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

You can find the findings of the Moorer Commission here.WorldFacts (talk) 14:22, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

UNINDENT

After thinking about it and seeing you got the same treatment, it would probably be better if you filed. I'm tired and cranky, probably not the best frame of mind. Justin talk 00:27, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

NOTE: you have 3 USS Liberty sections on your talk page. You may want to consider merging them.

Also, I read the WP:NOT and WP:CONSENSUS as suggested, while the WP:NOT talks about democracy and the fact that the notion of counting the opinions of other Editors - that is - treating them like a vote - is not appropriate vis a vis WP Policies, the one that is more interesting to me is WP:CONSENSUS. Of particular interest to me is the flow chart describing how consensus works. Your method in dealing with the Moorer report entries is always the same: removal. Reaching a consensus this way is impossible - hence the charge of censorship.

You base your removals on WP:FRINGE and/or WP:UNDUE. I have argued, with support from other editors, that WP:FRINGE doesn't apply due to the reputations and ranks of the officers and the fact that one of the authors of the report was an ambassador, hence there is no need to supply a third source - the qualifications of those who conducted the investigation is sufficient to warrant mention of the report on this page. The idea that WP:UNDUE is a valid reason for removal is completely absurd. Every other report listed has some commentary with it and NO third party sources. I even went as far as identifying the Moorer report as an "Independent American Investigation". Even that was 'not acceptable'. The fundamental problem here is that the mention of the most important contents of the Moorer report is only a problem for about 4 editors. Sorry - 4 vs the planet - you loose.

If the Moorer Report were purely a Fringe theory, why is there a link at the bottom of the USS Liberty incident page to it? Is this a link that you now plan to remove? I can't imagine that you didn't know it was there. So, if the link is there, and you have not removed it, for ANY reason, why is quoting text from the report such a crime, in your opinion? I have gone head over heals changing the text, changing the way I write the text and I am getting nowhere, with only 3 or 4 of you. How am I supposed to reach a consensus if you don't even attempt to negotiate. If you unstated intention is simply to remove any mention of this report, It looks like your efforts fail. There are now other editors undoing your undo's of my adds. This report is getting traction. We need to come to some kind of consensus because as far as I and now other editors appear to be concerned, removing the entry is inappropriate.

I believe that it is only salmon who are willing to die while swimming up river. That's fine, we aren't salmon. Personally, I think it best that the rest of us should go with the flow. WorldFactsWP@yahoo.com, if you want a more private conversation. You can't say I'm not trying. WorldFacts (talk) 21:03, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Just saw your response. We are making progress.

You said you would accept an entry "once the edit is of a good quality..."

1) What would you do to improve the quality?

Please suggest some text which is acceptable to you.

The only requirement I have for acceptability is that it state what is central to the findings of the commission: The belief that the attack was intentional. That is central to the report. Any one with half a brain reading the "Findings of the Investigation" would come to that conclusion. I refuse to have the Moorer report listed, and then have some lame, flimsy 'conclusion' listed as it's outcome. The reason this report is so controversial is PRECISELY because it lays the blame at Israel's feet. But that is not my problem, nor yours. That is simply, using your bold words, the truth, that this report believes is the truth. There are many reports listed on the USS Liberty incident page which claim that it was an accident. Having one report lay the blame at Israels feet is not intrinsically evil. Some of the entries for other reports quote the reports they discuss. Most of the quotes from the Moorer Report are quite explicit. I have chosen several and in all cases, they are deleted. (That, incidently, is why I am so furious. No attempt is made to modify for satisfaction - just deletion. As you can tell, I won't be settling for that, based on the reputation of those involved in doing the investigation.)

So, the ball is in your court - we can debate in your talk space, in mine, or via email. (Incidentally, WorldFactsWP@yahoo.com is NOT my private email address. It is an email address I use ONLY for WP. Create a Yahoo/gmail - whatever - account for ONLY this conversation if you like. I don't want your private email address anymore then you want to provide it. I hadn't made this clear earlier.)

2) You also said "and the source is appropriate,..."

The source is much more difficult. Based on my attempts to negate the WP:FRINGE accusation, I can't find what I would call a 'good enough' article.

I have seen half a dozen articles which say something like "Moorer investigated - performed an independent investigation - was part of an independent team who investigated the incident - part of this investigation was brought up on the hill". Phrases like that.

What I can't find is an article which says explicitly something like "Admiral Moorer, who chaired the Moorer Commission, an independent body which investigated the USS Liberty attack...". In other words, I can't find anything that ties "The Moorer Commission - or the Moorer Investigation to Moorer himself. It seems to be more 'in passing', as if it's 'understood' that this investigation IS the Moorer Investigation. To me, it's obvious - I don't have a problem reading it that way. Certainly, the findings of the commission make that abundantly clear. (I presume you have checked the link I provided you earlier which has the findings - the same one I added above.) It lists those who 'chaired' the commission, and the findings thereof. It's finding an article that has been difficult. I even had to write to the archivist of Stars and Strips to get a PDF of the Page in the newspapers where he wrote an opinion piece. It's not available to the general public online. I had to get it emailed to me. Well - there you go - an OPINION piece by the person who led the commission, Admiral Moorer, doesn't pass muster for some of those who dislike the entry.

Let's tackle your reservations with the entry one at a time. First, let's start with quality text which you will find acceptable. We'll rummage through articles later, once we can agree on the text of the entry.

Lastly, as to personal attacks. I don't want to resort to that. But incessant removals wears one's patience down - and I have been dealing with that for 2 months. We're talking now - let's keep talking. WorldFacts (talk) 22:37, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Solveig Gunbjørg Jacobsen

Dear Narson, you might be interested to know that Solveig's article has been proposed for deletion. In my opinion that's an ill-founded idea, same like the suggested merging as several other articles have links to Solveig's one. Best, Apcbg (talk) 10:18, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXII (October 2008)

The October 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:34, 14 November 2008 (UTC)