Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:08, 30 May 2009

Newsletter

Hey, Roger, as the LC of Tranche VII, would you be willing to write an introductory blurb for the March Newsletter in the "from the coordinators" section? Cam 15:42, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Yup, and I've already started working on it :) 00:44, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Looks excellent. Thanks; Cam 22:38, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Cam :)  Roger Davies 15:08, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Coordinator

If I every need to Do something for you or if we are doing something as Coordinators could you alert me (since I am new I am still learning the ropes :) ) Thanks and Have A Great Day! Lord Oliver 21:31, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Sure. Thanks very much for the kind offer!  Roger Davies 15:07, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVII (March 2009)

The March 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:36, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Article on Date Masamune

Hi, I have recently read the wiki article on Date Masamune and noticed that under the Family Section the following statement was recorded,

''He now has the living relatives of Elaine Date, Denis Date, Arthur date, And Andrew Gabriel Date Ezersky''

To date, I have yet read any article that Date Masamune of the Sengoku period having any of the above relatives. Hence, I'm honestly lost on this piece of information. Would you or your team have any idea or able to provide more information about it?

Really sorry for bother you on such issues.

Thank you for reading my post. Egnimaspiritia (talk) 14:34, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

As it was added on April Fool's Day, it is probably a joke. I have removed it. Thank you for letting me know about this.  Roger Davies 15:04, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Request for assistance

R, A new editor, see: this is living up to his name and has already clashed with a large number of editors in the aviation group. I have put "friendly" suggestions on his talk page but if he persists in his pattern of drastic changes without consensus and without use of any authoritative, verifiable information in replacement, his work will continue to be contentious. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:26, 5 April 2009 (UTC).

Thanks Bz. I looked at this the other day and again earlier this morning. It looks as if their attention may be turning alsewhere. You did the right thing and, if there is more editing which seems tendentious, perhaps you could ask at the Milhist talk page for an uninvolved admin to look at it.  Roger Davies 07:11, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Help with Indian MRCA competition

Hi Roger, and congrats on your re-election. Look forward to six more great months for MILHIST.

I just wanted a bit of help with Indian MRCA competition... could you do an unofficial sort of review of the page, and where it needs to be improved - it has remained a bit stagnant for the past month or so, and I want to get it up to GA level if possible.

Thanks Sniperz11_@S 07:29, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd love it to but it might be a week or so before I get to it. How are you, by the way? On top of college stuff? I haven't heard from you in ages ....  Roger Davies 07:13, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

ShivNarayan

Thanks for handling this matter, although I'm not sure how another CheckUser would have resolved a possible/likely conclusion rather than a likely/confirmed conclusion. There were various overlaps on the articles edited (all articles were also related to one another), timing of contributions, user agents, and not to mention, the IPs. Anyway, glad this was resolved quickly and judiciously. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 16:35, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I was csee where you're coming from but I didn't go into it in that degree of detail (and don't intend to). Funnily enough, I expect people to interpret things differently sometimes (especially if they're being asked to second guess something critically) but perhaps that's just me :)  Roger Davies 07:17, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Scientology stuff

No problem. Did you see my note here? KnightLago (talk) 18:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Just an FYI, the following was posted on my talk page in regard to the above:

Thanks for the heads up. I made some comments to the case some months ago and am quite surprised it is still ongoing. I really have nothing more to say unless someone accuses me of some egregious policy violation. --Fahrenheit451 (talk) 01:52, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

KnightLago (talk) 02:15, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Now I have some questions: I was involved in a reversion controversy in August 2007 on the David Miscavige article. That controversy has long been resolved. Please provide me with the justification to add me as a party to the scientology articles Arbitration. --Fahrenheit451 (talk) 02:19, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I can not speak for Roger as I am just a clerk, but as the notification I left on your talk page said, you were added "either because you have been mentioned in the /Evidence, the /Workshop or their talk pages, or because you are closely connected with it." Just from a quick look I see your name numerous times on the Workshop page and the Evidence page. I hope this helps clarify. KnightLago (talk) 02:36, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

The fact of my making comments is irrelevant. --Fahrenheit451 (talk) 03:18, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

See this, which was also left on my talk page after my above comment. Thanks! KnightLago (talk) 02:53, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I have decided to refuse the offered contract of adding my username as a party to the scientology Arbitration. I refuse all hidden contracts or contracts of adhesion under State of Florida Law. I reserve all my rights under the Uniform Commercial Code.--Fahrenheit451 (talk) 03:20, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your notes. You've been added to the case because your name keeps appearing in the histories of battlefield articles within the Scientology topic. These include (first number is ranking in your top edited articles, the second the actual number of edits):

• 2. 174 - David Miscavige
• 3. 125 - Scientology Justice
• 7. 69 - Laura Betterly
• 8. 69 - Suppressive Person
• 13. 48 - International Association of Scientologists
• 14. 46 - Sterling Management Systems
• 15. 46 - Free Zone (Scientology)
• 16. 44 - Sea Org
• 19. 32 - Dead File
• 22. 28 - Scientology beliefs and practices
• 23. 27 - Scientology Finance
• 24. 25 - Thomas W. Davis
• 28. 23 - Office of Special Affairs
• 31. 22 - Scientology as a business

I'd appreciate your comments in the /Workshop page of the arbitration.  Roger Davies 07:23, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

• The case will go ahead with you as a party, whether or not you particpate, but thank you anyway for your comments.  Roger Davies 13:52, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Fredserre

I saw you blocked and blanked user:Fredserre for block evasion. What was the main account?   Will Beback  talk  14:29, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Talk:1919 Polish coup d'état attempt in Lithuania

You reviewed this for B-class some time ago and failed it on the lack of supporting materials. Could you explain this in more detail on the article's talk page? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:06, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Done.  Roger Davies 13:39, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Archiving out-of-date A-Class, FAC or RfA announcements

Roger, there are many such out-of-date announcements on both the main project talk page and on task force pages, which I'm about to start removing. However when I double-checked the Coordinator task page, it declared we should "Manually archive any out-of-date A-Class, FAC or RfA announcements". Obviously discussion threads need to be archived but have you found there's great benefit in archiving simple announcements of reviews being opened, rather than simply removing them? Just want to get clarification before I start anything - and if announcements can simply be removed rather than archived we should change the wording on the Coordinator page (unless I've completely misinterpreted). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:47, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Traditionally, we've archived them along with real talk but I agree it's a pointless exercise and would be happy if they were just deleted after a month or so.  Roger Davies 13:10, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Crisis

An unexpected development on Misplaced Pages that concerns us has been brought to our attention by Moonriddengirl. Please follow this link for more information. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:30, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Refused to cooperate?

Hi Roger, curious about this edit. Looking through the user's edits I agree the portion that pertains to Scientology is cause for concern. That said, it is unprecedented (to the best of my knowledge) to indefinitely block someone preemptively in that manner, without arbitration vote at the proposed decision, without an outing or legal threat or other user action that would compel immediate response. He does edit productively to other areas (most recently the copyfraud article, etc.), and he has indeed participated to this case, although before he was named as a party. From this vantage it could very well appear that he foresaw no further need to post, or (at worst) anticipated a topic ban proposal. Could you explain, please? Durova 04:53, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I've responded on my talk page; we might want to consolidate this discussion there. — Coren  05:25, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

CRM

Hey, Roger, would you mind giving out all of the CRM stuff sometime in the next few days? Cam 16:52, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I fully intend to :) Happy holidays!  Roger Davies 17:09, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Consequently, could you make mention of the awards on the newsletter? You are probably the person who understands the logic of the award scheme the most. -MBK₀₀₄ 19:34, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Award

Cheers! :)--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:19, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Pleasure :)  Roger Davies 14:50, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the award, but due to illness my edits in this field were very few. I really don't deserve it. Please award it to a more deserving person. AshLin (talk) 14:42, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure you'll more than make up it when you're better!  Roger Davies 14:49, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! I'm happy to help. Good luck with the civil war article. Randomran (talk) 15:24, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much from me too, although like AshLin, I don't feel I've deserved it - work commitments have prevented me doing as much reviewing as I'd like.--Jackyd101 (talk) 18:55, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

thank-you for the chevrons! Cam 18:56, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the Chevrons. I am sorry I don't think I deserve them. I have done a total of one peer review till date. Please award it to a reviewer more deserving such as User:MisterBee1966, User:Dapi89 or User:Bellhalla. Spoke too soon, I see you already awarded to them! Perseus71 (talk) 21:33, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank for your lovely award. I greatly appreciate it.--Amore Mio (talk) 15:34, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Military history reviewers' award 

thanks very much, means a lot to me, Tom B (talk) 19:13, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

The Content Review Medal of Merit

Thank you I have enjoyed doing them --Jim Sweeney (talk) 21:21, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks from me, too. I didn't realise I'd done 4! Very thoughtful of the coordinators; I think you've made us all feel special ;). --Simon Harley (talk | library | book reviews) 16:21, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Military history reviewers' award

Roger, thank you for the Military history reviewers' award. Hal Jespersen (talk) 22:03, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks from me, too. AdjustShift (talk) 01:30, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks also MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:03, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

And from me, as well! Skinny87 (talk) 13:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Count me in too with the thanks. --Patar knight - /_{contributions} 21:28, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Breaking my streak

Thanks for the barnstar. It's my first. I was hoping to get to to 10K edits before anybody noticed I was around, but when a coord starts multiposting a new section entitled "Crisis", everybody needs jump. BusterD (talk) 12:37, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Heh, don't worry, I got to 8K edits before anyone noticed I was around in similar manner - funnily enough, it was Roger's predecessor, Kirill - and now it looks like people can't not notice me... I'm sure it won't be another 8-10K edits before you get noticed again...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Gee, both of you stayed under the radar. I was noticed by Roger at about 2.5K edits. -MBK₀₀₄ 06:02, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

0.8K edits, ha! I win! Cam 06:05, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Bagh! That's nothing. I got three barnstars before I'd made a single edit :)  Roger Davies 06:08, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism of Walter Nowotny's article

I don't know how many editors are involved in this (always different IP addresses) but these clowns like changing the last Wehrmachtbericht reference date to 8th November 1944. The correct date is the 9th November 1944, which I have referenced. I tried taking this issue up on the talk page but the clowns so far have not tried to discuss the matter openly. I was wondering what I, we can do to prevent this "vandalism". Thanks for your support. MisterBee1966 (talk) 05:48, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't know whether it's necessarily vandalism (though that seems likeliest) or simply misunderstanding that the report was filed after his death. It's not really at a high enough level to do anything about just yet, I'm afraid but I will keep an eye on it for the next few days.  Roger Davies 06:07, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Award

That's very kind of you, thanks. John Smith's (talk) 15:03, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

1st Air Commando

Hello Mr Smith. I have been receiving letters from a Mr Glubbdrubb on the article on the 1st Air Cdo Grp saying it needs references. I'm rather mystified as I have quite a few with the article. Could you assist please? Thank youFoofbun (talk) 23:38, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. You may wish to consider contacting Skinny87, who is our resident airborne warfare expert: he's much better informed than I am.  Roger Davies 11:23, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Cheers for the referral, roger :) I've taken this up on foofbun's talkpage. Skinny87 (talk) 13:01, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Reviewer's award

Wow!! I just logged in after about a week, and was pleasantly surprised to see the award... thanks a ton. I hope I can continue to live upto your expectations. I will indeed cherish this one!

Great job on MILHIST as coord...

good luck
Sniperz11_@S 11:15, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Problem with repeated sabbotage

Hi, my name is Malin and I am a major contributor to the Scandinavian military history articles. I am facing a major issue where I am hindered from publishing official information about the Swedish Armed Forces personnel. It gets deleted repeadedly and worse also the references are deleted. No one has found any errors in the information, it is simply being deleted. The distribution of military personnel reveals a very high officer/soldier ratio: 18,676 officers versus 770 soldiers. This has upsets User:Hans Engstrom who is a Swedish officer and he is repeadedly deleting the report and references to annual reports of the Swedish Armed Forces where those numbers are reported. The article is: Military ranks of the Swedish armed forces. Please help. --Malin Lindquist (talk) 17:55, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Your question to me

There clearly was no legal threat. I merely refused a contract. I am not and was not a party to the scientology article arbitration. I have no thing more to say about that. The block is, to say the least, bizarre.--Fahrenheit451 (talk) 01:04, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

By the way, I am not a party and again refuse the contract. Endulge yourself with my strawman.--Fahrenheit451 (talk) 01:36, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to delete Template:English_sources

Hi, as one of the editors active in the military history project, I've noticed that Template:English sources has been proposed for deletion - I am active in this discussion. Since the project often deals with non english sources I wanted to talk to you about this.

I'm not entirely sure if bringing the issue to the wider attention of other editors for the project is acceptable, as I'm not sure if this is considered canvassing - which I get the impression is against wikipedia guidelines? Any thoughts? Hohum (talk) 02:59, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Milhist newsletter

Are we going to try and get a feature column in for this issue? EyeSerene 07:28, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

That sounds good. What I wanted to avoid was (a) nothing happening because we'd all forgotten about it, and/or (b) the newsletter editor (ie mainly you) feeling you were being imposed upon to take on an additional burden when you've already got your fingers in quite a few wikipies ;) If you've got something in mind though, that's great; to share the load I'll undertake to do the next one. EyeSerene 11:46, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Heh, great minds and all that :D EyeSerene 17:00, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

A-Class Medal

Hi Roger, I have a dumb question. I noticed that User:Catalan received one of his A-class medals for his contribution to List of tanks in the Spanish Civil War, which is an A-class list now and initially not promoted to FA-class. I created three featured lists, bypassing the A-class, after 1 August 2008, the eligibility date for the A-class medal. These lists are List of Knight's Cross recipients of the U-boat service (October 28, 2008), List of Knight's Cross recipients of the Schnellboot service (November 29, 2008) and List of Knight's Cross recipients of the Kriegsmarine (February 18, 2009). I wonder now if that makes me eligible for the A-class medal? MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:21, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

ChrisO findings of fact

Roger, I've responded to your findings of fact here. You've made a number of basic factual errors which I'd appreciate it if you could address. -- ChrisO (talk) 11:08, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

None of your proposed remedies have been workshopped either. Could you please move them across? -- ChrisO (talk) 15:55, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Sure, done.  Roger Davies 09:32, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! -- ChrisO (talk) 10:14, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

The J&S case

Hi Roger,

I hope this isn't inappropriate. I fear some of the evidence may have gone ignored by those who have already voted, so I urge you to read the evidence discussion page and perhaps also a couple of the talk pages from the relevant period before you vote. Apologies if you have done so already. MeteorMaker (talk) 22:54, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVIII (April 2009)

The April 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:08, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Archiving help needed

Hi Roger:

I need help archiving a peer review. The article in question is Battle of Hampton Roads, which has been quiet for some time now. My problem is that I can't figure out how to archive just this section, without moving the entire page. (Feel free to offload this request to anyone else who can answer.) PKKloeppel (talk) 16:02, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

All done. The knack is just to cut and paste this bit {{Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Battle of Hampton Roads}}, which you get at by clicking on the edit button next to the Peer Review main section header (Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Military history/Review#Peer review) where you'll see a list of similarly transcluded articles.  Roger Davies 16:26, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your support

Roger Davies, Gaia Octavia Agrippa has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing! Gaia Octavia Agrippa | _Sign 20:25, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Blanket topic ban

Roger, could we get a blanket topic ban of all editors who've been involved in off-wiki Scientology disputes? A big part of the problem is editors importing their wars. We want none if it. Its all a massive conflict of interest. I think an editor needs to have the good sense not to edit in such situations. A sanction which compells somebody to do that which they should already not be doing is not burdensome. You need to revise the logic behind some of your proposals, I think, to get more support. Jehochman 09:31, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, John. I'll give it serious thought.  Roger Davies 11:13, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Pakistan Military History work group

Hi! Recently, we just opened up a work force responsible for taking care of anything concerning the Pakistani military and it's history in general (Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Military history/Pakistan military history unit). The problem is, we need a coordinator or two. Since you appear to be a lead coordinator of the whole Military history WikiProject on Misplaced Pages, would it be fine with you if I list you as one of the coordinators? If you object to do so, please give a short response. Thanks......Teckgeek (talk) 10:42, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

It's an honour. Shukran,  Roger Davies 11:13, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

You've been talking to a sock of Strider11 (talk · contribs) YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 00:55, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

A fellow on my talk page is asking if this TF can be deleted....as the instigator is a SPA whose first edit was to creat the page and the other guy was Strider YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 01:24, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

That fellow is me. I would like to know if it's ok to nominate this project for deletion, or if you want to keep it open:

• Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Military_history/Pakistani_military_history_task_force

Also, I would like to nominate for deletion the other 4 projects this person created, since he was the creator and only member. I suppose that there is no problem with deleting them:

• Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Federally_Administered_Tribal_Areas
• Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_North-West_Frontier_Province
• Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Balochistan (Pakistan)
• Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Punjab_(Pakistan)

--Enric Naval (talk) 15:44, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

The current thinking is to keep the Pakistani task force and make it viable. This is an important topic area and there have been several calls for it in the past. We only need six editors to do this and we can probably achieve that quite quickly. I have no opinion on what happens to the others.  Roger Davies 16:09, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Enric Naval, I'd guess MfD would be the appropriate place to go? EyeSerene 21:44, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, see Misplaced Pages:Miscellany_for_deletion/Small_Pakistan_wikiprojects --Enric Naval (talk) 19:52, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Arbcom case

Hi Roger, would you mind popping the FoF and remedy relating to me on the Workshop page as well? While the idea of a one-month holiday from this topic area is not without its attractions :), there are a couple of details that I might want to address. Or we can do it here if you prefer. Cheers, Jayen466 00:18, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

RFA thank you

My RFA passed today at 75/2/1 so I wanted to thank you for your participation in it. Special thanks go to GlassCobra and FlyingToaster for their nomination and support. Cheers! --Rosiestep (talk) 02:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Help Please

Roger, Please would you revert edits to Syed Ahmed's biography by User:WebHamster and prevent him from editing again. He has just reverted to text which had been removed under a concensus of editors and which clearly violates Wiki policies. This has been debated and agreed over a period of months. He has no right to revert this without concesus - which he does not have. Please assist? Thanks Amicaveritas (talk) 09:03, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Also on my talk page

Is there any reason related to the arbitration you went after me? Banning me from a topic I have edited no more than twice and not edited for more than a year is very strange. Have I offended you in some way I am not aware? Keith Henson (talk) 16:49, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry

Sorry to say that it is not possible for me to edit and contribute in a big way to those articles. Those articles will revert to some illogical versions as usual. So I don't think it will be a wise decision to contribute to those articles wasting my time. If you want help with some other countries I can help, if not immediately. Thanking you. Chanakyathegreat (talk) 10:17, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Regarding tool usage

You said "For a cursory glance at the logs, this editor AMIB does not appear to use the tools much. What does he need them for?"

Well, there are various metrics to measure admin tools usage.

• One is to look at the lowest date of the last 50 actions in Special:Log. Using that metric, you come out to February 22, while AMIB comes out to March 8.
• A second method is looking at total number of actions. If we consult WP:LOGACTIONS, we can see that you have approximately 500 actions while AMIB has roughly 3,500.

There are other ways to measure admin tool usage, but I imagine they'll all tell me the same thing. So perhaps your question isn't the best?

Rawr. --MZMcBride (talk) 16:35, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

. There are indeed loads of ways to cut it. For instance, mine don't include the 300 or so Checkuser/Oversight actions since December or the hundreds of revisitings of deleted pages. I'm still interested in seeing what he mostly uses the tools for though.  Roger Davies 18:42, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Appeal of Discretionary Sanctions

In Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Scientology/Proposed decision#Uninvolved administrators, where is Appeal of Discretionary Sanctions supposed to link to? Thanks! KnightLago (talk) 20:06, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

It refers to a paragraph that has gone, I'm afraid. I've copy-edited it now to fix.  Roger Davies 11:12, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

OTRS invitation

Your recent proposal

I don't why this made you propose this, but I don't think it is justifiable for such a remedy. Could you please explain why you're adding an additional term to the mentorship remedy? Thanks. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 22:20, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Because it was necessary to plug a gap.  Roger Davies 11:13, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean by "plug a gap"? I don't understand what that means. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 22:03, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

History of articles

Hi, question who updates the talk page history of the following articles: List of Knight's Cross recipients of the U-boat service, List of Knight's Cross recipients of the Schnellboot service and List of Knight's Cross recipients of the Kriegsmarine? They all passed A-class review but the histories have not yet been updated? MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:05, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Resolved MisterBee brought this to my attention and it's been resolved. :) — Bellhalla (talk) 14:41, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

E-mail

Hi Roger - I did reply, but I assume too late. Apologies for that. EyeSerene 15:29, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Rejecting "Locus of dispute" as written

In the "Tang Dynasty" ArbCom case, the "locus of dispute" factfinding should be rejected as written.

A new, better locus of dispute should be adduced.

I write to encourage you to re-visit this because the first and last sentences are fundamentally flawed.

NO to 1st sentence. The case originated when Teeninvestor rejected any and all inquiry relating to WP:V, WP:Burden and WP:RSUE, alleging vandalism and disruptive editing instead. This persistent confrontational strategy is endorsed and encouraged by those voting in support Newyorkbrad's locus of dispute. These votes effectively disregard Tenmei's locus, Teeninvestor's locus and, most importantly, Teeninvestor's restatment at Summarizing "more or less the entire dispute". This obfuscation marginalizes even the attempt to pursue a strategy of collaborative editing; and for this very practical reason, I could not disagree more with this sentence

NO to 3rd sentence. In the specific context of this case, it is procedurally unsound to adopt the expanded scope proposed by Teeninvestor and Caspian blue. One of the few areas of agreement acknowledged the initially limited focus of our case when it was opened. I could not disagree more with this sentence.

In support, I highlight a crucial fulcrum or pivot between "A" and "B" below:

• A. Tenmei's analysis here and here paraphrases Coren's measured language here:

"We appear to confront a small scale replica of what has occurred in other, wider disputes ... informed by a four-prong examination at each and every point of this escalating drama:

• 1. "What is the quality of the sources used by both sides in the dispute?
• 2. "What is the consensus of scholars in the field; and does the source reflect that consensus?
• 3. "Are the sources actually supporting the assertions for which they are cited?
• 4. "Are unsourced assertions being used?

"As others will know better than me, these four points are, unsurprisingly, at the center of most protracted disputes and are all violations of our core content policies, e.g., verifiability, no original research and neutrality."

• B. Teeninvestor's rejection is entire here and here:

"This guy is out of control, man."

In this instance, Tenmei's paraphrase of Coren's moderating analysis was posted on the talk pages of all arguably interested participants at Talk:Inner Asia during the Tang Dynasty. The "out of control" accusatory phrasing was repeated in diffs on the talk pages of PericlesofAthens and Arilang1234. This suggests a deliberate strategy rather than a merely transient outburst.

In these pivotal diffs, Teeninvestor cannot feign to have misunderstood my writing. These are plainly Coren's paraphrased words; and yet, this modest effort to frame collaborative editing issues was immediately converted into a contrived hostile encounter. This destructive pattern is reflected ad nauseam on the evidence and workshop pages. Despite the cumulative attacks, the edit history confirms my participation focused on issues, but this outcome tells me clearly that I was wrong to take the high road.

In voting to support this awkward "spin", ArbCom's counter-intuitive judgment effectively affirms that the contributions of Teeninvestor and Caspian blue were above reproach and I was not.

This alchemy is difficult to digest. ArbCom rewards what is bad and denigrates what is good. --Tenmei (talk) 19:08, 30 May 2009 (UTC)