Talk:Milnet.ca/Archive 1

Given Michael Dorosh 's current crusade to have the page deleted, itself in turn a direct result of his having been banned from the site, it is impossible to take any of his edits on good faith, and they have been reverted as vandalism. Michael, it is suggested that you refrain from editing this page, at least until after the deletion review is complete.66.103.226.30 16:55, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * As the first step in dispute resolution, I commend you and thank for opening a dialogue here. You are wrong in that my nomination for deletion is related to my ban from the site and your saying so violats WP:AGF.  That said, you cannot revert fully sourced edits as vandalism.  If you cannot agree to that much, I will be taking this case to the next level of official dispute resolution., a request for comment. Requests for comments. Given your adversarial tone, may I suggest we proceed directly to the official dispute resolution apparatus, or are you prepared to recognize my declared good faith in editing the article?  My impression is that new editors to Wikipedia are unclear on what counts as "notable" and how an encyclopedia article should be formed. These standards have been formed by consensus here and are certainly nothing arbitrary on my part, nor to be taken personally. These standards also take some getting used to, so no hard feelings on my end - I'm certainly glad to help editors like yourself get a handle on the site, as the entire project benefits from increased constructive participation. Did you have a specific objection about my edits that we can discuss?


 * Incidentally, my editing the article does not change my stance or opinion that army.ca fails to meet the notability requirements and should be deleted. Bear in mind that if the article stays, it will not be edited only by fans of the site, but by any Wikipedia users who can present information of relevance to the article. Bear in mind what WP:VAIN says.


 * ''Unintended Consequences.


 * ''A word of caution. Before you write a vanity article on yourself, your group, or your company, remember that, once the article is created, you have no more right or ability to delete it than does any other editor.


 * ''More than one user has created a vanity article, only to find that, in the normal course of research, other Wikipedia editors have found new material that presents the subject in a less-than-flattering light. Generally, such material will be added to the article, providing it is verifiably true and noteworthy — to the chagrin of the original creator.


 * ''So, before you create a vanity article, you might want to ask yourself if there is anything publicly available in your past history or that of your group or company that you would not want included in the article — because such material will probably find its way into the article eventually.


 * I am not suggesting army.ca is a vanity article, but these caveats certainly apply.


 * In any event, my reasons (whatever they may be) for nominating the article for deletion have no bearing on the facts of the case or the way they have been presented.


 * I'll also point out that my recent edits have also included positive ones.


 * Look, the basic idea here (assuming the article survives the AfD nomination) is to present an encyclopedic, balanced, informative article. If we work together, we can make that article as good as it possibly can be. Revert-wars will not accomplish that. The site has been mis-represented here as an "official" forum for the Army (which it is not) and as being highly recognized by the media (which it is not). If we're going to do this, let's do it correctly and in line with the format reached by consensus by thousands of WP editors. I've been an editor here quite some time now and feel I have as much a stake in WP as anyone else.


 * Again, thanks for the discussion and I appreciate your views as an obvious fan of army.ca. I agree that army.ca offers the internet community a lot of positive things unavailable anywhere else. But it is certainly not as notable as the site itself and its most vocal proponents would make it out to be. Both points of view need to be reflected in this article in order for Wikipedia to maintain its credibility.


 * I hope you can agree on that. Looking forward to working with you further.

Michael Dorosh 18:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Pte Dorash, Given your past history on Army.ca, and given that you initiated the process of having this article deleted and are the sole champion of its deletion, you are at best in conflict of interest, and at worst, guilty of disguising vandalism as good faith editing. I agree, it is impossible at this stage to take any of your edits at this stage of the game in good faith, especially when these edits serve your goal of undermining the notibility requirements of this article. It would be worth your while to remember that the ultimate purpose of army.ca and its attendant Wiki article is to serve the needs of Canadian Soldiers - soldiers with whom you once claimed fellowship. Haven't you embarassed yourself and your Regiment enough yet?


 * Hi there; If you don’t mind, I’ll respond to each of your points in turn.
 * I am not a Private, nor does rank have any bearing in this discussion as it is a civilian website
 * My name is “Dorosh”
 * I am not the sole champion of deletion, and several administrators have posted to the deletion discussion advising of the lack of notability – the link to that discussion is in the info box at the top of the actual article page
 * there is no conflict of interest, as stated above; if the article is to stay, it is free for editing by any WP editor no matter their relation to army.ca – in fact, I believe the article will benefit from a variety of points of view rather than just fans of the site
 * I have not vandalized the article
 * According to WP:AGF, you are actually encouraged to assume good faith
 * My goals are not to undermine the notability requirements, but add to the debate on same. If army.ca is notable, then I am sure other editors will demonstrate why this is. To date that hasn’t occurred.
 * There is no proof that army.ca, nor the wikipedia article on same, “serves the needs of Canadian Soldiers.” That claim is hyperbole and not supportable by fact.
 * I still claim fellowship as a currently serving member of the CF.
 * My regiment has suffered no embarrassment as a result of this very useful discussion, and I personally have appreciated talking to each and every one of you. Thanks for contributing here and showing the courage of your convictions. You obviously feel strongly about this and you are to be commended for coming to the aid of your fellow soldiers. I regret that you’re not able to see clearly that this AfD is not personal and that my edits of the article are intended to present a balanced and accurate view of army.ca. Incidentally, aside from the spelling of my name and rank, you write very well and I hope you will contribute to more than just AfD nominations at Wikipedia. New editors are always welcome.Michael Dorosh 19:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * In spite of your continued attempts to present yourself as reasonable, you cannot ignore the conflict of interest here - and as a self-styled "long time WP editor" you should know better. Your ownly honourable way forward is to excuse yourself from this corner of Wikipedia and find some positive way to contribute. Unsigned comment
 * I'm genuinely sorry you feel that way. I don't feel there is a conflict of interest, but would certainly bow to the wishes of a WP administrator if he felt such a conflict could be demonstrated and if he recommended the course of action you suggest. Tell me, though, are you yourself a registered member of army.ca? Would you be willing to provide your real name and screen name here in assisting us with the debate? I have to take exception to your suggestion my participation in this discussion has been in some way negative. I think blocking the inclusion of unsuitable subjects is extremely worthwhile, and why we have the AfD process to begin with. Do you disagree with the notion that wikipedia articles be subject to scrutiny?Michael Dorosh 19:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Web specific-content[3] is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria:


 * The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.
 * This criterion excludes:
 * Media re-prints of press releases and advertising for the content or site.
 * Trivial coverage, such as newspaper articles that simply report the internet address, the times at which such content is updated or made available, a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of internet addresses and site or content descriptions in internet directories or online stores.
 * This criterion includes reliable published works in all forms, such as newspaper and magazine articles, books, television documentaries, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations.
 * The website or content has won a well known and independent award, either from a publication or organisation.
 * The content is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster.

The article itself must provide proof that its subject meets one of these criteria via inlined links or a "Reference" or "External link" section. Even if an entire website meets the notability criteria, its components (forums, articles, sections) are not necessarily notable and deserving of their own separate article. 131.137.245.197 03:12, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

The Notability criterion above need to be met in order to avoid deletion; a google search doesn't glean any articles or supporting materials that would favour retention - if someone can post something to meet one of the criteria (only one needs to be met - any one) then the deletion notice can be removed.Michael Dorosh 03:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Please Note:

Mr Michael Dorosh created this Wikipedia page and those on Army.ca. Due to his behavior on that site he was BANNED. Now he is proceding with this indirect malicious attack on Army.ca. This vengeful action is a discredit to him. Let the readers make up their own minds.This unsigned comment originated from 64.230.48.46
 * I didn't create the original Army.ca page or this page; I support the article and feel it can be improved, but am wondering if it fits the notability criteria, which seems stringent. I've asked for admin advice on this and hope a Wikipedia administrator can advise on the notability criteria. At present, the site doesn't seem to qualify.Michael Dorosh 13:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[Personal attack removed in accordance with Remove personal attacks.] You are not worth the effort of an internet war or words over your accomplishments and disappointments. Your actions serve as advertizing to one and all as to what you really are like and why you would be Banned from a site. If you really want to be so petty, so be it. Credentials are not enough to make a 'man', they just give a false impression of a man. Thank you for your contributions in directing Calgarytanks in the creation of this page and then your fine cleaning up and fine tuning of it (a matter of Public Record), as well as the other pages which you now want to 'remove'. Your reputation grows.

[Personal attack removed in accordance with Remove personal attacks.] The Army.ca site can stand on it's own credentials. It has over 10,000 Regular and Reserve force members, from various nations, as well as many retired military and civilian members and guests. It has recieved official sanction from the Canadian Forces as the site to refer to for questions pertaining to the CF. [Personal attack removed in accordance with Remove personal attacks.] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bloggins (talk • contribs) 10:28, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Please keep in mind that this is Wikipedia, not army.ca, and whatever your personal opinion of Mr. Dorosh is, he has as much right as anyone (including you) to bring any article up for deletion debate here. If his argument is without merit, then it'll be dismissed ("closed as keep") and everyone can go about their business. I would suggest that you focus your attentions on the discussion at hand, and answering the very real questions about verifiability and sources for the article, as mentioned on the actual discussion page. -- nae'blis 15:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't understand the need for an Enclopaedic entry for a web site on a web site. Surely persons interested in researching Army.Ca can on the Internet can just as easily go the site in question.  Is it a normal practice to have web sites as Wikipedia entries?  Kenny.am 16:44, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * A search on Wikipedia for "*.com" returns 506,105 separate enties; so what criteria is required for "an Enclopaedic entry for a web site on a web site" that so many meet them yet Army.ca can be called into doubt? Army.ca is a social construct of 10,000+ participants, composed mostly of serving and retired members of the Canadian military discussing subjects of interest in a range of topics from military technology, history, tactics and operations (within bounds of security awareness) to current Canadian Forces organizations and activities.  Advice is provided to interested potential recruits, and the site provides the opportunity for contact with serving military members in a wide range of trades and units.
 * The answer to your question lies at WP:WEB, which lists the criteria for notability for websites. Wikipedia also demands original research - the article at present consists mainly of self-referential footnotes and original research which is generally frowned upon, if not rooted out and deleted, by the Wikipedia community. The recent edits to the article consist mainly of unsourced claims. In order to be notable, army.ca has to have been discussed by others outside the army.ca site. In order for sources to be cited, they too must exist outside army.ca. The fact that it is referenced in news articles is not in itself an indicator of notability. In short, it has yet to be proven that the site merits an encyclopedia article; notability must be demonstrated from sources that are not self-referential (ie a newspaper or journal article that discussed army.ca in detail, as the subject of the article). There is a detailed discussion of notability on the related page of the AfD.Michael Dorosh 03:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, see this useful set of guidelines: User:Uncle_G/On_notability for pointers on style and sourcing articles.Michael Dorosh 03:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Recent Edits by 70.28.146.208
Thanks for taking the time to contribute in a constructive way to the article. If it does survive the nomination for deletion, it will be largely due to your efforts. I think the article reads quite well thanks to recent edits by you and others, but as indicated, may still fail to meet the notability requirements. The supporting evidence you and others have provided will be quite useful to the debate.

I've taken exception to a couple of things and tried to note why in the edit summaries. I'll do the courtesy of expanding here - stuff that is edited out can be replaced if I've been premature.

I note that geometry.net doesn't "recommend" army.ca but merely includes the site in a long list of sites, including CP Gear - which is not a history or discussion site at all but a vendor of modern tactical equipment. I am of a mind to delete the reference to geometry.net altogether, as simple inclusion on a list of weblinks doesn't imply recommendation or confer notability.

I'm also of a mind to delete the claims on moderation. I'm obviously not unbiased, so have not deleted it though I did feel a caveat was necessary. For the claim to stay, it needs to demonstrated that the "aggressive" moderation style is directly responsible for an improved flow, etc. - claims like that need to be substantiated from external sources (ie a third party discussing the site). I think that is largely intangible and should be deleted. The forums at battlefront.com, by way of comparison, have 20,000 registered users (not sure how many have more than a couple of posts, I think about 5,000 have 10 posts or more) and moderators there have intervened less aggressively (read: less often) and yet the site suffers few locked threads (I suppose the only tangible indication of disruptive activity).

The Benneweis article I deleted because while army.ca is supposedly quoted, the only reference in the footnotes is to the main forum page and not the specific post - it may even be that the info was received from a PM, the article doesn't seem clear. (As a personal aside, Mr. Benneweis is known to me personally; he's slept on my couch and we roomed together in Ottawa in 2005. His article seems unevenly researched, and his "comprehensive interview" schedule is not discussed in any detail - the participants were anonymous, interviewed by email, and in what numbers he never says. The claims that army.ca is "used by the media" are well and good, but seems to me to speak more to the research habits of certain elements of the media than it does the merits of army.ca as a resource. In any event, attempting to qualtify army.ca's usefullness by mere passing mentions in the media seems fruitless. Which isn't an attack on the site, one can apply the same helplessness to assessing the utility of any resource in that manner - perhaps the most famous and controversial example would be wikipedia itself, whose usefullness as a resource has become an interesting topic of discussion in many circles. But I digress. Simply being mentioned in the media is not, according to WP:WEB, an indicator of notability. And I would extend that argument to include graduate students substituting gossip from an internet chat site for actual research for a term paper. I hope he got an F, and moreover, I fail to see how a student paper qualifies as "non-trivial mentions in the media".)

In any event, thanks to all who have contributed so far. Oh - and thanks for the link to an article on my own site, but canadiansoldiers.com probably wouldn't survive a nomination for deletion either under the current criteria. Though if proving the site is read by people is an indicator of notability, then it probably would - its been mentioned by name in the Globe and Mail and several books, but like army.ca, its mentions seem always to be in passing, and that just seems to be a weak indicator.

Anyway, thanks again for the constructive edits - I hope you'll expand your horizons to more of the military articles at wikipedia as well, your ability to write references will put you ahead of many other editors, and I know your contributions would be more than welcome.Michael Dorosh 14:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It is notable that recent edits only cited adverse interactions with mainstream media. Only two incidents over the history of Army.ca could be found by the editor.  What about the balanced viewpoint, where are the good examples?  Or is there an intent to create and maintain an adversarial atmosphere by dredging up the lowest points that can be put forth in the article?  Obviously, proponents of the site cannot identify other journalists that may be online at Army.ca without adverse interaction if they have not openly identified themselves as such.


 * Indeed, where are the good examples? The article is a work in progress, presuming it survives AfD. We're free to add examples as we see fit.  If you know of "good examples" you are certainly encouraged to add them. You might want to check with the webmaster of Regimental Rogue, he may be able to assist you further.  Excellent edits on your part today, by the way, very effective footnoting. I especially like the citation tags! :-) Thanks again for helping to improve the article with constructive work; it's greatly appreciated.Michael Dorosh 06:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Interesting: "As the first step in dispute resolution, I commend you and thank for opening a dialogue here. You are wrong in that my nomination for deletion is related to my ban from the site and your saying so violats WP:AGF. That said, you cannot revert fully sourced edits as vandalism. If you cannot agree to that much, I will be taking this case to the next level of official dispute resolution., a request for comment. Requests for comments. Given your adversarial tone, may I suggest we proceed directly to the official dispute resolution apparatus, or are you prepared to recognize my declared good faith in editing the article? My impression is that new editors to Wikipedia are unclear on what counts as "notable" and how an encyclopedia article should be formed. These standards have been formed by consensus here and are certainly nothing arbitrary on my part, nor to be taken personally. These standards also take some getting used to, so no hard feelings on my end - I'm certainly glad to help editors like yourself get a handle on the site, as the entire project benefits from increased constructive participation. Did you have a specific objection about my edits that we can discuss? Incidentally, my editing the article does not change my stance or opinion that army.ca fails to meet the notability requirements and should be deleted. Bear in mind that if the article stays, it will not be edited only by fans of the site, but by any Wikipedia users who can present information of relevance to the article. Bear in mind what WP:VAIN says."

I am sure it is a matter of public record of when you placed this nomination of deletion on this page, as it is public record as to when you were banned from Army.ca. We don't need anyone to insult anyone's intelligence here. As for violations of WP:AGF and conflict of interest, I would think that you are definitely in conflict of interest here. You have been vanalizing this page, being, as you have admitted above to being a biased participant. Your own page falsifies your own military awards, by admitting civilian awards as being military. This I would think discredits you, not only there, but here.

It is rather unethical of you to edit this Army.ca page and then immediately place a [citation needed] notice on it. Again this is a matter of public record when anyone takes a look at the History of that page. I would suggest that you not post anything further in this matter as you have proven your malicious intent at vandalizing that page. It is unethical behavior for you to be in anyway involve with this matter.


 * Thank you for interest in the article - please remember to sign your comments in future as it is hard to know whom I am addressing and don't want to repeat myself in case I've mentioned things to you before. I hope you won't be offended if I am brief with my responses.
 * I'm not familiar with any "conflict of interest" guidelines on wikipedia - could you please point me to the link where they are discussed?
 * I am unclear why you are calling fully sourced edits "vandalism". Is it because it presents the subject in an unfavourable light? The point of an encyclopedia article is to provide fair and balanced coverage. This is not a fan-site. I apologize if seeing unfavourable information in the article upsets you, but since the information is accurate, verified, and relevant to the topic, I see no reason to remove it. Can you explain why you feel it is "vandalism"? If there is something I am not seeing, I am sure we can reach consensus.
 * I see no breach of ethics in continuing to edit the article. Since the article is a part of Wikipedia it is incumbent on all editors to make the article as good as it possibly can be. I am doing my part just like everyone else.


 * I do encourage you to take whatever steps you feel are necessary to seek assistance and guidance from a wikipedia administrator. We are currently in the first stage of conflict resolution; if you wish to take this to the second stage, a request for comment as discussed above, there will be no hard feelings from this end - and I would naturally be interested in continuing the dialogue further if that is your desire instead. I'll let that be your call.


 * I acknowledge that your opinion in this matter is deeply felt and hope you don't feel I am trying to unfairly diminish your input. It is simply unfortunate that we seem to disagree.Michael Dorosh 04:17, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Postscript - one item I forgot to address; there is nothing inconsistent with editing after a nomination on AfD; the article is still being read by wikipedia users. Our edits may also have a bearing on whether the article stays or doesn't stay. The edits in my opinion have not altered the status of the article as far as Notability. It is possible edits here will get the article to the level required for retention. It may have passed that test already according to those who are commenting. I still feel the media mentions - the crux of the issue - are wholly trivial and that army.ca doesn't meet the standard. You'll notice that Mr. Pugliese and Mr. Taylor doesn't actually discuss army.ca in his publications; he came on board army.ca to make his displeasure known - so that isn't a sign of notability, just that he was annoyed. Either way, I feel the time spent in editing has been time well spent. I am sure there are other venues that would be interested in publishing information on army.ca, so as they say, time spent in recce is never wasted. Thanks again.Michael Dorosh 04:26, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

LFRR
Two points;
 * LFRR is not defined - it should probably be spelled out so casual readers may infer what this means
 * the use of the army.ca forum to "prove" that the LFRR forums recommend army.ca is unconvincing. It refers to a temporary page long since gone (if indeed it ever existed), and even if such a page were to appear again at LFRR, it would not represent official Army policy, which is what seems to be inferred by its inclusion here (and the suggestion at the AfD discussion that army.ca is somehow an offshoot of the "official" Army site, a faulty suggestion given army.ca's own disclaimer). As it stands, the army.ca forum discussion saying that LFRR "recommended" army.ca seems like mere gossip, unless there is something in that thread I am missing.If someone could post the relevant information here, that would be an aid to discussion. For now, I am putting up a dispute tag on this section.
 * EDIT - final comment. The wording as is does a good job at conferring the actual intent of the notice - ie "refer" rather than "recommend". I just don't see a message forum as being reliable evidence that this occurred. Was it a one time thing? How long was the notice up? Who placed it there? It seems trivial merely to say the notice existed once upon a time.Michael Dorosh 17:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Removal of para
I've removed this - Sometimes when this happens these members have demonstrated a tendency to try and attack the site, either through repeated attempts to form new accounts and make abusive posts, or indirectly through such actions as the persistent and uncomplimentary editing of this Wikipedia article.

Internet trolls are not peculiar to any one site, so I see no reason to mention them here. The last part of the sentence also seems unfair - I see no evidence of "uncomplimentary" editing of the article, in fact, I see an amazingly well-balanced NPOV description of the website in question. This bit seems like sour grapes and an unveiled message which probably doesn't belong here. Probably best to keep dirty laundry out of wikipedia articles, especially if they are unsourced and irrelevant. If there are inaccurate statements in the article, editors are advised to correct them rather than simply complain about them. As for persistence, congrats to all who have contributed to the article so far.139.48.167.125 20:58, 25 August 2006 (UTC)