Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:18, 13 August 2013

Hi!

Welcome to my talk page!

Aircraft camouflage and other military camouflage pages

Hi Thimbleweed, I noticed you've made several edits to camouflage articles lately. Several of these articles are sadly lacking in citations. Since you seem to be knowledgeable about these matters, it might be good if you could add a few citations to support the claims made - the articles are often collations of cold-pressed OR served up with a thin translucent covering of knowitall sauce. Perhaps we can get these articles up to a better standard (even GA...). All the best Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:23, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm not a military historian, this stuff just happens to interest me as an amateur. I'll make sure to ad sources when I come across some. Thimbleweed (talk) 19:03, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Christian Science versus Scientology

Christian Science does not pose the personal threat to its critics that Scientology does: so why do you participate in discussions of the former under your protective 'sock puppet' id? Michael J. Mullany (talk) 17:14, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

I followed the link from the Misplaced Pages:Fringe theories/Noticeboard which I watch with this user. Someone asked for help and I had a look. You are right about CS not harassing critics though. If you think using my sock for this is inappropriate, I'll stop at one. Thimbleweed (talk) 20:30, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Military camouflage

Hi Thimbleweed, happy new year. I've decided to go for GA on Military camouflage - I've tidied things up a bit and extended the lead to reflect the article as it now is. It's fully cited, clear, reasonably comprehensive (and points properly to the sub-articles on ships, aircraft,...) and well illustrated - and a lot better balanced - so I think it now has a reasonable chance of success. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:04, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the work you have put in, Chiswick Chap! Let's hope the work we have put in will get it some attention and hopefully a favourable vote! Thimbleweed (talk) 14:26, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, let's hope so. I don't think you can be the GA reviewer as you've edited the article "significantly"??? Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:09, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I suppose about a third or even a half of the text is currently based on my edits from this autumn, so you're right. I'll help out if some of the reviewers point out any weaknesses though. Thimbleweed (talk) 06:03, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

You'll need to remove yourself from being the Reviewer, so someone else will know the slot is free for them to come forward, then. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:47, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't quite understand how this system works. I'll try to remove myself at once! Thimbleweed (talk) 14:06, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, it's pretty confusing. If you still feel like reviewing some camouflage articles (?), maybe you'd like to mouse around the Camouflage navbox at the various articles and give me an opinion on what most needs doing (I'm working on Countershading, it's a heap), and whether anything could go for GA, etc... How does that sound? Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:01, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I would like to see what reviewers say about this article, so I get a feel for what people want first. However, the article battledress seems to be in a similar state as this was before it was overhauled: It doesn't quite seem to know exactly what it is about, it is badly sourced, it has a very US/Britain bias and is not well organized. Perhaps it would be better to make camouflage uniforms a general article, and leave battledress to the uniform types that actually bear that name? Thimbleweed (talk) 12:37, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Mm, yes, it's a heap. There's already an article on Battle Dress, so the main article (currently a redirect) ought really to be cam. uniforms as you say; and I think Battledress should redirect to that (i.e. we ask an admin to move the page across, we can't do that ourselves). Then the main article needs rewriting, with (ahem) citations instead of tags. I don't personally want to get into the minutiae of uniforms, not my bag: I'm really glad you moved the worst of the uniform and fabric stuff out of mil. cam. - there must be thousands of people out there who believe they know about camouflage but think it's all about uniform fabric <sigh>. But I'm pleased at the progress we've made, with several GAs in the area. One day I'll try to get Camouflage up to FA.... - all the best Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:43, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

PS I'm still working on Countershading. Just noticed that Crypsis is a cruft-fest as well. Both are relevant to military cam. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:52, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

== GAN for Military camouflage ! ==

Hi Thimbleweed, I see that someone has indicated they'll review Mil cam soon (at WP:GAN#WAR - review page not yet set up). You might like to join in with anything that needs to be done to get the article to GA? Hope so! - all the best - Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:50, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for all help so far. Given that the GA reviewer has asked for more citations, maybe you'd care to scan the article for anything he might notice and help add refs? I think I've fixed all his other issues! Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:24, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello again, and congratulations! Please accept a GA credit for your work on Military camouflage. Well done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:39, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Barnstar!

	The Camouflage Cup
	For helping to bring Military camouflage to GA status. Congratulations, and many thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:42, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Berlin camouflage reference

Hi Thimbleweed, the only ref I see for Berlin camouflage is "Davies 2012". Do you have the page reference? Must admit I'm finding the FAC process on Camouflage much tougher than GAN - the wheels are close to falling off! If you fancy having a look at it you'd be really welcome to help. It'd be appreciated. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:22, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

It is in the reference list, article here. I tried to make it conform to the citation style of the rest of the article. I must admit I am not at all very happy abut it though, with just a short-form connected to the in-line citation and the full citations below. I vastly prefer having the full citation in-line. Thimbleweed (talk) 09:15, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! I'm sorry you feel discomfited; the short form approach certainly made getting the Good Article status easy, but on the other hand it makes constructing and following references slower as you say. Of course we can put it all back, I don't suppose it will cause any problems. Really, it's very nice when there's an alphabetical list of books and journal papers: it's less good for "Anon" websites, to be sure. One thing is that one can use the "Harvard" method to connect short refs to full citations, when you click on them the whole trail lights up like magic. Maybe I'll give it a go. Anyway, hope things are all right with you. Let me know if we should make any changes. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:21, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

No problem, you are a lot more experienced in these matters than me, I bow to your authority.Thimbleweed (talk) 11:01, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Michael Doven

Looks like similar problems as Grant Cardone -- even though Morton's Tom Cruise bio, among other sources, the fact that Michael Doven no longer works for Cruise (a verifiable fact) and that he's a Scientologist (abundantly verifiable), have been suppressed from the article. In Cardone's case, the situation is particularly ridiculous since there are multiple interviews with Cardone personally (one or two of which I included) where he talks about Scientology and his affiliation, and that his favorite novel is Battlefield Earth. Quite strange that the other editor is not even willing to accept an interview with Cardone himself as a reliable source, and even stranger that they seem to be opposed to mentioning that he is married to Elena Lyons. Wouldn't think that would be a vio of BLP. Laval (talk)

What did you have in mind? I don't know much about celebrities, but I'll try to help out as best as I can. Thimbleweed (talk) 12:36, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Have to say that this situation with the Cardone article is beyond ridiculous. I hope sanity & logic win out in the end, because not one of those sources is out of line. Even if they want to argue that the Village Voice is not a reliable source, how can they even possibly dispute the inclusion of interviews with Grant Cardone, or news articles in mainstream sources that report his sponsorship of NASCAR for Dianetics/Scientology??? Or even mention of his wife's name or his favorite novel??? It'd be laughable if it weren't so absurd. Laval (talk) 03:50, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

.Bbb23 is arguing in circles and as far as I am able to understand WP:BLP does not have a leg to stand on. Granted, I'm by no means an BLP expert, but his argument seems to be that Ortega is not a neutral source. However, neutrality of sources is not a requirement, only that they are factual. I think this will be resolved quite easily. Thimbleweed (talk) 07:48, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Now User:Kevin Gorman is attempting to whitewash the Michael Doven article by claiming a video testimonial by Michael Doven talking about his wins in Scientology isn't a reliable source! Laval (talk) 10:41, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

What do you think about Gorman's edit here on Doven: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Michael_Doven&diff=566347066&oldid=566272382 ? I think the source is quite valid since it is Doven himself talking about his "wins" in Scientology and being the first person to complete the Golden Age of Knowledge lineup. Yet Gorman has several times removed that without any warning or sanction from admins. Yet I've been threatened with a block if I ever revert Bbb23 or Gorman again. Laval (talk) 12:47, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I've added a bunch of new sources to the Doven article, including Janet Reitman, Lawrence Wright, among others. There's a lot of verifiable sources out there that I'll eventually get to. I wouldn't be surprised if Gorman continues to revert, despite the abundance of quality sources. Laval (talk) 11:38, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

There's no problem with the source, but I personally do not find how Dolven he has progressed within Scientology to be particularly relevant. The important things must be good sources for his involvement with Tom Cruise, and what I understand is the break between the two. I have unfortunately not read Reitman, nor Wright. Do any of them have anything to say about Dolven, his involvement and his role in he Cruise household? Both should be good sources from two very respected journalists. Thimbleweed (talk) 12:53, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

The main reason I wanted to keep that video in was to have yet another verifiable source that Doven is a Scientologist, and also a very high level Scientologist. This is an accomplishment that Doven seems to consider pivotal in his life and that he's very proud of, and that Scientology has advertised around the world. But I'm not going to push the matter since Gorman is still trying to find an excuse to remove all the other sources, that he even admits are all valid.

Reitman and Wright both talk about Doven at length in their respective books, as does Morton in his TC bio. You can actually read most of their books through Google Books. There's also a NY Times or WSJ article, if I'm not mistaken, that mentions Doven & Cruise and the allegations that Doven & his wife "spied" on TC for David Miscavige. There are a number of other sources besides Reitman & Wright. But I haven't had much time to do even more in-depth research. Quite frankly, considering the amount of work that is required to work on these articles, only to end up being singled out & threatened with permanent bans, it's not really worth it. There's clearly a problem & I'm not surprised WP is having a tough time retaining editors. I had thought things had matured here over the years, but I guess not. Laval (talk) 13:22, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Scientology PR & paid editors: the plot thickens!

You may find this to be of interest considering my suspicions about the advertorial nature of Cardone's article that persisted for so long: Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Christy Lee Rogers. It would not surprise m the least if Scientologist PR firms will be setting their sights on Narconon, CCHR, and other articles that relate to current Scientology controversies. Laval (talk) 19:18, 13 August 2013 (UTC)