User talk:MarcusBritish/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

An Update

Just to let you know, I think the basic re-working of Audie Murphy is done. I haven't decided what to do with the Sgt. Audie Murphy Clubs, because so many of their individual web sites are not kept updated - i.e., I don't know if they're active. And there's no way to tell how many clubs are out there. So, I'm thinking this over. Generally, there might be some other minor things I want to add or expand in the main article. But I think it's mostly done except for the tweaking hither and yon. Very interesting human being. — Maile (talk) 18:27, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Looks good. I think your best option would be to use the stepping-stone method, and go via the GA > A-class > FA route, that way each review will help to improve and pad out the article, possible attract more input, given that there appears to be less known said him than you might expect, beyond his military/acting life. I think, that way, you have a better chance of fulfilling the first the FA review requirements easier, than trying to go for it straight away. Seems the Peer review responses provided some useful feedback, a few more at each assessment level might be useful. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 16:11, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I've taken your advice and put it up for GA. I'm determined to get Audie on the main page, and whatever steps it takes, that's what it takes. Thanks for all your help and advice. — Maile (talk) 16:53, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

No worries.. hope it gets there! Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 19:18, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXIII, February 2013

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at US Army leadership since World War II

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 07:45, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Audie made it

Audie Murphy is now GA. Thank you...thank you...thank you! A lot of that goes to your help. And you were dead on about how the filmography should be more fully described on the main article. As you were also correct about getting rid of the publishing history of his book. Based on the feedback I got at GA, I think I need to come up with better sourcing before I attempt FA.. — Maile (talk) 19:12, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Kudos! I was watching the GA-review, it went well and was fast, which helps keep the momentum going. I expected as much with the acting career section, even though there is a sub-page, its bears a huge impact on his notability to warrant more coverage in the main article than a summary. Probably needs a to jump a few more hurdles to reach FA-standard, but if sourcing proves difficult there's still the option of a MilHist A-class review. You might find some of the comments left at Special:ArticleFeedbackv5/Audie_Murphy useful when looking for fresh ideas in terms of what people think is lacking.. might be worth waiting for a few weeks for some new feedback on the newly revised content, and seeing if there are any concerns raised. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 19:40, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh, yeah. I'm not nearly ready to attempt FA yet. I've been reading some posts over on FA nominations, and they are serious business. Thank goodness you suggested GA first - it could have been humiliating.— Maile (talk) 19:49, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I know.. I don't go anywhere near FA, seems way too serious for an online encyclopaedia which is highly derided. Too much free work, not enough thanks, at that level, for my liking. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 19:55, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello

Asking for a second set of eyes today (only on the latest). If everything is OK, it's OK. Not sure if I erred in judgement. All I want is the eventual FA. — Maile (talk) 20:37, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Might be worth getting a few third-opinions on this comparison to see if that constitutes close paraphrasing. I'm not too familiar with the guidelines on the matter, but I'm also not in the habit of taking long strings of words exacto when I write content, I think it's better to create a unique write-up for Wiki and use quotations where chunks of text have been copied, usually because there is no better way to word it, but so that copyvio issues are deniable. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 21:55, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, ok, I did over at Military History project. I'm a little fuzzy about that, except what I learned on DYK. And at DYK, this paraphrasing would disqualify a nomination. But better if someone else deals with it, because I'm already so involved in that article. — Maile (talk) 23:11, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

If DYK would disqualify it, then I expect FA would too, given that it operates the strictest set of standards. Hopefully some of those more familiar in writing FA material or copyvio rules will be able to offer assistance. It's not something I know in depth, I know you can copy a little bit, and reference the source, but I don't know when a little becomes excessive and breaks copyvio. Given that copyvio relates more to legal issues, rather than just in-house guidelines, it is worth getting it right before continuing with editing further. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 23:54, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, I think you nailed my concern about the timing - take care of it now before it even gets to a lot more text to check. And no telling how much this editor intends to do, but they added almost 10,000 bytes of prose in the last two days, and it's better to have it looked at now. It might be all good and valid, but it's getting to be more than I can assess. I know DYK would disqualify it, and I know why. It would be on the Main page, and that content is much more carefully scrutinized. Remember our much earlier discussion on who is the most decorated? Well, I just looked at the history on Matt Urban. — Maile (talk) 00:09, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Lot of history, but the size and quality of it barely exceeds Start-class, all things considered it might scrape C or B at a push. There is far more on Murphy's page, but the only way it can make that big jump from GA to FA is going to be to add a lot more content. Would simply suggest you take it a section at a time than try to do it all as a whole, then when all the parts seem fitting do a final check from top to bottom before taking to the next review. I've been working nearly 2 years on an article, that is 95kb in prose size, and nowhere near completion. I'm simply building up the sections, and every so often I read it through and tidy bits up before continuing, so that it remains focused and uniform. Of course, as the only author and still in sandbox I suppose that gives me an advantage, where Murphy's is open to anyone who wants to pitch in, in which case I would suggest that any concerns over sources or material added be discussed with the editor who adds it and/or via more eyes from MilHist, so that wider consensus plays a part. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 01:13, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

• An aside...We have a cable station in this country called Encore Western. On Monday, they're having 24 hours of Audie. Of course, it's the same four movies all day, but it's a nice tribute to him
• Another aside, if you haven't seen YouTube Ford- Startime - THE MAN (1960) Audie Murphy, it's different. Audie is totally creepy. He would have been good in those kinds of movies that make you stay awake all night after you see one.
• My point on the other article wasn't the article, but that it's the same editor who says that one has more decorations than Audie. Anyway, you must have been reading my mind. I, too, find it's easier to look at this section by section and take it one section at a time. When I expanded North Africa because it was so puny, I realized how much better the other sections could be with more detail, not just on Audie but the over all picture of what the unit was doing where, and why they were doing it. I think that's what this other editor is doing right now. I've asked to reserve six books at the library that aren't specific about Audie, but are the over all topics. Half of the books are for the filmography page, and the others are military. One book alone is about the campaigns in Sicily and Italy. I completely agree with you about doing it a section at a time. — Maile (talk) 01:32, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

break

Haven't seen The Man. Did see Bullet for a Badman (1964) recently, which was very good, quite far into his acting career. No surprise that you have a Westerns dedicated channel there, if we had it here I might be tempted, but as it is UK TV has been so abysmal for so long that I cancelled my cable TV service and license, and now only buy DVDs. Saves me a lot of money and I don't miss TV one bit.

In terms of sections, I like an article to flow in a way that allows readers to relate to events in sequence, but not just as cold hard facts, I like a more anecdotal quality.. it might be harder to apply that to biogs, but is easy with historical articles. If you take a glance at this you might be able to identify the approach I use. In terms of sourcing, I have one main title by a prolific historian which I read through, and then I type a draft paragraph about the next event of set of events to follow in the article. I then read about the same period in three other biographies and adjust my draft to account for discrepancies or to expand the content and context, as historians often cover the same ground in different ways. After that I have a whole ton of books about the topic, which I can fall upon if I need to go into more detail about something important. By having all this material to cite from, I rarely need to paraphrase as I have 3 or 4 versions from which to develop my own explanation, to which I add references, plus there are plenty of wikilinks and such to add in. By working through a section at a time, in this way, I avoid the mistake of repeating myself, of over-referencing, and of showing bias. I don't try to find material which supports my initial draft, I account for disagreements, counter-views, and such and make it all part of the event. To me, that leaves the reader with the ability to go away and expand their own knowledge. I don't believe Wiki is or can be the Holy Grail of knowledge. Because of limitations, it should try to relay the general ideas, and allow readers to find out more for themselves, through links and references. The same principles could be applied to a biog. Murphy, like Napoleon, is long dead and his life story has been written.. albeit not as much, but enough to allow us to present the history of his life in a factual manner that can appeal to everyone. To me it's a matter of targeting the audience in an engaging way, by being a little dramatic in tone, but always factual and neutral. It's no secret that many Europeans think of Napoleon as a great man, great leader, etc.. despite the fact he was once all of Europe's enemy and led 20 years of war against it. If historians have succeeded in convincing us that Napoleon was great, despite his flaws, no reason why it shouldn't work for anyone else. Present Murphy as the man he was, in a colourful and dignified style but without pretentiousness and puffery, and even the Germans will be singing his praises. ;) I think my sandbox article has FA potential, but I doubt I'll take it further than A/GA reviews. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 02:22, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

• I've decided to create a new sandbox page Murph as a centralized place for this subject matter. It's been here and there, and it looks to me like it's going to be a long haul on this. You give me better advice on the process than anyone else has. And I think I might have just taken a giant leap from working on articles of interest to a few, to the big time. Since I'll have this on my Watchlist, you can post at the Murph page rather than on either of our talk pages. Saves time, maybe.
• Your work in progress on Napoleon is impressive. I also like your referencing style. I've been leaning towards Harvard citations, which is similar to what you use. I'm going to use your Napoleon work as a guideline.
• In regards to targeting the audience, I put the military as #1, and movies as #2, only because there seems to still be a high regard for him among the military establishment - whereas the movie audience is probably not quite as focused on him in that fixed way. I think the military audience is the one that would require more detailed accuracy.
• Since I've been working on this, I've wondered about the German point view of him. Governments wage war, and any country's population is not necessarily in sync with a government's idea of who the enemy is. I don't have a problem with Japanese people just becamse Tojo decided to attack Pearl Harbor. But that's just me. In Texas, some of my relatives are of German ancestry. And to a person, they have all been career military. The ones of Audie's generation are all dead, and I don't remember ever having a conversation about him, so that's a question mark. When I read quotes from Audie, well towards the end of his life, he was still using "Kraut" and referring to Germans as an enemy of his country. I'm pretty sure he was referring to Nazis, but his public comments as such are interesting in how tied he was to the war he fought.
• On one hand, I think what should matter on Wikipedia is what Audie accomplished in his life, not a focus on his personal life.Yet, I'm coming across information that because of his gambling addiction he got involved with some Chicago underworld types. That would take access to the entire FBI files to deal with fairly. Apparently, Audie taped his conversations with the Chicago bunch and turned the tapes over to the FBI. He was in over his head, way over. But the whole issue is such a sidetrack for what makes him a hero. — Maile (talk) 14:48, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't use the {{harv}} personally, I find it cumbersome over using standard <ref> tags, and on lengthy articles a lot of templates can slow down page load, I've learned to identify the pagesize stats through the method described here which helps me remove burdensome templates and use standard html markup, thus keeping the pageload optimised. Once an article exceeds 50kb and nears 100kb, it helps to stay on top of the code. I think Murphy's article is at about 85k, so checking the wikicode used is recommended, especially if the page is due to grow to meet FA standards.

Not sure is Murphy hated the Germans post-war. I think, seeing as he continued to serve, he was more interested in fighting the common enemy of America and doing his duty. Might be worth looking through the cast/crew lists of his movies and see if he worked with any German actors/directors closely? From there you might find quotes or incidents relating to his ability to work with his "ex-enemy". Perhaps investigate some of the claims that he got into fights or pulled a gun and see if there were racial motives. I don't know if these fights resulted in a criminal record that you might be able to access and reference, but there could be a lead somewhere.

Never heard the mob claims, but yes, FBI records might be worth pursuing if accessible. There's nothing wrong with discussing the matter in the context of his later-life, his debts, gambling addiction. Perhaps his PTSD/depression led him to seeking new avenues that intentionally took him away from the "hero" attention he received to a more underworld experience. That would be my theory, assuming the mob-link was confirmed through reliable sources. Of course, if the trail leads to nothing more than rhetoric and rumours, it's best left out altogether.. no need to introduce controversy where there are no solid leads. That would be WP:FRINGE, I think. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 20:31, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, where big betting circles exist, the mafia probably has a hand in it. And Audie certainly blew millions on horse racing. In Don Graham's book "No Name on the Bullet", this connection is detailed in the the chapter "Into the Darkness", which links Audie to Fiore Buccieri. It also links Audie to Jimmy Hoffa. This chapter in this book is probably where those conspiracy theories about Audie's death arose. Apparently, Audie got swindled and tried to collect it from the mafia and wired himself. So far, I've found nothing online to back up this chapter. I found a Buccieri file on the FBI's Freedom of Information site, but that file does not mention Audie. At the blog over on the Audie Murphy site...well...Audie is their hero...they (justifiably) doubt Graham's claims...but if Audie was wired, they're pretty sure he was working undercover as an FBI man. There's nothing that substantiates that, either. It's just fan blogging. They even doubt that the technology existed in 1969 to wire Audie. Obviously, some of those people never saw the spy movies of that decade. Anyway, I can believe Audie knew some shady characters because of his gambling. I can also believe that a man who stood on a burning tank and slaughtered the enemy could delude himself into believing he could stare down a crime boss. But unless Graham's allegations show up elsewhere, it isn't going into that article. In fact, I'm only using Graham's book as a minor source material in general. — Maile (talk) 01:17, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Sounds like a wise idea.. introduction of anything too slanted might attract negative attention. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 05:49, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Botton Head

Hi Marcus. The reason I added Botton Head was that it is included in this list of Hardys and had more or less the same height/grid ref. However, I note it is in square brackets which may indicate a degree of uncertainty over the name. Maybe Round Hill on Urra Moor is the actual Hardy... --Bermicourt (talk) 17:12, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Looking at the definition of a "Hardy", yes, I would say it's Round Hill that marks the highest point. Which, if you're into peak bagging, is a very uninspiring height per se, because it's a very broad level "hill" that you have to walk miles to reach through gradually sloping moors which don't offer great views. It's not until you wander over to Botton Head that you get a tremendous view of almost the entire Cleveland Hills extending way to the north and west, with you stood in the angle of the reverse-L shape bend of the range, as seen here: File:The Cleveland Hills from Urra Moor.jpg. All of the hills to the west of Urra Moor are far more amazing to climb, as are some to the far north. Overall, it is still a beautiful area than can be covered in a few walks (the Cleveland Hills that is), the full extend of the North Yorkshire Moors offers a wider variety of hills, moors, valleys and such, for any avid hiker to enjoy. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 00:05, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

You're whetting my appetite. We're returning to UK this year after the last 3 in Germany where we did a lot of walking, especially in the Harz Mountains. But I don't know much about UK rambling, so your encouragement is welcome! --Bermicourt (talk) 19:56, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, I only know the areas near to me best, as I don't drive. If you like really terrific hill and mountain ranges, there's nowhere more outstanding than the Lake District in Cumbria.. virtually all of which was mapped and detailed by Alfred Wainwright, and there are a great many books written by him. I've been to the Northern Fells, pictured on the right side of File:Keswick Panorama - Oct 2009.jpg and up several of those hills on the right. The dark one in the middle of those those is Skiddaw, it's a 930m mountain. Tried for it, got 95% of the way up but had to retreat due to high winds and thick clouds over the small peak, making it too dangerous. There are many such ranges in the Lake District worth visiting, and it really is a mesmerising place with many mountains and hills as well as dozens of lakes and reservoirs and lovely villages and farms. Lot of tourism round there so can be expensive; great for walkers, climbers, water sports, gliding, horse riding, etc but note some areas are prone to flash flooding so hikers need to be well prepared. I personally just make my way out to the local North Yorkshire Moors and Cleveland Hills during summer months for a walk between bus/train stops, as there is a lot of beauty there, as well as historical spots – castles, abbeys, old mines, etc. The entire area is a National Park, so it welcomes walkers and such openly, and operates visitor centres around the area. Also a lot of small museums dedicated to local interest, especially Captain Cook, worth visiting as there are a lot of monuments relating to him about the area. There are other areas in Wales and Scotland, including Mount Snowdon and Ben Nevis of course, and the entire center of England has an extensive range, The Pennines, which covers a vast area, all hills rather than mountains, but said to be unique with varied landscapes. Transport needed to reach most parts, as few train/bus services go far into the range. I can see The Pennines to the west on a clear day, from atop the Cleveland Hills, great wide shadow on the horizon, but sadly out of reach for me. Hope that helps. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 20:51, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Sounds great - thanks! --Bermicourt (talk) 20:57, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

The edit war is on at Audie Murphy

Please see what Yahweh did. Reverted my revert again. — Maile (talk) 19:02, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Sometimes Wikipedia works like it's supposed to. This has been resolved - for the nanosecond of the moment - by an uninvolved editor who responded to my message at Military History project. Stay tuned for other silliness. — Maile (talk) 21:17, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

And, oh yeah, I just looked at your edits one-by-one. Some of what you improved originated with me. And I'm glad. I figure you've been editing at this level for longer than I have. So, it's good you took care of that. — Maile (talk) 23:32, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Nope, you've been here since Xmas 2006, me since Feb. 2011, and believe me, I've learned more from Wiki about copy-editing and such that I knew when I first came here. Had some experience from colleges in referencing too, but have sharpened my skills here. I think if I went back to college now and studied the same courses I'd do substantially better. Don't worry about the reverts.. if Milhist have your back with enough eyes on, then it's unlikely to become too troublesome for long. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 23:54, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Nonsence, Mail66 sucessfully posted and referenced from the same AMRF Newsletter on Feb 23 (Legal issues section) and maybe before that w/o any harsh criticism... (newsletter is available through info box ref.) sometime after Feb. in good faith. Today, 3/16, he's removed what he did from the same newsletter 2/23. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.79.31.20 (talk) 23:09, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

This is being discussed on the article talk page, so I'm not going to repeat myself here. I don't see that he ever copied a section of the newsletter to wiki word for word and expected to get away with such a copyvio. You are familiar with WP:COPY aren't you? If not, I suggest you educate you educate yourself on it, before continuing to edit Wiki and keep running into trouble, as you're likely to get yourself blocked if you keep reverting editors who are removing blocks of copyright text which you added. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 03:53, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I didn't consider this an edit "war". Honors and awards Section - Isn't the continued ref name = "global security" (current ref 116) a violation?
Facts: Murphy was awarded "two" PUC' based only on that he was a member of the 3rd Infantry Division (cited-PUC, GO 44) and a member of the 1st Battalion, 15th Infantry Regiment (cited-PUC GO 21). The 15th Infantry Regiment was not cited in WW2, if it was, then Murphy would have 3 PUC's (listed by the U.S. Army...).YahwehSaves (talk) 23:57, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

You need to get a clue how to use "Preview" and not repeatedly tweak edits.. I don't appreciate a flood of "Your talk page has been changed by..." emails, everytime you forget a piece of grammar. Do it all in one go, and learn to tabulate - if you look at how other people have typed comments it's easy enough to figure out how it's done with colons. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 00:13, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXIV, March 2013

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at refugees during the Battle of France Interview: Editors discuss writing articles about the former Yugoslavia Op-ed: Prioryman on German V-weapon sites and the historian's responsibility

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 04:16, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Troop engagements of the American Civil War, 1861

I've tried to break up the notes in the intros for 1861, 62, 63, and 64 lists. Do they look ok? Wild Wolf (talk) 15:59, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Would suggest, in order to gain A-class supports, that the refs are attributed to material claims. i.e. "In July 1861 such and such happened."<ref>cite this sentence from actual page/s due to dated event</ref> or "18,000 troops were engaged at ..."<ref>cite this sentence actual page/s due to troop values claimed</ref> etc. It's more about citing individual sentences to support stated dates/events/data/quotes and challengable claims with page accuracy, rather than covering page ranges, and is highly recommended for MilHist ACRs. Where the prose discusses a period in more general terms without quantitative facts, using page ranges is more acceptable to support the content (as non-OR) and to help prove that the text is not copyvio or close para-phrasing. Though it still needs to be reasonably spaced references, such as every few sentences rather that at the end of a huge paragraph of many sentences. Also, I just noticed some refs have been combined, e.g. Naisawald, pp. 64, 69; Cheeks, p. 55; Hennessy, p. 115. – these need to be broken up so that each publication has it's own line in the References section, for easier reading, verification and such. Have never seen references combined like this, so I don't think it's an accepted practice. A few extra <ref></ref> tags to split them up won't add much page weight. I gather 1865 is still to be done, so will just say the same format needs to be applied there when you get to it. Cheers, Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 17:50, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

For the combined refs example, should it be formatted as <ref>Naisawald, pp. 64, 69.</ref><ref>Cheeks, p. 55.</ref><ref>Hennesssy, p. 115.</ref>? Wild Wolf (talk) 21:56, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Yep, that's right! Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 22:06, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Troop engagements of the American Civil War, 1861

Hi, sorry to bother you again. I was wondering if you thought these pages are any closer to being AL class yet. Wild Wolf (talk) 16:38, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

1862, '63 and '64 might benefit from having a "See also" section with extra reading wikilinks provided plus place the ACW Portal link in that section when added (I've done so with 61/65) to give readers access to more material besides inline wikilinks. I think that might strengthen them towards being more comprehensive, though not strictly A-class requirements in themselves, are a positive thing to see on any A-class candidate. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 17:14, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Milhist FA, A-Class and Peer Reviews January–March 2013

		The Content Review Medal of Merit
		By order of the Military history WikiProject coordinators, for your devoted work on the WikiProject's Peer, A-Class and Featured Article reviews for the period January–March 2013, I am delighted to award you this Content Review Medal. AustralianRupert (talk) 22:49, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks kindly! Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 00:26, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Reviewer granted

Hi MarcusBritish, I just wanted to let you know that I have granted the reviewer userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges. A full list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on will be at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, please contact me and I will remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.

Feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you have any questions. Happy editing! ~ Amory (u • t • c) 03:46, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Cheers, Amory. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 04:18, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Drive proposal for June

FYI I've started a proposal for a drive in Jun here [1]. Was hoping to get some more co-ord opinions before I look to implement this. If you are able to have a look I would be interested in your opinion. Thanks. Anotherclown (talk) 11:27, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

It looks fine, can't think of anything to add. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 02:29, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks...

...for the help with the hyphens in the Peasants' Revolt - v. much appreciated. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:24, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

No worries. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 02:29, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Kriegsmarine and Holocaust

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liepāja_massacres

In case somebody will try to repeat the myth that Kriegsmarine was not involved with Nazi policies. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 02:08, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, though I think they're more interested in whether the German Navy was a Nazi-led fleet, rather than the specific policies it followed. I believe all the German military in WW2 was somehow responsible for enacting anti-Jewish policies, whether it be massacres, work camps, or arranging round-ups and deportation from occupied areas to Germany, they were hunted down everywhere the Germans set foot, and I'm sure the navy and airforce played its part too.. with the exception of U-boats who obviously weren't capable of involvement, even if their on-land commanders were. Much of the German population was anti-Semitic, as a result of public propaganda, and by reporting or turning in Jews were following Nazi policy, without actually being Nazis. The same might be said of the German navy, I don't know. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 03:33, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

I've given up on that particular discussion (if you're referring to the MILHIST bit), honestly. The German navy had its share of Nazis, just like any other segment of the German population, and it also had its fellow travelers. Canaris, for example, seemed to stay pretty ambivalent about the whole thing...working both sides of the fence if you will. Intothatdarkness 14:43, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

The whole idea of there not great big segment of the German forces being completely non-Nazi or Nazi-free was contrived to begin with. They influenced and controlled everything, air, land and sea, military and civilian. Next they'll be trying claim that Hitler wasn't really a dictator and that non-Nazis were free to do as they please in Germany and occupied states. Revisionism.. it reeks. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 03:29, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion

http://www.hulu.com/watch/419216

Sca (talk) 00:22, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

"Sorry, currently our video library can only be watched from within the United States" – there is no provision for equality in legality. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 05:59, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh, sorry. It's a one-hour documentary. Here's a blurb:

A Jewish teenager and an injured soldier join a doomed plot to kill Hitler. They face almost certain death, yet luck and love shine upon them as they outwit Nazi terror and become the first couple married in post-war Berlin.

Based largely on interviews with the heroine and recorded narration by her late husband, with lots of old film and photos. I thought it was quite well done dramatically — and an example of how two ordinary Germans became anti-Nazi activists. It was shown on BBC Four last year, so maybe you can find a UK online source ... if you're interested. Sca (talk) 14:40, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it's at http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b013ffkv but is not available on iPlayer at present, but I'll keep a look out, thanks. I should note, per the lengthy discussion at Milhist, when someone is referred to as a "Nazi", to me that means they believe in particular political ideals, not that they directly believed in or supported Hitler and his cohorts. I'm sure many of those who were involved in the 20 July plot were still staunchly loyal to Nazi ideology and even a Third Reich (should the Allies be defeated), just not the man (or men) who lead them. And I'm sure many were opposed to everything the Nazis and its leaders represented and were fully involved in the German Resistance. You'll often find though, that people use the term "Nazi" simply to mean "Hitler supporter" without any understanding of German politics, fascism, far-right politics, or the plight of Germany post-WWI and the crippling effects of the Treaty of Versailles on it's society and economy. When tagged to other things, such as "Nazi navy" or "Nazi soldiers" we should not automatically assume that those terms mean "Hitler's navy" or "Hitler's soldiers", but that they might have been under the command of the Nazi government and utilised towards the German war effort, which, regardless of whether specific military units were Nazi-led or not, were still working towards the same tactical and strategic goals, in order to produce a victory for Germany itself. Erwin Rommel is perhaps an example of the conflicting interests of "Nazis" (i.e. German soldiers dedicated to the cause), yet intolerant of Hitler and his regime, to the extend of conspiring against him. It is unfortunate that we tar with the same brush in these instances, as it never turns out well. Unfortunately, the success of the Gestapo and it's operatives, for over a decade, in uncovering anti-Nazi supporters, is one such example of "you're either a Nazi or you're not" threat, a belief which has continues to this day with regards the German population and the fear many lived under if they did not make the "right choice" and follow a certain decorum to satisfy those in power, just to stay alive. Few historians care to engage in the internal-war Germany was fighting with itself as it fought the rest of Europe, possibly because few can accept that a large and proud population could be so easily repressed by a small number of fanatics, and that they must have been willing to support the Nazi cause. It's that unwillingness, to consider such exertions, that defines the bias of a historian. Some see all Germans as "Nazis", whilst some see shades of grey between the obvious pro- and anti-Nazi factions, with mixed levels of support for Hitler, the Nazis, anti-Semitism, the war, and many other things that went on during those years. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 15:50, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I can generally agree with much of the above, though I would suggest they were "staunchly loyal" to Germany rather than to Nazi so-called ideology, with all its absurdities. It's important to remember that many members of the old conservative military officer corps initially were "Nazi" mainly because as patriots they wanted to overcome the Versailles limitations on their country. Many, perhaps a majority, of senior officers were from the old Prussian aristocracy, which constituted a subculture decidedly more refined than the American "blood and guts" military mentality. (Some of them even wrote poetry.) Perhaps the British military ethos was more similar in terms of aristocratic tradition, I don't know.

Unfortunately, the German military tradition, while valuing tactical freedom and initiative, did not allow much deviation from obedience to the Obrigkeit — Yorck's historic Convention of Tauroggen notwithstanding. Consequently, people like Halder, Rundstedt and Rommel let things slide even though they knew how criminal, and strategically disastrous, Nazi policies were. It was left to younger people, like the male figure in "Surviving Hitler," a junior army officer called Helmuth Cords, to take action — sadly but perhaps inevitably in vain.

It's all such an amazingly complex story with so much to teach humankind ... if only humans were disposed to learn from history.

Sca (talk) 18:21, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I sometimes think the Nazi Party started off as a bandwagon, the original DAP party being a determined political party, aiming to make Germany great again, long before it became virulent and utterly corrupt. But once that snowball got rolling, following Hitler's bold intervention, it became an avalanche able to destroy anything in its path as its power grew. I believe to be truly loyal to a country you have to belong to a recognised cause or ideology, in order to have a common goal, as blind devotion to one's nation is rather foolhardy and more a romantic notion than a forward-thinking position.

Hard to say what Britain's military ethos is. We have such a long and complex history and have been at war with many countries, for many different reasons. The relevance of the American Revolution, or the Napoleonic Wars, or World Wars can't be compared, nor can our internal civil wars, or those between England and Scotland or Ireland. We're one of the few countries to maintain a monarchy after executing a king, have seen our Parliament dissolved, a new Church of England created, and had the biggest empire in the world at one point, with wars fought for various social and economic reasons, though not due to a maniac dictator's will (Royalty excluded, as there have been many wars led by English kings, although we may have William the Conqueror to thank for introducing feudal laws which progressed into the more democratic system we have today) and no tyranny (although Henry VIII was one) in the same way as WWII became. Where Britain spread its Empire it took many things.. trade, law, religion, science, into corners of the globe which did not have or were under-developed in certain aspects. Perhaps the military ethos of Britain has always been to secure or protect what it believes was "right", i.e. maintain strong trade routes around the world, uphold justice to protect itself, retain religion because Britain was a strongly moral Christian county once, and science because it led to the betterment of mankind. All of these also contribute towards the financial and tax gains the country received. Even though this country was inept at looking after the poor until welfare reforms were introduced, it was always wealth and powerful, and able to extend its influence, the Napoleonic Wars being an example of how Great Britain provisioned itself and other nations against France for two decades, to become the leading world power for 100 years from Waterloo to WWI. Given how that paid off, Britain's motives, and the fact those 100 years were peaceful, seem to be unquestionably "good" in the sense of being non-domineering and cooperative with other nations. It does take strong military presence to maintain and protect an empire of that size against jealous nations, which is perhaps another period where the ethos differed before entering into WWI and later WWII. With those, and Britain's strong alliances with America since 1812, giving root to America becoming a world power and Britain a falling star, it's hard to say what our ethos became, WWI certain could be seen as Britain fighting a threat to its empire due to Germany's expansion, but WWII was very unique, German expansion wasn't so much a threat as the doctrines it took with it, and for that reason we had to fight.

I do believe that history is the greatest subject people can learn, and that humanity is based on what it has achieved, not what it can hope to achieve. We can all reach for the stars and wish for a brighter future, but we have to look to our past, to our failings, to understand where we went wrong before trying to advance. War has brought about the greatest destruction and loss to many civilised countries, and makes us very wary in terms of how a WWIII could turn out. Given that only two nukes have been used against live targets to great effect, and far smaller than today's warheads, I think it is the knowledge of such devastation which acts as a restraint, and if we were to witness the uprising of a new imposing power, it would be defeated on a restrained campaign. We've seen continued war in the Middle East since 9/11, with fairly conservative measures, light coalition casualties, even compared to the Vietnam War. So I do think we've learned a lot about the value of life, the damage, the effects and what can be done to minimise the number of deaths. Sadly a war against militant and terrorist factions rather than governments is going to have less chance of being taken to a peace table and resolved easily, especially where religious extremism is concerned. Which is why I can never agree that any religion has a moral high-ground over its enemies or can be considered a "peaceful religion", because all soldiers fighting for their religion claim to be serving their god, and for that reason there are no material considerations or sanctions that can appease them. I don't think history teaches them anything, and all we can really hope to do is to kill them all swiftly, with as few casualties to us, and allow humanity to move on unopposed. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 22:08, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

One must reject all ideologies — political, religious or nationalist — that claim exclusive verity and superiority to all others. Sca (talk) 14:57, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

But in a democratic society we're given the freedom to vote for someone.. conservative, liberal, republican, independent, etc forms of governmental representation, parties that can be elected to carry forward the progression of one's nation, for the betterment of its people. How can anyone vote for a party without some form of socio-political beliefs, i.e. an ideology? The only other option is to refrain from voting and then we only tend to grumble that the elected party behaves contrary to what we want.. it's fair enough being anti-ideology, but in reality we live with it each day, it's a psychological factor which influences everything we do. Even the rejection of ideologies is an ideology in it's own right.. they form the better part of anti-political, atheist, pacifist, and anti-socialist behaviours. Some might call this humanitarianism. Ever given http://www.politicalcompass.org/ a try? It's a free 5 min. test, but can produce quite interesting results. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 15:24, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

My view is to reject all ideologies that claim to be the only 'true' ones. I like what Churchill is reputed to have said about democracy being "the worst system of government, except for any other." And BTW Churchill was the greatest leader of the western Allies, despite several failures on his part, IMO. Sca (talk) 00:20, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Everest main pic

Hi Marcus, I notice that it was you who added the pic of Everest (from the air) to the infobox so this is simply to notify you that I've changed it for the reason I've given on the talk page. I trust that you will agree with my reasoning! Regards, Ericoides (talk) 15:26, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

 Replied. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 18:07, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Great Western Arms

Thanks for bringing this to my attention. That was a weird one. The only thing I can think is I may have been working on several pieces at the same time (including the Audie Murphy article) and inserted the wrong citation. Correct cites are in place. Thanks for keeping me honest!--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 17:34, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Duke of Wellington

Hi MarcusBritish, Thanks for the welcome! Most appreciated! Regarding the nationality of the Duke of Wellington, wouldn't it be more correct to call him an Irish soldier in the British army? Thanks again for your words of encouragement Mohora (talk) 16:31, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

If I may comment...He was a British soldier and that is the primary reason why he is notable, in the lead he is also described as a native of Ireland as he was born there. He is also described as Anglo-Irish for that was his ascendancy. It's a long lead, but it is accurate. --85.210.99.191 (talk) 20:39, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Secularism

Re: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Dagger symbol, confused with cross symbol, alternate symbols, and default settings for template:KIA - I think you're using the wrong word, see Secularism - they're the reasonable ones (ie, Us)! Please consider changing that, to avoid confusion and distracting-tangents within the thread. Thanks. :) –Quiddity (talk) 19:48, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, just an oversight, I omitted the "non-" for some reason.. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 20:02, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Comment on main MilHist talk page

Hi MarcusBritish, we haven't come across each other much, but I'm another MilHist editor. Might I say that in my dealings with other editors, it seems that not responding to childish rhetoric with inflammatory responses works best for me? I think this may be explained in more detail at WP:TROLL. Anyway, in regard to the MilHist discussion over Storm-333, might I personally ask you, as a favour to me, to not use inflammatory language - even in response to trollish posturing - on the MilHist talk page? Kind regards Buckshot06 (talk) 06:49, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

What on Earth are you talking about? There is no "inflammatory language" in any of my responses on there, just acute observation that an editor was getting close to crossing the line. I raised that fact, because I call a spade a WP:SPADE, and he made good with an apology for his reaction, case closed. I fail to see how you can take a negative view to that. Life is too short to sit round, with a noce cup of tea, and talk things over with soft-spoken words, sometimes you've just got to be blunt. It's not that I "won't" change that, it's because I "can't" change that.. it's who I am, and you'll just have to accept it. I openly believe in bullying a bully (or trolling a troll, as the case may be) in as civil a fashion as possible, in order to turn the tables on them. Most of the time it has the desired effect and makes them see reason. You don't get many genuine trolls on Wiki, at least not of the calibre found on YouTube, you just get very unreasonable people making very unreasonable remarks or requests. Best thing to do in those cases is knock them off their perch quickly, rather than beat around the bush trying to meet them half way. Anyway, that thread virtually ended 2 days ago, favourably in my opinion, so I wouldn't worry yourself too much, the parties involved clearly aren't. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 10:18, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For sorting out the change to map links on SSSI lists. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:09, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh, that was a pleasant surprise. Thank you, kindly! Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 16:17, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

You are welcome. It is very well deserved. I see that the numbers for each site have not changed, so you have obviously written an automated procedure for replacing the part of the link which has changed and inserting the word 'map'. For the articles on each site, I could copy and paste, but this would not be suitable for a reference or an external link. Do you have a procedure which would just update the link in, for example, Natural England, Nature on the Map, Abbey Wood? Thanks if you can help? Dudley Miles (talk) 17:44, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Using WikEd, I'd set it to FIND: http://www.natureonthemap.naturalengland.org.uk/map.aspx?map=sssi&feature= and REPLACE with: {{nature on the map| then to FIND: ,sssi,HYPERLINK,LABEL] REPLACE with: }}, which would leave the ID number untouched between them. If there is an URL name they would need to be manually removed, unless there are many links on the page, in which case I would use regex to mass replace them, and to that I'd copy/paste the contents of the Edit page to Notepad++ and use something like – ,sssi,HYPERLINK,LABEL [(A-Z 0-9,'_-–—\.)+]] – in a FIND/REPLACE regex. Once done the result can be pasted back to Wiki. But in all the SSSI lists I encountered there was no names to worry about. Regex is the key to how I changed all the SSSI pages quite quickly, but it was manually performed and was previewed each time, to catch any that didn't replace right. In your example, because it's just one link, I'd do it manually, replacing all but the number to the template. For a whole list or page full it takes way too long to do each one manually and with the risk of making a mistake, such as accidentally deleting a digit of an ID, which would result in a duff link. The {{nature on the map}} template was not created by me, but I did update it yesterday to support the new MAGIC Defra host for the maps. Cheers, Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 18:25, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks very much. That looked a bit complicated, so I tried exporting to Word and running a macro. This is no doubt not the proper way of doing it, but I find it works fine and is very simple.

I have created an article List of Local Nature Reserves in Greater London. Any comments appreciated. I have left out date designated because it seemed of limited interest and area because it is not easily available for LNRs. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:38, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Looks good. I think once more lists of LNRs are created for other counties, whether that be by yourself or other editors, it might be worth creating LNR specific templates for the map/details columns, as it's much easier for someone to simply update any URL for the templates with one edit, than to wade through every county, as I did with the SSSIs, as it seemed no one else was willing despite the Magic site taking over months ago. But the way the government is in the habit of periodically changing websites, terms, the format and such, especially after a switch from Tory to Labour and vice versa, it would be best to be prepared, as it's virtually fail-proof to use a template rather than the same URL dozens of times across dozens of articles where uniformity is paramount to keeping those lists in close order.

Just throwing this your way FYI: a short tutorial on Regex; I just watched it, and he's very clear: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DRR9fOXkfRE, parts 2&3 apply for Python programmers so may not be relevant, but if using Notepad++ http://www.cheatography.com/davechild/cheat-sheets/regular-expressions/ comes in handy, I've changed lists and tables many a time using some fairly simple Find/Replace expressions, is easy to pick-up, can be awkward at times, but the learning curve is far from steep unless you want to perform really complex tasks. To update links and things on Wiki that would be rare though. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 18:38, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

The Man Who Would Be King

Just a heads up, I saw you changed The Man Who Would Be King from being an American film to a British one. I've partly undone your changes because it is actually an American production. In addition to being directed by an American and produced by an American, it was made by three American production companies. It was also nominated by the American Film Institute as one of the 400 greatest American movies of all time, as you can see here: [2] That said, I did not remove "United Kingdom" from the sidebar nor did I remove the British categories since the movie was partly shot in England and stars British actors. Anyways, there you have it, lol. Cheers! :) ThylekShran (talk) 09:37, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Alright, no worries. I'm sure you'll agree, if you've seen it, that it definitely does not come across as an American film in any respects, but a very British one. Probably due to the Connery–Caine pairing, and their acting styles, more than anything. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 13:39, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Your comments at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators

Well said Marcus! I can totally relate to your comments. MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:46, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, it had to be said, but I was starting to think I was the only one. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 22:13, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history coordinator election

Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election, which will determine our coordinators for the next twelve months. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September! Kirill ^[talk] 17:29, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzz

I nodded off in the middle of keystrokes. Thanks for catching. — Maile (talk) 21:06, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

No worries. Was mainly concerned about our old friend cropping up again.. second set of eyes, and all that. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 21:10, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Template for deletion

In case it didn't catch your notice, Template:IMDb name is up for deletion. — Maile (talk) 19:16, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, an interesting nominations. Someone trying to play the reckless hero, me thinks. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 02:07, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikmaps grant request : we need your support

Hello Marcus,
Long time not seen. I learned from the GIS tutorial experience and push once more for better maps on Wikipedia: I just publicly announced a grant request on the Map Workshop talkpage. Please take a look, and support us on meta ! Cheer ! Yug (talk) 12:25, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for the information. I haven't used QGIS for quite some time.. early 2012 or so.. think I've uninstalled it, actually, as I lost interest in the things I was thinking of working on and haven't regained momentum due to lack of encouragement and motivation. I may possibly come back to them in the future, depends how things go, my interest in things tends to wane and rise sporadically. Your proposal there sounds interesting, and I definitely wish you luck in securing that grant as well as 3 months away from home to work on it. I'm not sure how the Grants system works, with regards to if you just wanted me to read it or to somehow support your proposal?

On a side note, I see you're involved in language teaching.. any tips on how I can learn that lovely but tricky French language fast.. lol, it would be such a benefit to my interests in Napoleonic history to be able to enjoy reading original French documents, but I find it frustrating to relearn after almost 20 years. Salut! Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 18:34, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello. For French learning, there is some progress in the field of intercomprehension, meaning the focus on similar aspects of 2 languages to ease communication and learning, Yet, you will need to fight to integrate / refresh the 40% of words which are completely new for English speakers.

For the GIS, yes, I remember, I made great effort for learning QGIS and writing down the tutorials. This efforts literally exhausted me before I could complete the serie. I was quite frustrated when I saw the result, MissMJ and yourself not able to smoothly learn the whole workflow. I just returned to GIS map making in early 2013, with QGis, and was unsatisfied by the poor SVG export. So I started to explore new tech specially designed to generated web apps maps. Sound promising. And.... easier. A single Makefile can contain the whole list of gdal command, so you edit a bit the makefile with WNES geocoordinates, run it, and it design you a new map. Spoiler alert : it's not exactly that simple since someone have to fight to build the workflow first.... And that's what we are willing to do. And yes, even your experience of failing to learn GIS/QGIS would be a valuable testimony in support of our project. We are designing a tool which will make GIS design [what make cool maps], SIMPLE. Yug (talk) 20:33, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Ah, sounds interesting. Has the QGIS software seen many updates and improvements over the last 18 months or so to make it more powerful, flexible, reliable or easier to handle? I think the problem I had was lack of support at their end, no user guides and the lack of a GUI made it awful to use. I think I over-estimated the complexity of producing SVGs also, as it seems using QGIS, Photoshop and Illustrator to produce maps requires a lot of intimate knowledge of the three programs in order to get really good results. I was rushing into things and failing to create decent maps, as I'm generally too impatient to learn all that software in baby steps from "hello, world" to advanced procedures needed to create multi-layer rasters and such.

I have a French speaking and reading CD course, had it tucked away for a while, I'm sure I'll find the willpower to actually work through it one day soon. It's supposed to go from beginner to advanced and takes about 3 months to work through through in weekly steps with real French speakers on the CD, not slow and patronising French-speaking Englishmen... a daunting task, but more in-depth than you average "tourist" standard of conversation examples.

Can you advise me what to do, where to go with regards leaving a testimony? I'll try to follow by example when I see other editors leave testimonies, so that I don't muck it up. Thanks. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 23:54, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer

I appreciate your response at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 November 5 though the discussion seems to have gotten off on a tangent. It seems that the editors there want to take the discussion to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines#System requirements. I don't know if I have the right to ask, but I'd appreciate if you could make your arguments there as you did at the TfD Discussion. Cheers. 155.97.192.173 (talk) 07:59, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

There's no point my commenting. The discussion is highly unbalanced and too many detractors to the use of system requirements are leading the debate, also the 27.x.x.x IP is embarrassing for the people who support the idea, with his frivolous remarks, playing into the WP:VG teams hands; to be frank, I wouldn't be half surprised if their members are not emailing one another off-wiki, goading other members to oppose the template, as the whole discussion appears very juvenile and is underpinned by the same people from previous debates. The entire "consensus" is a massive example of WP:RANDY, and Masem should be ashamed of himself, as a sysop, for encouraging such behaviour pro-actively. I won't debate with admins in territory they're clearly manipulating to their own ends; it lacks good faith or a truly productive consensus. Not worth my time until the discussion is opened via a WP:RFC to the wider community, instead of on a WP talkpage where a cult of clowns presides. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 20:35, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Interesting. Well thank you for taking the time to write back. I noticed 27.x.x.x IP is making it very hard to make a legitimate argument, but I haven't noticed this form of underhand cooperation at work as well. I'll take it from the wiser Wikipedian and find something better to do. 155.97.192.173 (talk) 05:32, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Russian Wikipedia

Someone has created county lists of English Sites of Special Scientific Interest on Russian Wikipedia! See [3]. I think they are better than our lists as where possible they include photos, such as Greater London at [4], and some are featured lists. Remarkable. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:35, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, Dudley; sorry for the delayed reply, I was waiting for this weekend to look at them and address it. It is a nice looking layout, I agree, but we do need to be careful of using images in tables, as some of these SSSI lists are so long, that the use of a photo against each site could add many Kb of weight to the pages, resulting in slower pageload times. The problem is, once you begin adding photos to, say, lists up to 100 rows long, the practice migrates to the larger tables as other editors start to add photos to their local area, more to follow a "trend" without considering the implications.

I also think if a table does include photos, in order to look good all the rows need a photo, not just a select few. In the cases of smaller tables this is probably easily, in larger lists probably not so. I don't know if there is a balance way to include such a format on English Wiki, I'm more for an "all or nothing" approach when it comes to photos per table, with a cap when it comes to how big the list should be maximum before inclusion of photos would add too much weight, in those cases a selection of photos down the side of the table of notable sites seems better. Take this article for example: List of castles in England. I admit it loads a lot faster than a year ago when I last looked at it, no doubt due to improvements in the Wiki-software, servers, browsers, etc.. a word count of the phrase "File:" results in 399. I'm not sure if any of the SSSI lists are that long.. plenty are <100 sites, which I think would work, over that, I'm not sure.

If you're proposing that we adopt the Russian format, I certainly don't intend to object to the idea, per se, though I do think a casual discussion may be necessary beforehand between some of the people who have been active in developing SSSI lists, to throw a few ideas about, see in there's a general consensus on the format and limitations we should consider, and go from there? Nothing in Wiki policy should prevent it from going ahead, but given that there are a lot of SSSI articles to go back over for England, as well as the future chance of the Welsh, Scottish and Irish ASSIs being converted from lists to tables, we probably need to determine what standards people are happy to work to so that all the SSSI article retain a uniform appearance across this wiki. We also need to bear in mind that several lists are now Featured, and that major changes to such articles often meet greater opposition; by involving those people who pushed those articles to FL early we'd can deal with any concerns and see who is willing to help expand the tables whilst retaining FL standards. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 16:13, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I agree of course that it is best to discuss any changes to get a consensus.

Taking your last point first, having recently got Featured List status for List of nature reserves in Barnet, I think that the SSSI lists must have been put through when standards were lower. I was asked to add a column for a description of each site, and FLs are also expected to have images and minimal red links, none of which Greater London had when it was approved. See Wikipedia:Featured list criteria. I think there is a lot of work to be done before more SSSI lists can be featured.

I agree of course that a standard format is desirable, but I think it is necessary to accept that there will never be complete uniformity. I have included a location column in the tables I have created because I think that when people look at a list to find what SSSIs there are in their locality, it is unrealistic to expect them to check the map location of each site. Some editors have added an 'other designations' column, and made the Natural England citations a reference for each site instead of putting them in a separate list. These discrepancies can only be removed if someone is willing to go through all the lists making them uniform, which does not seem likely.

I doubt whether loading time will be a problem. The castles table did not take long when I loaded it, and it has more images than any SSSI list would have. You say that lists should have images for all lines or none, but I do not think this is possible. Few list articles have images for every item, as there will always be some where no image is available. I know of one site where a photo is not possible as it is hidden behind houses, and no doubt there are others. I think the Russian editor got the balance right as he has an image column where he could find pictures of the great majority of sites and a selection down the side where he could not. (However, I have adopted the opposite policy with List of Local Nature Reserves in Greater London - adding an image column which I fill in when I photograph sites.) One possible problem is that images might make the table too wide. When I was working on Barnet, I was advised not to specify a width for each column, but leave it to the browser to select the best widths for the user's screen. Do you think this is worth considering? Dudley Miles (talk) 19:12, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Column widths are something that needs to be considered on a per table basis – in some cases fixing the first few columns is helpful to prevent squashing text, unless you use word-wrap, whilst leaving columns for notes and such flexible; what with so many resolutions these days, it's near-impossible to get a good balance; fixing columns as percentages is often better than fixed pixel widths. With images, you'd normally just fix all the image thumbs to a suitable width, the column will add a bit of internal padding, that way all the thumbs are flush, like with that castles article, there are tons of thumbs but they are at least neatly organised. I personally tend to make wide tables 100%, only people with exceptionally wide [eye-squinting] resolutions are going to have odd results, but it will suit most. I don't trust browsers to be intuitive all the time as they can't see how bad cramped content appears to the human eye, and there is certainly nothing in the MOS which states don't ever fix column or table widths. It's worth considering, but all the different browsers, IE, Chrome, FF, etc as well as those on small devices, ipads, etc, might create different results when left to do their own thing. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 19:50, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

I am not an expert on design, but percentage seems better than fixed widths. On a quick trawl of a sample of geographical FLs, the great majority left width unspecified with a few percentages. If I was designing SSSI lists from scratch to meet current FL standards, I would leave out the acre and date established columns and add image and description columns, but even if other editors agreed, it would be too much work to change them now. I am on holiday and off wiki for a week from tomorrow. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:49, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

I studied some Web Design in Uni. but back then there were only about 3 main resolutions, including 800x600 and 1024x768; widescreen monitors were not as commonplace, there were no handheld browser devices, so design was much easier on designers. Everything has rocketed in the last decade towards bigger and wider and faster with vastly improved hardware.

I'm not sure if removing acres would be a good move, as Wiki is not supposed to favour any form of measurement – I don't think the sole use of hectares would be neutral, and I never hear anyone say "hectares", only "acres". I think both are not easily understood worldwide and a conversion to a modern standard such as square meters would be better. I'm not sure how crowded a table will get once an image is added, or if there is need to remove anything. The main thing to bear in mind policy-wise is WP:NOT#STATS and make sure that the tables remain informative and not a 1:1 copy of the Natural England database. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 15:36, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. An acres column does not take up much space. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:22, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Favor

Marcus, can I trouble you for a favor? In you arbcom post you added a small section titled "Non-exhaustive examples of historic and ongoing disputes", however I feel that this information would be better presented in the "evidence" section as proof that we've tried in good faith to work through these issues before. AGK had asked for more evidence - that is to say more links and diffs to examples that we had gone through and exhausted other means of resolution - and unless I'm wrong about the posts in your examples section that is exactly what you've provided, so I think it'd do more good in the evidence section. Would you be open to moving you examples list there? The evidence section is just above my statement section, and is currently populated only by link to the most recent ani thread. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:07, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I stand corrected, the evidence section is titled "Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried". Sorry for the confusion. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:11, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Yeah I as going to say, they're not evidence of having tried to resolve this dispute, only that past disputes exist. You might want to look at the 4 links I listed mid-statement, which are current dispute articles. On one or two of their talk page are sections on Turkish/Ottoman where Roslyn has refused to accept sources or the MilHist consensus, and persists in 3RR, showing that they disregard MilHist discussions and go their own way. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 23:15, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Ah. Ok then, never mind. I had though that perhaps they were links to previous cases in which Rskp had been engaged in discussion with other members of the project on content matters, but as that doesn't appear to be the case then I suppose the examples should be left where they are. Thanks for the reply. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:54, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

My interpretation of RGK's request: "Could you compile a sample of links to prior discussions between the two primary disputants that illustrates the problem? We need these links in order to review the background to the dispute, and to ascertain that the last resort of arbitration is actually necessary." is that all my links should suffice to provide a background for them. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 01:03, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom

Hi Marcus, you can't edit in Roslyn's section, it says so at the top. I suggest you re-factor. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 02:44, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I misinterpreted the "All editors wishing to make statements should keep their statements and any responses to other statements to 500 words or fewer" bit at the top.. Cheers, Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 02:51, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Egyptian place

Hello MarcusBritish, I could not find exactly the El Saliyeh or Salalieh but i think the name of the place was written wrongly. Most probably it is Al-Salehyia which is in Al Sharqia Governorate also see Salehyia Arabic Wikipedia page.. The reasons are:

1. As it is mentioned that Napoleon went on to Abu Kabir (Egypt) which is near al-Salehia location and Abu Kebir is also at Al Sharqia Governorate
2. This map of the Napoleon campagin shows As-Salehiah (near Zagazig at Al Sharqia Governorate) as one of the battle sites of Napoleon.
3. Al-Salehyia location is very near to Sinai.--Ashashyou (talk) 16:01, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm not sure the words were spelled wrong, as they are in various sources, but I think they are probably Anglicised spellings of the place in question, which isn't an uncommon practice for British map-makers. I found an old but not-to-scale sketched map of Egypt, dated 1888, and there is a place labelled "Saleighieh" which appears to be some distance (approx. 25 leagues by the scale used – 75 miles or 120 km) roughly north-east of Cairo, past Belbes on the "Road to Gaza" which might be it. This source from 1801, for example, says, "in Upper Egypt ... the garrisons of Salalieh, Belbeis, Suez, Lesbeh, and Bourlos" – but on Google maps I can only see Suez and Belbes east of Cairo, none of the other three, Salalieh being the one I most want to find due to the battle Napoleon fought there. I cannot seem to find As-Salehiah on Google maps either, strangely. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 17:07, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

see these map links http://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~3197~450034:Lower-Egypt---with--Environs-of-Cai

http://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~20366~550108:Rand,-McNally-&-Company-s-indexed-a?qvq=w4s:/where/Cairo%20Region%20(Egypt);lc:RUMSEY~8~1&mi=1&trs=3 --Ashashyou (talk) 14:25, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

http://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~25515~1020103?qvq=w4s:/where/Cairo%20Region%20(Egypt);lc:RUMSEY~8~1&mi=0&trs=3 --Ashashyou (talk) 14:26, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, those maps proved very useful. Clearly this place has been spelled in at least 5 different ways by different mappers and historians over the years, but with them I've been able to find and pin-point the place in Google Maps http://maps.google.co.uk/maps/ms?msid=207358190027734970567.0004ec826d0d8cb898338&msa=0&ll=30.776759,31.996479&spn=0.022012,0.042272 Thank you for taking the time to help, much appreciated! Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 00:55, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

You are welcome. Could you add the various spellings to your google earth note? or to Wikipedia? to save efforts on others that might ask same question later on.--Ashashyou (talk) 06:00, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, there's the two from historical texts, El Saliyeh or Salalieh, it shows as Saleighieh on an 1888 map (the most unusual spelling), it shows as As Salhiyyah on Google Maps, and you suggested As Salehiah and Al Salehyia above, though I'm not sure if those are both references to the same place to just two very similarly named places (to my eye) in the vicinity of Sinai – you'll have to advise me on that. I doubt anyone will ask about it anytime though, in terms of a Napoleonic battle it was only a rear-guard skirmish against some Mamelukes, nothing very notable, but I'm compiling all the places he fought battles at in his life so it's needed for that list even if it's minor. At some point in the future I may need to create a map image to support the list, so pin-pointing the place will be useful for such a time; for the moment it satisfies my research and curiosity by verifying such a place exists and its location, as even reliable sources are known to get some things wrong. I haven't decided which spelling I'll use for the article, probably not Google's, but whichever one is most commonly used in my sources, even if it's a British or French version, as I don't think that will be seen as biased. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 07:56, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

After reviewing the Arabic webpages:

Seems from al-Jabarty chronicles: http://vb.almastba.com/t5741.html فى يوم الأثنين شهر ربيع الأول سنة 1213 هـ - 14 أغسطس 1798 م : في ثانيه وصل الفرنساوية الى نواحي القرين وكان ابراهيم بك ومن معه وصلوا الى الصالحية وأودعوا مالهم وحريمهم هناك وضمنوا عليها العربان وبعض الجند فأخبر بعض العرب الفرنساوية بمكان الحملة فركب صاري عسكر وأخذ معه الخيالة وقصد الإغارة على الحملة وعلم ابراهيم بك بذلك أيضًا فركب هو وصالح بك وعدة من الأمراء والمماليك وتحاربوا معهم ساعة أشرف فيها الفرنسيس على الهزيمة لكونهم على الخيول وإذا بالخبر وصل الى ابراهيم بك بأن العرب مالوا على الحملة يقصدون نهبها فعند ذلك فر بمن معه على إثره وتركوا قتال الفرنسيس ولحقوا بالعرب وجلوهم عن متاعهم وقتلوا منهم عدة وارتحلوا الى قطيا Translation: In the 2nd day of Rabee al-Awwal of 1213 Hijri, 14 August 1798 AD, the french reached near al-Qurayin and Ibrahim Bey and his followers reached "al-Salehyia" where they have saved their money and Harem there entrusted in the hands of the Bedouins and some soldiers. Some of the Bedouins told the french about the site of the campaign, so Napoleon "Sary Askar" ride his horse and took with him the cavalry aiming to wage a fight and surprise Ibrahim bey campaign. Ibrahim bey knew so he ride his horse with Saleh bey and some of the Emirs and mamluks. They had a fight for an hour or so, the french were going to be defeated because they were on horses???, then news arrived to Ibrahim bey that the bedouins are attacking the Harem to get its treasures, so he ran away with his companions to and quitted fighting the French to reach the Bedouins whom they extracted their treasures from their hands and kill many of them, then went on to Qatyia.

http://www.al-jazirah.com/2005/20050811/xh9.htm الفرنسيون يهزمون المماليك في (معركة الصالحية) بمصر في مثل هذا اليوم من عام 1798 وقعت مواجهة عسكرية جديدة بين قوات الحملة الفرنسية وقوات المماليك في منطقة الصالحية شرق مصر. وكان الفرنسيون-بعد أن تمكنوا من دخول القاهرة قادمين من الشمال بعد سلسلة معارك بدأت بمعركة الاسكندرية التي قاد المقاومة فيها حاكم المدينة محمد كريم ثم معركة إمبابة ومعركة الأهرام-بدأوا التفكير في الاتجاه شرقا لتحقيق هدفين، الهدف الأول هو مطاردة المماليك الذين أخذوا طريقهم في اتجاه الشام عبر سيناء قبل أن يعيدوا تجميع صفوفهم والثاني تمهيد الطريق أمام غزو الشام وفقاً لخطة نابليون بونابرت قائد الحملة الفرنسية التي قامت على أساس احتلال مصر والشام وإقامة قاعدة لإمبراطورية فرنسية في الشرق تقطع طريق المواصلات بين بريطانيا ومستعمراتها في الهند. تقدمت القوات الفرنسية قادمة من القاهرة في اتجاه الشرق واستولت على مدينة بلبيس إحدى أهم المدن في شرق مصر في ذلك الوقت. وعندما حاولت التقدم في اتجاه الشرق اصطدمت بالمماليك الذين كانوا قد نجحوا في تجميع صفوفهم في منطقة الصالحية. في الوقت نفسه عانت القوات الفرنسية من هجمات المصريين في القرى الواقعة على خط سير الحملة. لذلك ورغم أن ميزان القوة كان يميل لصالح الفرنسيين بشدة في معركة الصالحية فإن النصر تأخر بسبب الإزعاج الدائم الذي سببه لهم الفلاحون المصريون بهجماتهم المتكررة على القوات الفرنسية على طريقة حرب العصابات التي لم تكن قد ظهرت في ذلك الوقت. ولكن الفرنسيين نجحوا في النهاية في تحقيق الانتصار ليواصل المماليك فرارهم ناحية الشرق وصولاً إلى الشام.

http://www.islammemo.cc/zakera/methl-haza-elyawm/2012/09/10/155458.html معاهدة من 22 شرطًا ملزمة للطرفين، وذلك في رمضان سنة 1214هـ ـ 1800م. فرح المصريون بهذه المعاهدة بشدة، وأخذ الفرنسيون في إخلاء مواقعهم في الصالحية وبلبيس ودمياط والسويس، ونزل العثمانيون مكانهم Seems that the french had a garrison in Salehyiah which was handed to Ottoman army in 1800 treaty.

https://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AD%D9%85%D9%84%D8%A9_%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%81%D8%B1%D9%86%D8%B3%D9%8A%D8%A9_%D8%B9%D9%84%D9%89_%D9%85%D8%B5%D8%B1 خط زمني للحملة الفرنسية على مصر[عدل] • 1798 • 19 مايو : مغادرة الجيوش الفرنسية من طولون • 11 يونيو : الاستيلاء على مالطا • 1 يوليو : الوصول إلى الإسكندرية • 21 يوليو : معركة الأهرامات، وانتصار القوات الفرنسية • 1 و2 أغسطس : معركة النيل, انتصار القوات البريطانية على الفرنسيون في خليج أبو قير • 10 أغسطس : معركة الصالحية

https://arz.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D9%85%D8%B9%D8%B1%D9%83%D8%A9_%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B5%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AD%D9%8A%D9%87 معركة الصالحيه معركة الصالحيه ، معركه حصلت فى 11 اغسطس 1798 جنب الصالحيه فى محافظة الشرقيه ، مصر ، بين نابوليون بونابارت و ابراهيم بك وقت الحمله الفرنسيه على مصر ، انتصر فيها نابوليون بصعوبه كبيره. --Ashashyou (talk) 19:15, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

That's it, the first one you translated – Ibrahim bey was the Mameluke leader that Napoleon pursued after the Battle of the Pyramids. After a quick cavalry skirmish at Salehyiah, Ibrahim ran off up north into Syria to join up with the Ottomans, who by then had declared war on France and joined up with the British in Acre. My two sources say the battle was on 11 August 1798 though, not the 14 August.

Interesting isn't it, when you hear of "Napoleon" you normally think of grassy battlefields in Europe and snowy Russia.. not in the middle of Egyptian deserts – his Egypt/Syria campaign doesn't get a lot of mentions most of the time, unfortunately. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 19:31, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I would like you to record the different spellings of the battle name or perhaps start a wikipedia page on it. --Ashashyou (talk) 21:01, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't know if the village would be considered notable enough to warrant its own article on en:wiki, and I only have two sources covering totalling about 10 lines of text briefly mentioning the fact there was ever a skirmish, but neither goes into detail on the fight itself, so I don't have enough to go on to produce a new article on the battle, but the same can be said for a lot of Napoleonic skirmishes – very small and lacking records. It will be mentioned in the article I'm slowly putting together in my sandbox covering Napoleon's entire military career, and will include the skirmish in a table and somehow I'll mention it when I cover this part of the Egyptian campaign – that kills two birds with one stone, as the village only appears to be slightly notable for a) this skirmish and b) involving Napoleon, to the best of my knowledge. It's probably the best I can hope to do for an otherwise unknown village. Alternatively, if there is anything notable at https://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B5%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AD%D9%8A%D8%A9_%28%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B4%D8%B1%D9%82%D9%8A%D8%A9%29 then you would probably be able to create an en:wiki version, by translating it to English, from there people will be able to expand it. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 21:41, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Arbitration case opened

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Ottoman Empire–Turkey naming dispute. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Ottoman Empire–Turkey naming dispute/Evidence. Please add your evidence by December 9, 2013, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Ottoman Empire–Turkey naming dispute/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Rschen7754 22:40, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Your evidence in Ottoman Empire–Turkey naming dispute

You have submitted evidence at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Ottoman Empire–Turkey naming dispute/Evidence. Since then, new instructions have been added to the evidence page; they are summarised in the "Important notice" box at the top of the page, and explained in the first section of the same page. Please update your submissions accordingly, by 00:01, Thursday 5 December 2013 (UTC). Thank you! AGK [•] 12:41, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Frederick H. Dyer

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Frederick H. Dyer you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 09:02, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Re:Restriction

I'll look through it in depth a little later, but for now I'd add forfeiture of all user rights. I'd also seek clarification on whether or not admins involved in the matter (like me) have a free hand to enforce rulings or whether we need to defer to a third party. I would also recommend that arbcom preemptively authorize us to extend whatever ruling they make against RSKP and Jim Sweeney to all isp-based edits and any sock accounts to ensure that there is no foreseeable loophole in their ruling. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:02, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I think WP:SOCK and WP:MEAT will automatically cover those anyway, anyone trying to circumvent an Arbcom ruling with socks would have no excuse if they used an form of puppet, and would be automatically subject to a block of any involved accounts identified by CU, and Arbcom or ANI will probably advance the decision to an outright topic ban. There won't be any loophole on that point, that's for sure. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 04:07, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Arbitration evidence

Hello, MarcusBritish. Thank you for your recent submission of evidence for the Ottoman Empire–Turkey naming dispute Arbitration case. As you may be aware, the Arbitration Committee asks that users submitting evidence in cases adhere to limits regarding the length of their submissions. These limits, currently at 1000 words and 100 diffs for parties and 500 words and 50 diffs for all others, are in place to ensure that the Arbitration Committee receives only the most important information relevant to the case, and is able to determine an appropriate course of action in a reasonable amount of time. The evidence you have submitted currently exceeds at least one of these limits, and is presently at 1038 words and 112 diffs. Please try to reduce the length of your submission to fit within these limits; this guide may be able to provide some help in doing so. If the length of your evidence is not reduced soon, it may be refactored or removed by a clerk within a few days. Thank you! If you have any questions or concerns regarding the case, please contact the drafting Arbitrator or case clerk (who are listed on the case pages). On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Rschen7754 06:06, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

A request for a word/diff extension has already been made at on the talk page.. I suggest someone consider it. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 06:19, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

The drafting arbitrator may or may not grant this request. However, if it is not granted, the extra evidence will be removed by a clerk. The usual practice is to ask for an extension before you post the evidence, not afterward. --Rschen7754 06:40, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom is by no means "usual" to me – first time, expect mistakes. Please see Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Ottoman_Empire–Turkey_naming_dispute/Evidence#Clerical_error also. Thanks, Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 06:51, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Apology

I owe you an apology for having not foreseen that the arbitration committee would need clarification on who exactly should be considered parties to the case when I listed military history project coordinators. I feel that this has caused you undo stress, and while I am happy to hear that you now have your classification as a party to the case I can not help but feel that if had had endeavored to better cover this from the beginning it would not have been an issue. For that, I apologize. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:22, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, but no apology is required.. I already noted that this was our first Arbcom ccase and some mistakes can be expected. I wasn't particularly stressed, more frustrated by having to jump through loops to get to an obvious position. Now we're in that position, I hope we can take advantage of the benefits it gives. It is odd that the final outcome of this case – good or bad – won't really affect me, being a non-WWI editor, so I can only hope to justify the considerable use of my time in trying to resolve the debate between other members for the good of MilHist rather than for myself. You and I are arbitrators being arbitrated.. it is probably a very unique and unfortunate position to be in, as our good intentions are now being reviewed without much concern for out uninvolvement in the actual wording dispute itself. The frustration of this is going to affect us all, to some degree, I imagine. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 01:32, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Evidence for Ottoman Empire–Turkey naming dispute

Hi there. You are receiving this message because you are a party to the Ottoman Empire–Turkey naming dispute arbitration case, or you have been mentioned somewhere on the case talk pages, or you have submitted evidence in this case. Please be aware that the evidence phase for this case closes at 00:01, 09 December 2013 (UTC), which is just over one day from now. If you have not submitted evidence and would like to do so, please do so before the deadline. If you have submitted evidence and would like to amend or expand it, please also do so before the deadline. Thank you! AGK [•] 15:39, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Frederick H. Dyer

The article Frederick H. Dyer you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Frederick H. Dyer for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:12, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for taking time to review it! Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 15:31, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Decision proposed in Ottoman naming dispute

You are receiving this message because you are a party to the Ottoman Empire–Turkey naming dispute arbitration case, or you have commented or been mentioned on the case pages. I am the drafting arbitrator for this case. I have written the draft decision and proposed it for adoption at the proposed decision case page. The committee will now vote on the final decision for this dispute. If you wish to bring any information or comments to the committee's attention, the proposed decision talk page is monitored by the arbitrators active on this case. Thank you, AGK [•] 20:12, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Ottoman Empire–Turkey naming dispute closed

An arbitration case about the behaviour of RoslynSKP (talk · contribs) with regards to the use of the terms 'Turkish' to 'Ottoman', has now closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

1. RoslynSKP (talk · contribs) is indefinitely prohibited from changing 'Turkey' or 'Turkish' to 'Ottoman' on any article.
2. RoslynSKP (talk · contribs)'s topic ban from "editing any article relating to Turkish military history in and predating World War I" is suspended and will be unsuspended (and the prohibition will take effect) if any uninvolved administrator blocks RoslynSKP for misconduct relating to Turkish military history. If the block is reversed or repealed by any of the usual community channels of appeal, the topic ban will lapse back into suspension.
3. RoslynSKP is prohibited from making any more than one revert on any one page in any 72-hour period.
4. For a period of one year, RoslynSKP is prohibited from adding maintenance tags, such as {{POV}}, to any article or section of an article without first raising her concern on the talkpage and obtaining the agreement of at least one other editor that the tag is appropriate.
5. Jim Sweeney (talk · contribs) is reminded to avoid edit warring, and to use dispute resolution to assist in resolving disputes.

For the Arbitration Committee, — ΛΧΣ^{21 Call me Hahc21} 23:06, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Apology

I'm truly sorry if I was a DICK in how I handled the situation last night (for me - I guess this morning for you). I should have talked with you about your close before doing it; my rush to get it done was a dick move, and for that I'm sorry. Removing your comments was needlessly dickish as well, because in the end, they were unlikely to cause any further talk page drama. And yes, I'm even sorry for posting on your talk earlier today, which was an attempt, as you recognized, for me in my anger to have the LASTWORD. I hope in the future I can show you I'm actually the most down-to-earth lawyer you'll likely meet - after all, I'm a small town attorney (in a town about the size of Banbury or Caerphilly), and I don't get paid enough to have a haughty attitude about my job. Cdtew (talk) 15:40, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

P.S. - I know you told me to stay off your talk page, but I hope you'll accept this as a good faith attempt to apologize. Cdtew (talk) 15:41, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Let me explain something. In the thread RoslynSKP opened on MilHist, my aim was to close down the discussion as being premature but not completely disregard it. I consider my attempt to suggest, not enforce, a mutually agreeable time when Roslyn should reopen the debate as being in good faith. I also consider the start of the WWI centenary, a lengthy 6-months away, a very decent opportunity to possibly rediscuss the matter with fresh views and perhaps some new insights. Bear in mind, RoslynSKP still has to remain an unbanned and unsuspended editor in that time, a challenge in itself. I have never opposed the use of "Ottoman" per se, rather the suppression of "Turkish" based on false reasoning. I even use "Ottoman" myself for Napoleonic articles, so I'm far from biased against the term. Despite my anger at RoslynSKP I made very fair attempts to propose pacifying her editing habits at ArbCom without demanding bans, only restrictions. I consider myself very fair-minded, honest and have firm beliefs in being non-biased, to the point that I play Devil's Advocate very well to add balance to my views. Generally, I am very thick-skinned and unresponsive to uncivil or personal attacks, but I have an extremely low tolerance for attacks on my integrity, because I try to play fair and hear everyone out before judging a situation. I considered your removal of my posts and remarks about being potentially disruptive as a direct challenge to my integrity and character, lacking in AGF and unwarranted. Be aware, I am not normally "rabid" towards people though I am frank and very blunt, which some people take as ill-mannered but that's their problem, not mine; I rarely succumb to stress, but I do snap when my genuine or honest intentions are derided and the attacker fails to acknowledge my good faith. I accept your apology with no hard feelings and hope none were felt in return. I think this ArbCom matter has everyone wound up, and yesterday was nothing more than a release of bottled-up anger, against each other rather than Roslyn for starting the bloody topic. Regardless, she's already at ANI for ArbCom breaches and I can't help but feel that her presence is creating an uncomfortable environment in MilHist, as we're more used to minor squabbles than great scathing debates that polarise members and cause harsh words to be spoken. On a personal note, I'd suggest you leave the lawyer at the office and just bring the armchair historian to Wiki – this site should be handled more like a hobby to enjoy than a profession to pursue – we're all volunteers, we all have different levels of commitment and investment, but we shouldn't make it an extension of our real-life jobs as that will interfere with our perceptions of each other, as you now know. Collaboration which begins on equal-footing lead to more rational decision making. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 16:22, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

WP:AE

My signature is missing because I screwed up during an edit conflict. I believe you want to direct most of your upset-ness at me.--Tznkai (talk) 08:02, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

It would seem so, your edit got lost in a bunch of edits made my Nick-D and I mistook the unsigned comment as his, given that he is a sysop, and did not notice his own statement section. Too late to refactor it all now, unfortunately.. I'm sure Nick-D will be able to tell which parts relate to him and which were in error due to your comments. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 08:20, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Fuck it, I've refactored it anyway or nobody will be able to make sense of it. Apologies @Nick-D: for misidentifying your comments with Tznkai's.. fine bloody mess I walked into. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 08:37, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

It is plenty clear what you are trying to say.--Tznkai (talk) 09:06, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

You have concerns. I can address them here, so as not to clutter, or on the main request, so as to maximize transparency. Which would you prefer?--Tznkai (talk) 09:40, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Wherever you like, just make sure you have damn good reasons for harassing the reporting the parties, or seeing as you like analogies, explain why a policeman would claim a woman reporting rape is trying to frame someone even when she has a torn dress and blood pouring down her legs in evidence. Because that is precisely how your attitude comes across towards me and Jim, and it is disgusting! Admins like you lessen the confidence of veteran editors like myself, because you treat people who are trying to do good for the community like shit by throwing false claims about their motives around without actually considering all the facts or assuming good faith. I don't cast aspersions against you, so don't you go casting them against me.. it may not be a "personal attack" a such but it's uncivil and disrespectful towards the parties and demoralises their hopes of getting somewhere. Are you purposefully trying to discourage the ArbCom case? Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 09:50, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

First, to substantiate the accusation of a battleground mentality. You have cast your self as a defender of the Military History wikiproject. You have castigated administrators for not You have demonstrated hostility to RoslynSKP suggesting you find her an enemy or pest to be defeated. " Give someone an inch and they'll take a mile." You've used rude and emotional language that tends to rile up and annoy. The impotence comments were a special treat. Your patronizing comments to Hasteur also are consistent with someone who has divided up the word into enemies and allies - but that is of course ancillary to the simple (and uncivil) nastiness of the comment. If we must delve into emotional analogies, you're not acting like a rape victim - you're acting like a vigilante. Second, I'm not sure what point-of-view you assume I have, but I care almost nothing about the topic. I have no in content knowledge of the period, find military history in general interesting, and this edit dispute, like every other dispute, ultimately petty. So, in so far as I have a bias, I dislike edit wars and editors who decide that Wikipedia is worth spreading misery and verbal abuse over. I do have a general inclination to look out for restricted users being taken advantage of. They are in a vulnerable state, and I, as an administrator, have significant power over them that should not be misused. My "negativity" towards Jim is that he was in an edit war, my "negativity" towards you has been your nasty conduct, which I assume is more out of inappropriate writing style than malice. You do not have evidence of an administrator who is biased for or against you, you just have evidence of an administrator who finds your conduct inappropriate and your analysis of the relevant limits and bounds of Wikipedia policy flawed. All of this is of course, under the assumption that you edit in good faith - but I find the aforementioned flaws in your writing. We are all, as you stated, volunteers, which means that the forbearance I give for the abuse you fling my way and at other volunteers is entirely a favor. Despite your claim that "I don't cast aspersions against you", you have in fact done so repeatedly without warrant. As always, if you believe my conduct as an administrator is out of line, as you can with any administrator, you have several options for filing your complaints, I will be happy to direct you to them.--Tznkai (talk) 10:05, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Hasteur? So far as I can tell, there is no user called "Hasteur" ever being involved in this case, so you've already made a false point there, further proof that you open your mouth before checking the facts. A vigilante, by definition, is self-appointed and works alone to gain a result – don't know what dictionary you've been reading, but I'm working with MilHist not myself. So that debunks another fallacy. "Nasty" is a strong word, a personal attack even, another example of you wanting to be above the law, not a part of it. Regardless, I refute your comment as self-interest, your comments above are evidence that you also like to "win" an argument, except your points are contrived, and where you consider me "emotional" I consider you "unstable" and unbalanced in your spontaneous views. I'd wager my intelligence against yours any day, as well as my integrity, honesty and morality. I see no editors being taken advantage of, rather an editor taking advantage of unstated sanctions, ergo your POV related to the fact that you are more willing to defend a "restricted editor", ignoring the very reasons for why they were restricted in the first place. I have no interest in your complaints links, like most admins you will in contact with a range of admins offline to run up your flagpole and favour you, call them friends, sycophants, randies, whatever.. people in power scratch each other's backs as they look down on others. I won't be party to your love of wikidrama, which you appear to enjoy milking until the teat runs dry. Look in a mirror sometime, you seem to be unable see your flaws because you're too busy praising yourself and putting others down. Fine throne you've built yourself there. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 10:25, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Hasteur was an editor in the AN/I thread linked in the enforcement request. He or she was the one who suggested you have a biscuit and you accused of wanting advancing his or her wiki career, shortly after demanding "a little less of your hyperbolic cheek, laddie." My point about vigilantism is one of attitude and posture - that of a person self-righteously acting in defense of self or a community, (MilHist) spurred by the perception (that is, rationalizing that) the authorities (the administrators who have let RSKP get away with it) have failed to do so. You are of course, welcome to disagree with that characterization, although your lengthy insults and aspersions I think builds that case rather than weakens it. I have absolutely no idea why you segued at all into wagering your intelligence against mine. You can, if you would like, go straight to the Arbitration Committee with your complaints, although I'd wait until the new Committee is installed, as requests tend to fall between the cracks during transition.

Do you have further issues you wish to raise, here or elsewhere? If not, I will be to bed.--Tznkai (talk) 10:42, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Hahahaha, another ArbCom case? Riiiiiight... you alone have just proved how willing you are to flaunt Arbcom rulings, why would I waste my fucking time? I'd rather slam my knob in a door than sit through another bloody case for another imbecile to blatantly ignore because adminship has gone to his head and he feels he is above ArbCom even though he's not done half the work they do. That Haseur was being obnoxious by the way, I gave him the same in return with change and a candy bar. Go to bed, there's a good boy. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 10:50, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, if you are right, and I am wrong, ArbCom can in fact choose to de-admin me, which I could not prevent, nor could my purported cronies, unless you think a majority of the Arbitrators are those same persons. Fortunately, or unfortunately, I suppose to some, there is no exception in civility expectations just because you think that someone else is obnoxious. You have been given significant forbearance by many members of the community, most non-administrators, and all of them volunteers. You are, by your own admission, a smart person, so I doubt I actually need to convince you that you've been acting badly. If and when you come around, I hope you apologize to Hasteur, but failing that, you try restrain your language and broad brush a bit.--Tznkai (talk) 10:59, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Listen, compared to that editor Malleus Fatuorum I'm a princess. The context in which I use coarse language is directed to the matter.. having not told you to F-off or having not called you a C-word, I'm on safe ground. His blocklog vs mine means I'm very confident in what I have to say and how I have to say it, because it proves that coarse language is acceptable if not used to attack others. There will be no apology from me to anyone. Toodles. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 11:05, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

User 117Avenue

When you file your complaint, don’t forget about his behaviour on the topic of Edmonton LRT templates. Useddenim (talk) 19:31, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

@Useddenim: Sorry, I know nothing about that matter. If you have concerns about his behaviour across a range of articles/templates you need to take it to WP:AN/EW if it's serious or presents ownership issues that need admin involvement. 117 does come across as arrogant, I suspect he needs a good slap and warning to cool down. If you want to get anywhere with that you'll need to take it to the appropriate noticeboard. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 21:41, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Useddenim, if you have any concerns, all the discussions are still open on the respective talk pages, and many of my questions are still unanswered. 117Avenue (talk) 21:49, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Re:iVotes

Oh crap, your right; I hit save instead of preview. (args loudly) Thanks for bringing that to my attention. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:01, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Arbcom

Well hope you enjoyed Arbcom, but it seems to have been a waste of your time and effort. If you have not already seen it, I read this [5] as OK they did break the Arbcom ruling but we will ignore it. Jim Sweeney (talk) 10:36, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

I know, I've been debating with him above.. disgraceful, biased and I believe he's purposefully derailing the WP:AE. Typical machoism I've come to expect from a lot of American admins. who think they can control this site and everyone on it. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 10:44, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Wa crimes in occupied Poland during World War II

Hello, MarcusBritish. I see that you are engaged in a bitter dispute with Poeticbent over your review of War crimes in occupied Poland during World War II. Although he has said some unkind things to you, you have also said some unkind things to him. I have asked for immediate mediation by uninvolved editors, and I ask that you would please refrain from personal attacks. Please consider the possibility that you may be at least partly to blame for the situation, and apologizing for some of the things you've said may be in order. I have posted an identical message on Poeticbent's talk page, and ask that you would please remain civil in you disagreement with Poeticbent. Please respect the consensus that is reached. Thank you. AmericanLemming (talk) 23:53, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I accept no blame and make no apology for following GA critera. End of story. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 00:16, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, I wish you the best in your endeavors on Wikipedia, and I hope to assist your review of War crimes in occupied Poland during World War II in whatever way possible. If there is anything you believe I am doing wrong in attempting to mediate this dispute, please let me know. I am fairly new to Wikipedia, and I am willing to consider any criticism you have of my conduct. If you have any advice on how I should conduct myself on Wikipedia, I would greatly appreciate you sharing it with me. Thank you. AmericanLemming (talk) 00:52, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

GA review

I think that you're making a mistake in failing the article on warcrimes in Poland. It smacks of pettiness and makes you look small, especially after outside comments were invited (even if not by you). I'd urge you to reconsider.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:37, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

The request for mediation was withdrawn. As the sole reviewer the choice to fail/withdraw was mine and mine alone. I couldn't care less how it makes me look, no smaller than the aggressive prat who made me feel unwelcome in performing the GAR to begin with. The matter is now closed and I will speak no more of it. I will be reviewing no further GANs for the unforeseeable future. Good luck with the backlog. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 03:48, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

As you wish.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:50, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

GA review and your recent conduct

Just for the record, I agree with the comment Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs) left regarding Talk:War crimes in occupied Poland during World War II/GA1, and your high-handed closing statement was not a good idea. To be frank, you are acting like a jerk on a fairly regular basis at the moment. It is not a good path to be on, and I'd suggest that you chill out: this is only a website. I have written this in much more frank language than that which I'd normally use so that it's in line with your recent posts, and I hope that you take this feedback on board. Nick-D (talk) 07:37, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the frankness, but I'm a little deaf in hearing opinions that side with people who have shown me great disrespect. You would do better utilising your time starting a new GAN review, because you lost this reviewer yesterday. Attack a volunteer and you risk losing his contributions, attack him again and you risk provoking his anger. Lesson of the day: Nick-D didn't familiarise himself with the situation enough before opening his big mouth trying to rebuke the wrong party. Your opinions of me are equally as high-handed, dear fellow, as well as evident of your own dislike of me, which you're bound to deny, but please don't waste your time, I will likely find it unconvincing. I don't recognise your right to comment here whilst not challenging the other editor's attitude towards a simple review request. I could infer a lot from that sort of biased behaviour. Harassive would be my first line of thought, as I've never been a selfish person, but your one-sidedness in this matter is far from a selfless act and I do wonder about the motives which drive you. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 09:24, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I reopened the GA review and passed the article. Please familiarize yourself with WP:GACR and WP:CITEVAR prior to attempting future reviews. You are not allowed to impose your citation style or personal standards on a GA review, nor to change the citation style without consensus. GregJackP Boomer! 03:00, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

You're an braindead idiot. WP:CITEVAR reads:

To be avoided

Switching between major citation styles, e.g., switching between parenthetical and <ref> tags or between the style preferred by one academic discipline vs. another

Generally considered helpful

Imposing one style on an article with incompatible citation styles (e.g., some of the citations in footnotes and others as parenthetical references): an improvement because it makes the formatting consistent

If you look at the history of the article instead of talking out of your arse you would see that I, me, MarcusBritish, the one you're addressing, did not change the citation style at all, the nominator did and I requested that he complete the job. Now kindly get lost and stop lying on my talk page. Your "pass" is no more than sycophancy, and is anti-MOS. I have 3 other MilHist editors support my review, Nick-D be damned, he's just trying to run a flag up his own pole Suggest you remove that "this user assumes AGF" userbox from your userpage, it's the biggest load of bullshit I've seen second to your arbitrary "pass". You should be performing a separate GA2, not editing my review, you petty-minded little man, clearly you don't know how to follow policy either. You haven't even reviewed the article against the criteria and it fails in many areas, because it is full of pro-Pole bias and fails to meet grammar standards, and so are you – you've been chatting with the nominee offline because he's your buddy and passed it as a favour. Read WP:COI you biased meatpuppet. Don't EVER presume to dictate to me you pretentious half-wit. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 03:25, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

And exactly where, pray tell, do you get the authority to interject your own requirements into a GA review? Try reading what SlimVirgin stated on the talkpage, and then go read WP:GACR and WP:RGA ("Perfectly formatted citations are not required."). GregJackP Boomer! 03:36, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

SlimVirgin quoted an essay not criteria. That;s not an argument, that's cherry-picking, essays are not based on consensus, MOS is. Go read what 3 editors say as MilHist, that they too mould challenge the shitty state the refs are in. You did yourself no favours by reviewing the GA again under false pretences and made a mockery of the criteria. What are you trying to prove? Or perhaps you just like pushing your weight around? Either way your reassessment was based on lies, because you didn't even read the article through from top to bottom, if you had you'd know it's a fucking mess and not worth of C-class let alone GA. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 03:43, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Section 1b of the GACR states, "it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation." Refering to MOS:LAYOUT we are drawn to section 3.4 Notes and references. It begins "For how to generate and format these sections, see Help:Footnotes and Wikipedia:Citing sources" Wikipedia:Citing sources aka WP:REF includes section 6.1 Variation in citation methods aka WP:CITEVAR. Extracted guidlelines of note from sections 6.1.1 and 6.1.2:

To be avoided

• Switching between major citation styles, e.g., switching between parenthetical and <ref> tags or between the style preferred by one academic discipline vs. another

Generally considered helpful

• Imposing one style on an article with incompatible citation styles (e.g., some of the citations in footnotes and others as parenthetical references): an improvement because it makes the formatting consistent

By following GA-criteria I am led, with no uncertainty, to a sound conclusion and made the reasonable request that all references be made consistent. They are currently a mixed bag of <ref>s and {{sfn}}. Per WP:CITEVAR this is avoidable and unhelpful, and therefore unacceptable, in my opinion it fails the GAN requirement to follow MOS:LAYOUT closely enough. I will be failing this part of the GA nomination should the article remain a mixed bag, per WP:GACR which is built upon consensus that affects ALL of wikipedia and ALL GA nominations. A local consensus cannot seek to make an exception for one-off nominations, WP:IAR does not apply here.

Let's bear in mind one final point – I don't answer to the likes of you because your flamboyant attitude damages Wiki, it doesn't help it. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 03:45, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

War crimes in Poland, etc

Hi Marcus; I have reverted Greg's "promotion" of the article to good article status, and he has agreed to step away from the issue. However, he has requested that you stop leaving him messages on his talk page. I appreciate that there seems to be a lot of ill-feeling here, and a lot of mud has been thrown by both parties, but in the interests of keeping the peace from now on, would you be willing to avoid interaction with Greg? Hopefully, that will allow the issue to be pretty much finished. If people disagree strongly with your closure, a GAR can be opened or a new review can be requested. J Milburn (talk) 18:14, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate your action. I have removed the second GA table from the GA1 page, as well as the subsequent bitching. Doesn't do anyone any good to retain it. Also added a comment to Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations#War crimes in occupied Poland during World War II: Request for mediation. Will gladly ignore GregJackP in future, he isn't worth my time or patience. Thanks again, Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 19:21, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

A request

Hi Marcus, I think it's in everyone's interests, including your own, if others decide how to proceed with that GA nomination from this point on. I hope you'll consider not posting about it again. Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:53, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Well I sincerely hope that doesn't include you as your interpretation of GACR not including WP:CITE is subjective bollocks. If you think me wrong, go tell the other 5 editors at MilHist that. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 21:59, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

To MisterBee1966

@MisterBee1966: Thanks for your post at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators#MarcusBritish but the matter is not as serious as it appears, there has been a delay in hearing the reason for the indef-block from an ArbCom members, but it is not "indef" for any purposes other than to give time for me to discuss matters with someone from ArbCom and iron things out. I'll be back soon, have no worries. In the meantime may I ask that someone please refer Special:Contributions/173.74.249.6 to WP:SPI and request a CheckUser against User:GregJackP who is harassing my talk page via an IP. It's clearly a WP:DUCK as both the IP and GregJackP made edits about 20 minutes apart – here and here – it can hardly be a coincidence that two Texans should be up at 6:00 in the morning to edit with an IP just happening to wander in on my talk page. Thanks, Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 06:16, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

@Cdtew: To put a long story short, I'm accused of trying to "out" GregJackP, and my references to his last profession were redacted by an ArbCom member. The claims are not substantial, because WP:OUTING states that outing involves referring to another editor's personal details "unless that person had voluntarily posted his or her own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia". However, my reference to his previous job role is to be found on wiki, by his own hand, in his own userspace: here and here. So whilst I may have violated the spirit of the policy, I did not breach it in its strictest sense and at most was uncivil. I can accept that, but given his vile and malicious attitude towards me as a result of the GAN I scourn his reaction, as the bad faith GAN revert he made was contra to policy where my "fail" was not. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 06:33, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

@WP:MILHIST coordinators: Re: the comment made by GregJackP at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators#MarcusBritish – I have emailed ArbCom and requested oversight for his fabricated "harassment" claim on his userpage. This is in breach of WP:Libel and so must be removed. A man who considers one incident with a moron from three years ago a "pattern" is clearly only interested in vilifying me by accusing me of religious prejudice, homophobia and racism all in one, hardly a conceivable claim; he only speaks of himself. I would request that his comments be ignored as personal attacks and/or removed as trolling. MilHist GAN reviewers, including @Jim Sweeney: should also take note of this comment [6] in which Poeticbent offers to reopen the WWII Polish war crimes GAN so that it can be passed by GregJackP and "made to stick". This implies an utterly contemptible abuse of Wikipedia given all that has happened and only goes to prove my earlier WP:COI claim, that GregJackP and Poeticbent are tag-teaming each other to push a biased article to GA as well as make remarks to attack me further based on Greg's false claims.[7] I would hope MilHist Coords take Poeticbent's offer as a serious concern as in my mind it undermines the project and GAN process. Thanks, Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 14:50, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I have edited that article, so would be unable to do a review but interesting.Jim Sweeney (talk) 15:02, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

@Montanabw: Take your one-sided sycophancy elsewhere and remain away from this page. "Hatchet job" – lol, I suggest you leave the criticism to the intelligent people at MilHist and go back to defending your troubled friend – that week-long block must be soooo painful, I mean, no wiki for a week, geez that's got to be so hard for a troll to take with humility! I think when you speak of mountains and molehills you speak only of yourself. For someone who has retired he certainly is monstrously vocal in himself and through his skivvies. You're doing yourself no favours by interfering in things that don't concern you. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 03:14, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I observed the interactions that led to this situation. You did ping me in your comment above, so with that invitation, I shall reply briefly and note that your comments above demonstrate why you need to be blocked. I have worked in good faith on several articles with GregJackP and found him a solid editor, your attacks on the GA article author, your abuse of warning templates, and your comments here are all out of line. The only "vile and malicious" person I see in this situation is yourself. But if it is your express wish to have me depart from this page, I shall do so as long as there are no further comments or attacks directed at me that warrant some sort of response. Montanabw^(talk) 04:00, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Talk to the hand, the ears aren't listening. Your ill-conceived "hatchet job" remark was your mistake, as it shows your distinct lack of comprehension of the GA in question. For the first 4 days of the review I left around 100 comments and applied around 50 copyedits to the article in question. Upto that point the nominee had no complaints about the review whatsoever, not a one, and was working to address each point agreeably. Not until I added a comment on the references did the nominee become defensive, acting all high and mighty, as though it was a personal attack. From that moment he became the most self-centred idiot I have ever known, hypocritical and hostile. I failed his GAN because it would have been impossible to complete the review, which was my only choice and I stand by it. GregJackP's pass was contrary to policy, it was little more than a revert as no actual review took place, not one note was left, it was he who trolled. That isn't a "solid editor" that's a "war editor", his follow-up remarks to defend his pass were aggressive, harassive, and a COI; he also continued to ignore MilHist members who opposed the pass. He was the first to initiate reverts of my edits and the first to make personal remarks. The nominee has even continued to feed his COI by offering to reopen the GAN for his friend to selectively pass. Insidious behaviour. You, he and the nominee form a nice little cabal threesome, but even combined all three of you don't have what it takes to take me on as your motives are too plainly obvious and speak hate in volumes. You, furthermore, are a hypocrite, you say one thing then contradict it moments later. Next time a GAN waits from October to January before anyone is willing to review it, I suggest you watch your mouth before attacking the reviewer. Clearly the article itself was given a wide berth by experienced reviewers. My only mistake was not picking an easier review, nothing more. Nothing you have to say interests me, as you've got a COI also, in speaking for your pretentious friend. I'd wager my morals against all three of you any day. Now, I suggest you piss off, stop trying to lead an ArbCom member into your way of thinking, as it clearly reeks of motive, and go play tiddly-winks with your chums. Don't reply, I won't read it, I'll flush it down the lav. with the rest of the crap you posted. WP:MEATPUPPETS should be seen and not heard, and you are clearly only here to inflame the situation with and injection of your own poison of behalf of your barbaric friend to whom you ally. Those rose-coloured glasses don't appear to be doing your vision or sense any good. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 04:28, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Block

I have removed your ability to edit your talk page due to the continued personal attacks. I would like to note that I'm doing this as in my administrator capacity. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 06:07, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Notification of automated file description generation

Your upload of File:Carlton Bank from Great Busby.jpg or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 15:27, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

• Another one of your uploads, File:Carlton Bank view.jpg, has also had some information automatically added. If you get a moment, please review the bot's contributions there as well. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 14:58, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Please protect

Please add page protection against IP's editing my user pages as I'm being harassed by User:Sheodred. Thanks.

 Done by Floquenbean. NativeForeigner ^Talk 19:32, 14 March 2014 (UTC)