User talk:Albrecht/1

Cenepa War
Hello there! I just realice some of your recent edits to that article. I must said that the Cenepa War was a tactical draw between the two nations involved, since a full scale war was prevented by Presidents Fujimori and Mahuad. It is truth that it was a minor Ecuadorian victory, but I would said that is was much more a Tactical Peruvian victory, since the border was not changed, leaving it in the same way that was supposed to be according to the Rio Protocol. Thanks ! and keep in touch Messhermit 5 July 2005 01:02 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your interest. I've been delighted and impressed by your work on the War of the Pacific articles and Peru-Ecuador War, by the way.


 * As concerns the Cenepa War, you're probably a better authority as to what exactly happened; my Spanish isn't as good as I'd like it to be, and most English sources are vague and contradictory. I have heard it said that the Peruvians did a lot better in the ground war than is commonly believed. Sites like this one claim that Peru had recovered lost territory by war's end, while others, perhaps more reliably, affirm that Peru had been unable to expel the Ecuadorians. Casualties seem to be particularly unreliable: many Peruvians apparently died out of combat, while Ecuador seems to have suffered severe infantry losses in an unrecognized assault at the end of the war. Ecuador even seems to have claimed spurious aircraft kills concerning planes that Peru had never even deployed in the region! Perhaps you could help clear up the confusion?


 * In any case, the conservation of the border's historical status probably had more to do with international diplomacy than with events on the battlefield. Territorial revisionism was out of the question from the start.


 * In a related matter, I think it would be a good idea to create a disambiguation page for "Peru-Ecuador War" that could link to the 1859, 1941, 1983, and 1995 conflicts.


 * Also, do you have any information on the Leticia War of 1933? English sources are practically nonexistent.


 * Thanks. Albrecht July 6, 2005 18:44 (UTC)

Killed vs. Dead
Just curious-- why the change from "killed" to "dead" in the Braddock Expedition? -- Mwanner 14:50, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * My usage is consistent with professional military history publications, which, from my experience - although they use the two interchangeably to avoid repetition in narrative accounts - tend to favour "dead" to "killed" when stating casualties. If you were to open a typical Chartrand book to a random page, for instance, you'd probably run into something like: "...the British were defeated, losing more than 500 dead, with 148 wounded, against only 48 dead and 227 wounded for the Americans." (Canadian Military Heritage Volume II, p.113) This, of course, is only one example amongst thousands.


 * Remember that although the directions on WikiProject Battles incidentally use "killed" instead of "dead", these were written rather arbitrarily and without being subjected to scrutiny or debate. They are also inconsistent, failing to draw a distinction between "captured" and "prisoner" when the former is clearly superior factually and grammatically - "prisoner" is a noun, people! They ought to be revised.


 * As to why I've made these changes, perhaps you could ask the same of my most esteemed colleague, Gdr? I woke up one morning to find that he'd revised almost all of my battleboxes (some dozens, possibly triple-digits), changing "dead" to "killed" with impunity. I'm merely taking action to change them back, and if I revise others along the way, so much the better.

I'm curious about this too, since you've been changing a lot of these. The "battlebox" guidelines (which I did not write) say to use "killed", "wounded", and "captured", which seem to be consistent descriptions or action verbs. "Dead" doesn't fit this pattern. Additionally, "killed in action" or KIA is perhaps the most familiar way to describe battle fatalities. --Kevin Myers 15:52, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * Unsure as I am as to what exactly you mean by "familiar", I'll point-out that the same battlebox guidelines you cite above recommend not to use abbreviations like "KIA". Albrecht 18:51, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * True, but not relevant, since I didn't suggest using the abbreviation. :-) I don't really care which one we use, though "killed" is probably standard usage in U.S. military histories, especially in older wars, in order to differentiate between those killed in action and the many more who died from disease. Kevin Myers 20:34, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * That's a bold claim. But as you've probably guessed, I'm afraid I'm in no position to debate American military history standards. However, I seriously doubt that writing "killed" is really any clearer in the respect you offer. Disease casualties are usually mentioned separately.


 * If you'll allow a few anecdotal statements, I will note that "dead" seemed to be pretty standard when I first began browsing these battle articles in depth about a year back. I'd also venture that those articles using "killed" tend adopt a more unencyclopaedic tone overall, while those using "KIA" and "POW" are typically childish and amateurish (note: "KIA" and related initialisms offer vital definitions in modern framed contexts, and I don't mean to suggest that all use of them is improper. However, it often seems that irregular contributors resort to - or are somehow infatuated with - military jargon purely for the false air of authenticity it can lend).


 * I suggest that the terminology for battlebox casualties should be limited to "dead", wounded", and "captured" (in any case, I think you'll agree that my "dead or wounded" is clearly preferable to the awkward "killed and wounded" people have begun using recently). The article's main text, of course, can describe the dead as "killed" and should note any additional deaths to illness or other non-combat-related causes. Likewise, the article can then draw distinctions between "prisoners of war", "pardoned and released", "later executed", "stripped of arms and given safe passage to neutral territory", etc., as the case may be. But troops that, as a result of the battle, are put under enemy control and rendered incapable of fighting for any duration of time should be listed in the battlebox simply as "captured". I just don't see the need to burden ourselves with the unnecessary complications some people have introduced. Albrecht 02:40, July 18, 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree that nothing more is needed in the battlebox other than "captured" and "wounded" for those categories. "Killed" seems to me to be consistent in form with "captured" and "wounded"; "dead", to me, sticks out as inconsistent usage alongside the other words. I don't think you've made a strong case for "dead" over "killed", but I'll go along with whatever shows up in the battlebox instructions.--Kevin Myers 13:10, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * I think it stretches credibility to demand any massively compelling argument of me when both words are so widely used. I've maintained that "dead" is the more common and scholarly (encyclopaedic) nomenclature for declaring casualties - but not by a huge margin. Grammatically, these words form neither a sentence nor even a list, so I'm not exactly sure where your inconsistency appears. We're not conducting an exercise in phonetic parallelism; we're highlighting casualties, and we should do so in an economic and encyclopaedic fashion. I would attach more gravity to your concern if not for the demonstrable fact that military historians don't seem terribly bothered by these "inconsistencies". Albrecht 20:23, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

This is perhaps a bit of a tangent to the discussion above but it is relevant to the general discussion of "killed vs. dead". Here are some points to consider:

1) At the risk of stating the obvious, some soldiers are Killed in Action, others are wounded and die of their wounds later. I'm not sure how military historians count the second category.  I would guess that you are only counted as dead if you die on the battlefield during the battle.

2) Some soldiers die of non-battle related causes, most notably disease. These losses should not be discounted but I don't know how military historians count this category.  These soldiers are not Killed in Action but when you look at total troop strength, disease takes a heavy toll in wars up until and including WWI.

3) I assume that the strength box does not look at civilian populations. Does the casualties box consider civilian casualties?  The civilian death tolls in sieges such as Stalingrad and Tenochtitlan were horrific.  In a siege, the civilians are as much a part of the battle as the soldiers.

I'm not trying to wage a polemic here. I'm just trying to understand what the guidelines are and suggesting that they might be refined to consider the issues mentioned above. Richard 18:27, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Battle of Lacolle Mills
Hello,

Most of the edits are fine.

How did you find out about my article so quickly ?

LaLa 01:03, 24 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I noticed it in the campaign box while reviewing the Battle of Chateauguay. I had actually been planning on writing about Lacolle Mills myself – out of pure necessity – so your initiative came as a pleasant surprise. Great work on the article; you've created a much fuller and more polished account than what I'm accustomed to crafting. Albrecht 02:57, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

Expanding Francisco Pizarro and History of Peru
Hello there! I just saw your change related to Pizarro's "line in the sand" quote in the History of Peru article. I just thought I would mention to you that I'm expanding Francisco Pizarro's article with a lot more details of his expeditions to South America before the fall of the Inca Empire. I'm including links to your articles of the battles of Puna and at Punta Quemada. (I would have probably been done but have been overloaded with work, school, etc.) Anyways, your latest change called my attention since I was the one who put the previous "line in the sand" quote in a different context (sort of). So now that I'll update Pizarro's article I thought I might use your new quote if you obtained it from a more authoritative source, so to speak. Maybe you can drop me a message and let me know where you obtained it from :) (I'm only doing this for the collaboration in the improvement of peruvian-related articles) --Dynamax 18:06, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Hello, and thank you very much for your kind interest. I have delayed this reply until the following three tasks were accomplished:


 * Created Template:Campaignbox Spanish conquest of Peru. This will provide a framework for future battle articles. Sadly, owing to a lack of time, it's only skeletal at present.
 * Templatized Battle of Punta Quemada.
 * Created Battle of Cajamarca. Please don't hesitate to make corrections and to create links wherever appropriate.


 * My version of the Pizarro quote came from William Hickling Prescott's History of the Conquest of Peru. He tends to give a more romantic flair to his translations, although these differences are purely stylistic in nature and not affecting substance. The full quote is presented as follows:


 * Drawing his sword, [Pizarro] traced a line with it on the sand from east to west. Then, turning toward the south, "Friends and comrades!" he said. "On that side are toil, hunger, nakedness, the drenching storm, desertion, and death; on this side, ease and pleasure. There lies Peru with its riches; here, Panama and its poverty. Choose, each man, what best becomes a brave Castilian. For my part, I go to the south." So saying, he stepped across the line.


 * I will be delighted to offer help towards the improvement of Peru-related articles – at least in the military spheres. Unfortunately, commitments to other projects may make this lower priority for a while. Albrecht 04:21, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Battle of Cajamarca
I like your new article and I was going to list it for Did you know? on the main page. Is it true that this battle was the first time that the Inca had seen the Spaniards on horseback?--nixie 04:05, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Thank you; although I am by no means sure that the article is in a condition to grace the main page. To answer your question, Atahualpa and his bodyguard did, in fact, observe Spanish horsemen on the eve before the battle, when Pizarro communicated his invitation (some say that the Emperor condemned several of his soldiers to death merely for flinching when the animal reared and pawed at the air above their heads; such was the discipline of the Incas). The Inca people had surely seen horses on several occasions before then. Albrecht 04:21, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * It's a really interesting new aricle. I made a suggestion at Template talk:Did you know, you may want to edit it if you can think of a more intersting fact or a better way to work it. Thanks. --nixie 04:26, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Nice work! The battle of Cajamarca was indeed a tremendous turning point in the history of the Inca Empire and its subsequent conquest by Pizarro's men. I can see we both obtain a lot of information from Prescott's work. I had done a similar recount of events which led to the capture of Atahualpa in The Ransom Room article, although with much less emphasis in details like your new article. Now that your article has a more clear explanation of what happened before the Inca's capture, the ransom room article will need to be fixed up so as not to sound so redundant and/or have contradictory information. A link should be added to it, and maybe it can be edited to only focus on what happened after the Inca's capture? I also wanted to ask you, Battle of Puná relates to the events in Pizarro's third and final expedition, right? I'm reading more about this --Dynamax 02:18, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, Prescott is almost universally admired for his impartiality, his accuracy, and his remarkable thoroughness built upon a lifetime of intimacy with the Spanish royal archives. For my part, I consider his prose a work of the highest elegance and literary character, although some may be bothered by its grandiloquence and archaic constructions.


 * I cordially encourage you to make any additions or changes to the article that you consider appropriate or necessary, including, but of course not limited to, links to your splendid Ransom Room article or other pertinent articles. In particular, the casualties could benefit from some careful revision: a more precise estimate of the dead may be desirable, and the number of captured is a bit tongue-in-cheek – surely, at least several dozen Incas were captured along with Atahualpa.


 * I think you're right in assuming that the Battle of Puná was an early event in Pizarro's third expedition. If memory can be trusted, the Spaniards then landed at Tumbes. Albrecht 02:24, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Nice article! Thanks for contributing this vivid description of the battle. Gsd97jks 00:34, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Lepanto
What is your source for your changing of "Battle of Lepanto" please? SpookyMulder
 * These changes should not be controversial&mdash;eighty vessels seems to be the lower estimate of the force provided by Spain. Previous breakdown was distortive and hugely underrepresented Spanish contribution to the coalition.


 * The question of nationality isn't strictly limited to which port the vessels sailed from. The galleys previously listed as "Sicilian" or "Neapolitan" were actually built and financed by Spain (as was the Holy League itself, to a large extent), sailed under the Spanish flag, and would have been of marginal fighting value if not for the Spanish soldiers stationed aboard. Also, note that Habsburg Spain is not the geopolitical equivalent of Spain, and at the time comprised various European territories under Spanish rule (listing "Habsburg Sicily" apart from "Habsburg Spain", therefore, is deceptive and needless).


 * Sources. A small peer into the Web brings up sites like this one, which puts the Spanish contribution at "80 galleys and 22 other ships". The source I used was:
 * Westcott, Allan. A History of Sea Power. New York: Doubleday, Doran & Company, 1942.

Categorization
Okay, I'll keep that in mind; I was (mistakenly, it seems) assuming that only post-1800 battles should belong to Category:Battles of the United Kingdom. -- Kirill Lokshin 18:50, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

Warbox
I've responded to your comments here at some length; I hope that I'm not being too inconsiderate by pushing another format change, and that, with further improvement, you won't be terribly displeased with the final result. Kirill Lokshin 03:38, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Welcome to the team:
I hope this welcome isn't too late, but welcome to the Military history team!! I hope you enjoy your stay. If you need anything please contact one of the project's members or myself. Bye, Spawn Man 00:12, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

T90 camera vs tank
Although it's very tempting to conclude the T90 camera was named 'the tank' after the T90 MBT, the latter's 1993 introduction makes it seem a little less likely, which is why I left it out in the first place. Perhaps the nickname developed later on, or perhaps the T90 designation was known for a while before the tank actually appeared? —Matthew Brown (T:C) 03:12, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I assumed the nickname was acquired later on, after the tank had been introduced – surely it takes a while for a camera to earn a reputation for "ruggedness." Just guesswork on my part, of course, but the match seemed too perfect to be a coincidence. Albrecht 03:53, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm going to ask my sources and see if they know the derivation. I'd like to document it, if it's the case. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 04:44, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Spanish Empire
I've added some initial comments&mdash;hopefully this will be resolved in short order. The ommission of a certain country from the map suggests that you're up against a nationalist POV-pusher, unfortunately. &mdash;Kirill Lokshin 14:46, 19 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, it seems the latest iteration of the map is quite similar to yours in content; the major difference remaining is the style, which still includes the oval border. I'm not sure whether it's a point worth fighting over, though.  &mdash;Kirill Lokshin 02:53, 20 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Taking your comments into account, of course, it becomes evident that your map is the better one (among other things, I somehow missed the fact that he had added Poland to the empire). Unfortunately, there's not much I can do other than to maintain civility and revert it back&mdash;administrators don't get to decide article content unilaterally.  If he persists, the best thing to do would probably be to list the article on the History/Geography RfC page, which should bring more numbers to the table.
 * On a side note, User:LordAmeth and User:SoLando are both admins; I expect you may have seen them around ;-) &mdash;Kirill Lokshin 03:34, 20 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I've changed back to your map and attempted to start a reasonable discussion on the talk page. Since you probably know more about the specific issues than I do, I'd appreciate if you could add any further concerns you have there. &mdash;Kirill Lokshin 03:42, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Since the situation seems to have been resolved to everyone's satisfaction, I'll be taking the page off my watchlist. You can let me know if any further problems arise ;-) &mdash;Kirill Lokshin 17:15, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Well i need your help there are a few people who keep vandalizing the SPanish Empire page i was wondering if you could do something about this? Thanks (unsigned addition by User:XGustaX)

Image deletion
Done! Somewhat strange that he created a copy, I suppose; but at least straight copies are easily deleteable. &mdash;Kirill Lokshin 01:19, 28 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Italy a part of the British Empire?! Both of those need to be taken out and shot. &mdash;Kirill Lokshin 03:30, 28 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I've been buried under various administrative and disciplinary nonsense for the past few days. I've listed it here; unfortunately, it has to go via the bureaucratic route. &mdash;Kirill Lokshin 23:15, 29 December 2005 (UTC)


 * No idea what's going on with it. Since it's still tagged, it's likely that it was simply overlooked, rather than actually kept.  I can't really close the discussion, since I nominated it; so I would suggest picking a random admin from the list and asking them to take a look.  My apologies that I can't do more to help here. &mdash;Kirill Lok s hin 18:47, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Re: A friendly message
Cheers for the note! --Loopy 01:30, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Spanish Empire Page Deletions
I would like to know why these keep getting deleted from the Spanish Empire page:


 * A better question is why you keep replacing passages that are factually correct and grammatically sound with ones that are factually questionable and grammatically awkward.

For a while after the incorporation of the Portuguese empire in 1580 (lost in 1640) until the 17th century was coming to a close, the Spanish Empire was the largest in the world even though Spain suffered declining and fluctuating military and economic fortunes from the 1640s.

The Spanish Empire was the third largest in history, spanning 7.5 million sq. miles (19,425,000 sq. km.) in its heyday, nearly all centred in the Americas.

There is no reference to the size of the Empire, very useful information, and I have already proved the first statement true on the Spanish Empire talk page. The Russian Empire far larger than the Spanish Empire before the 19th Century, so how you can put a blatant lie in an encyclopedia article profounds me.


 * I am not satisfied at the accuracy or verifiability of your figures for the empire's size, which, by your source's own admission, constitute a rough estimate for a period of over 50 years.


 * Nowhere does the article claim that the Spanish Empire was larger in territory than the Russian Empire at any period of the latter's existence, so if blatant lies offend you, maybe you should stop spreading them. Either way, it's not exactly profound stuff.

I am re-adding them, and would it if you don't delete them again.Arthur Wellesley 20:54, 5 January 2006 (UTC)


 * If your changes resemble what you've described here (and what you've done in the past), I will revert without pause or remorse. Regards, Albrecht 21:21, 5 January 2006 (UTC)


 * PS: Please add new sections to the bottom of talk pages.

Sir, I'm going to desist from meddling so much. Fighting the more egregious examples of anti-Spanish attitudes manifest in Wikipedia - think I've succeeded - but stayed fair. Think I might get an account. Was bugger who kept annoying Wesley over 18th cent area of empire - hope my arguement in the talk page settles him down (and is right!)  Think your work is quality. Have a great new year. Robert of Oz 25-1-06


 * Thank you for your friendly message. I think you've been very helpful over at Spanish Empire – I myself began editing that page only to correct the distortions and trammelings of Portuguese (and later British) hyper-retro-nationalists. It isn't always easy to muster the patience to deal with these people, I know. It does seem like Wellesley's retreated to the warmth and safety of a Union Jack blanket and hummed himself to sleep to the tune of Rule Britannia. It should do all of us some good.


 * I'll keep an eye out on the page. An account is probably a good idea even if it doesn't seem necessary in the short term. Cheers. Albrecht 02:55, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Somosierra
Just to let you know, I will modify battle of Somosierra. According to my data, Polish charge was not suicidal and succeeded in taking all the batteries, though because the last battery was reached only by few uhlans (more accurately, cheavau.. bah, i can;t remember french word. Szwalozer in Polish :) ), defending heroical Spanish artilery man, who prefered to die rather than to abandon their positions, It was quickly recaptured by Spanish. Seeing that success, Napoleon decided to immedietely used that chance and sent another suqadrons in secnod charge, which recaptured the last battery. Also, Polish losses were nto that large. There were many wounded, and it lost many horses, but it was fully operational later.

It is also not known whether the Polish squadrons in first charge were supposed to take all the batteries. No written orders were preserved, and different testimonies are from Polish witnesses.

I will prepare more data for Monday. Szopen 09:19, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Thx for the answer. I am posting the data on talk page, before I will adopt them into the Somosierra. I see Bielecki, on which I am relying, was too fast to say "right now only extremely fast-written and careless books are repeating those old mistakes". It seems the books you quoted are from the sort.

1) There were 4 batteries, 3 of which 2 cannons each and 4th 10 cannons. Only first one blocked the infantry progress. Taking that by cavalry was totally within possibilities of any cavalry unit, though extremely difficult and Napoleon wasn't risking much. 2) It seems the success of the first charge (Polish squadron took all the batteries) surprise Napoleon, but he was quick to catch the chance and send reinforcements, since without them spectacular success of the first charge would be wasted. Spanish were able in the meantime to recapture fourth, the largest battery and it had to be charged again. 3) The losses were not large. For total 450 Poles taking part in both charges, 57 wounded and dead (according to Datancourt report) or 18 dead, 11 wounded according to the units registers were not that much. 3rd squadron was totally operational. 4) It must be noted that _80_ people in your descirption are those under Kozietulski, which charged and took first battery, after which they were joined by Niegolewski who returned with the rest of squadron from the recoinessance, while 57 dead and wounded came from Datancourt report and is relating to the losses of all squadrons. 5) And, finally, it was SUCCESS - taking four batteries and forcing whoel army to withdrawal (Andalusian militia flied without fight, and regular units, losing cover of the artillery withdrawed immedietely then) at the cost of 30-60 people?

Please take a look Szopen 06:15, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I invite you to comment on Somosierra talk page :-). Few notes: 1) Most accounts say about Four cannons per battery, but Bielecki seems very convincing in saying that first three cannot have four cannons. 2) French officers, who later passed by, reported only one battery - Bielecki assumed they only memorised the last battery, since two cannons from each first three ones were probably pushed away to make room 3) 80 people in first charge which took first battery seems to be standard account and 140 for total in 1st sqadron which participated. Bielecki checked unit registers and found out that 213 people were operational at the day of the charge, from which he concluded that must be number of people of participating (plus then other suqadrons). I am not sure whether he is right: 213 people operational doesn't have to mean authomatically 213 people participating in the charge. 4) Losses in dead and wounded: Datancourt wrote 57, but from unit register number is much lower (18 dead and 11 wounded or so). Bielecki found that few people who were mentioned by e.g. Niegolewski as died at Somosierra, were in fact killed weeks or even months later. Maybe Datancourt counted also those who had lesser wounds or just were missed? 5) In fact there could be said there were three charges: First one was repelled from artillery fire - squadron stopped for a moment and had to be regrouped for the second charge, and then was charge by Lubienski with 1st squadron and others.

Bielecki mentioned that few western authors were using Thiers and Napier, which in turn were based on French officers memories, hence their mistakes; French officers were minimising cavalry role, while Polish were trying to picture themselves as the only responsible for the success. But indeed, for me it was cooperation of cavalry and infantry: without cavalry taking first battery, infantry couldn't press the attack; without the infantry, regular Spanish forces wouldn't probably withdraw. Szopen 09:56, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history: Coordinator elections
--Loopy e 05:15, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you!
I would like to thank you for your support for my candidacy for the Military history WikiProject coordinator position. I am now the Lead Coordinator, and I intend to do my best to continue improving the project. If you ever have any questions or concerns regarding my actions, or simply new ideas for the project, be sure to let me know! —Kirill Lok s hin 00:10, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Re: A couple of requests
All done; the usual procedure (in case you're curious) is to delete the target page and then perform the move. —Kirill Lok s hin 21:31, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Battle of Bushy Run
The tag you used for this picture implies the artist has been dead more than 100 years. CW Jeffreys died in 1951. FYI. See for example, this article (about halfway down the page: http://www.dotydocs.com/Archives/grand/mural.htm) Verne Equinox 23:16, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Spanish Empire Map
Hi - I added a comment to Image_talk:Spanish_Empire.png. Please let me know your thoughts on that page. Thanks! Gsd2000 03:17, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the comment. I have drafted and added my reply. Albrecht 07:09, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Re: The Decline of the Wiki?
This is an issue that's been discussed everywhere over the past three months&mdash;including extensive mention on the administrator's noticeboard and its various subpages, the Village Pump, the various mailing lists, and several requests for comment and requests for arbitration&mdash;so it's a bit difficult to adequately summarize. I'll try to give a (brief) timeline of the major events involved; the pages (and their corresponding talk pages) linked below should provide an adequate sample of the rancor surrounding this:


 * 1) In late December, Jimbo Wales mentions that the creation of political categories and userboxes for Wikipedians is somewhat undesirable.  (Some background: the userboxes originally started out as a way to display knowledge of languages but were then co-opted for various other purposes, such as advertising WikiProjects, favorite bands, political parties, etc.)
 * 2) On New Year's eve (as far as I recall), a member of the Arbitration Committee deletes a bunch of userboxes&mdash;primarily political ones and those containing inappropriate images.  This quickly explodes into a massive RFC (which is restarted several times as it dissolves into open name-calling).
 * 3) In the aftermath of the above, several attempts to form a policy for appropriate userboxes are made, but generally come to nothing.  Meanwhile, WikiProject Userboxes and various others fight in WP:TFD over the deletion of multiple userboxes; the end result is that almost all userboxes are kept.
 * 4) For about a month, userbox creation rates go through the roof, mostly courtesy of the aforementioned WikiProject.
 * 5) Somebody creates User pedophile.  The only person to use it on their userpage (a 16-year-old who had no idea what he was about to get into, as it later turned out) is blocked; the people who called for his block are blocked; and so forth.  This explodes into a gigantic wheel war that finally ends when Jimbo steps in and strips a number of people of administrative rights (although some of them are reinstated following a Request for arbitration about the matter).
 * 6) Jimbo then introduces CSD T1, which allows "divisive and inflammatory" templates to be deleted without the need for further discussion.  This is used by a number of administrators who delete userboxes in enormous numbers.  The deleted userboxes are inevitably nominated to deletion review, which causes even more angry debate.
 * 7) In response to this, a number of manifestos are widely circulated; these tend to range from actually debatable proposals to virulent anti-Jimbo (and anti-administrator) tirades.
 * 8) Meanwhile, a new proposal is made and appears to garner wide consensus, but is the victim of a number of incidents of apparent vote-stacking late in the polling period.  The debate over whether the results of the poll represent the community is currently ongoing.
 * 9) Which brings us to the present.

All through this, significant numbers of established contributors have left, many expressely citing the loss of civil discourse; incivility, personal attacks, and assumptions of bad faith have become almost de rigueur in certain circles. A number of experienced users have stated that this is Wikipedia's equivalent of the Eternal September.

So what does this mean? A few comments (keep in mind that this is merely my opinion, and I could be quite wrong):


 * For Wikipedia as a whole: While I continue to hope that things may return to some semblance of normality, I suspect that we're going to be increasingly stuck with a significant portion of the community whose goals are fundamentally at odds with Wikipedia's. This is inevitable to a certain extent as the project becomes more popular, attracting people who may not have time to acclimate properly to existing community norms; I think that we'll see more steps taken to limit the effect such people have on major decisons, though.
 * For WikiProjects in general: I think that WikiProjects, which tend to be composed of more experienced and dedicated editors, and whose smaller size allows a greater degree of esprit de corps, will become more prominent within the community. Already we're seeing many projects&mdash;even smaller ones&mdash;organizing collaborations and so forth.
 * For the Military history WikiProject: Not much. We've been remarkably successful at maintaining a pleasant atmosphere within the project, which is something that I hope will continue.  At the same time, our structural growth&mdash;the task forces, the new departments, etc.&mdash;is allowing us a greater degree of self-sufficiency, so that we'll be less affected by any temporary madness that afflicts other parts of Wikipedia.

I hope that all of this is somewhat helpful to you (and that I haven't rambled too much). If you have any other questions, please don't hesitate to ask! —Kirill Lok s hin 21:58, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

So...
Questioning numbers is evidence of 'Raging Bias'? You are a credit to Wikipedia. If you are wondering about the decline of Wiki, it is responses such as yours to my comment on the Talk page of Battle of Krasny Bor that contribute to it. Have a nice day. Andreas 16:42, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * No worries, thanks for apologising, and as I said, I agree I should have chosen different words than I did. Let's try to improve the article together from the very good start. Andreas 17:20, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Please do try to have some patience! Alienating every Russian editor that wanders by isn't likely to be terribly productive in terms of actually improving the article; you're only causing an unnecessary defensive reflex on their part ;-) Kirill Lok s hin 02:57, 18 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Eh, no problem; I think the situation has calmed down now, at least as far as the immediate edit war is concerned.  Kirill Lok s hin 12:44, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Spanish military history
Given your work in this field, I thought that our current project collaboration might be of interest to you ;-) Kirill Lok s hin 23:42, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject Newsletter, Issue I
delivered by Loopy e 04:37, 30 March 2006 (UTC)