User talk:Bfigura/Archive 5

My RfA...
 Thank you... ...for your participation in my RFA, which closed with 85 supports, 2 neutrals and 1 oppose. I'm extremely grateful for all the the kind comments from so many brilliant Wikipedians I've come to respect and admire, as well as many others I've not yet had the pleasure of working with, and I'll do my best to put my shiny new mop and bucket to good use! Once again, thank you ;) EyeSerene talk 17:27, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Prod
Hi, my name is Thomas Criet and I would like you to approve my page design, for I have had on numerous occassions found references to "Mucky mucks" and also "Mucky muckrakers", because these words have definitely had an influence in the history of America's growth as a nation. I would sincerely hope that you would be able to help me properly orgainize this page concept.

Thank you,

Tom


 * The page appears to have been redirected to an already existing article. (And we already have an article on Muckrakers I believe, so that usage should be covered too). Best, -- B figura (talk) 04:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Please Allow me to clarify, "mucky muck" means a person of inportance in society and cleary demonstrates superiority, and the page usage of muckraker was to help edit the format of the page so that it fits with the design of other Wikipedia pages.

"Mucky muckraker" is used to define an investigative journalist who demonstrates an air of superiority; the term was used in Necessary Illusions by Noam Chomsky —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomas4321 (talk • contribs) 04:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I see the distinction that you're drawing. But I think there's still the same problem. Wikipedia is not a dictionary or usage guide. Just because a term has been adopted by one (or even a few) people doesn't mean that it would merit an article, even if the people are famous. This might be better placed over at Wiktionary. Best, -- B figura (talk) 04:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Re:Civility and such
No problem :). My objective, as you understood in your response at WQA, was not really to offend, but to point out the uselessness and (for want of a better word) stupidity of all the discussion above in regards to language vs dialect. But next time, maybe I'll leave the swearing for the preview. Cheers,  Balkan Fever  13:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No worries - no harm done. (Actually, I expanded my vocab, so I suppose that's a plus.) Cheers, -- B figura (talk) 13:43, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well then I guess you'll love this. Btw, I'd rather my original post be kept in tact, offence aside, if you know what I mean. Xenovatis keeps removing it. But I'm happy to go with what you think.  Balkan Fever  13:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I commented on the talk page. This sort of stuff doesn't merit a redaction. -- B figura (talk) 15:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for mark-ups / Obtaining review by Wiki editor with specific interests & knowledge / How to?
Hi B.

Thanks for the very specific mark-ups on the Susan Hurley piece. The more specific the comment the easier it is to respond fully and completely, and the better the article. I am really grateful for this.

Future Entries:

I intend to do a series of entries on contemporary American artists. The next will likely be the sculptor Roy Thurston. There are a lot of on-line references for Roy so he ought to be quite easy. After that I plan to do the performance artist Aviva Rahmani. Her work derives from a collaboration with Allan Kaprow and is quite collaborative: very 'Wiki' in that sense. The sculptor Gerald Giamportone is probably also worth an entry: (galleries, LA, NYC & London, one or two major grants, and some serious critical acclaim). Showing third party references from journals of record and the equivalent on-line sources should be straight forward for all of these.

Obtaining Review by a Wiki Editor with Specific Knowledge:

Is there any way to steer these future pieces toward an editor with some interest in the arts? With a prior Wiki editor I was having trouble establishing notability in the earliest phases of my work on the Susan Hurley piece. Someone with experience in the arts would know at a glance that any composer who has had a seven year artist in residency position with Interlochen is doing very well indeed. That line alone ought to have established notability. It would save editorial time and avoid confusion if the early screening were done by someone whose interests were generally in the arts. How do I find such a person among the editors, and submit my entries for screening?

Thanks again for your help. I think that Wikipedia is a wonderful institution; just the best of the best that this part of this century has to offer.

Kind regards,

--Robert Chave (talk) 16:08, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, there's a very easy way to contact like-minded editors. We have what we call WikiProjects, which are each organized around a particular interest (ranging from Alternative Music to Pokemon). The link in the last sentence breaks them all down categorically, so you should be able to find one that matches any given topic. (And if there isn't one on the topic, which I honestly doubt, you could always start one. Instructions for that are on the same page.) Hope that helps, and if not, let me know. Best, -- B figura (talk) 16:17, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Siqing Lu
No probs, happy to help. I'll integrate some more of those references and then ask the nominator if they'll withdraw it (I doubt it'll get any further delete votes). Best, PeterSymonds | talk  17:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks, as always, for quickly reverting the vandalism. This user is rather persistent so I'll be keeping a close eye on him. Accounting4Taste: talk 17:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome
Thanks for welcoming me so warmly, those links to 'how to' pages will be really helpful.

My number one project at the moment is fixing up the Griffith Review article, and editing Australian literature articles, then hopefully I'll have the confidence to move onto other projects.

Cheers (Lizziekate86 (talk) 04:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC))


 * No problem. Welcome aboard :) -- B figura (talk) 04:03, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The ALS Association
Thanks for making the redirect for The ALS Association. The link to it from the ALS article is bad. Should that be edited? Or does the redirect fix that as well?FX, interesting (talk) 03:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The only links I saw in the article (the one on Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis) seemed to work fine now. Were there other ones you were thinking of? -- B figura (talk) 03:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I just fixed the link, it was on Line 51.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Amyotrophic_lateral_sclerosis&action=history

I feel like an idiot, I actually thought there was no ALSA entry. Somehow the search missed it. I don't know. Thanks for helping out there. FX, interesting (talk) 03:50, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * No problem. Cheers, -- B figura (talk) 03:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The state of American Politics
Ohhhhhh, an online petition. So THAT's how you change the US Constitution. (smacks forehead) Gosh, you Yanks are miles ahead of us in everything; we Canucks are still doing it the stuffy old Parliamentary way. This means an angry letter to the Globe and Mail! ;-) Accounting4Taste: talk 04:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That's step one. Step two involves getting the Supreme Court onboard by enlisting tween girls and breaking out the OMG!!11!!PONIES!!! cuteness. (Court reporters will have to use myspace to blog, and the whole thing gets uploaded to youtube.) Yay, Web 2.0 -- B figura  (talk) 04:25, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, like, OMG it is so totally UNFAIR, you know, that, like, you know, you have to be, like, 30? You know?  And, like, totally Rihanna for Vice Prez, you know?  AWsum.  (It's the same in Canada, except we don't have an age requirement, just this pesky thing about being the leader of a political party, and it's not Rihanna, it's Avril Lavigne.  Sigh.)  BTW, was it just serendipity or did you know I'm a court reporter?  We just moved into MP3s and speech recognition software, but I still refuse to blog.  Like, totally.  Accounting4Taste: talk 04:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, either serendipity, or psychic powers. By any chance, familiar with her work? (Of course, we do the advantage that our supreme court is much more entertaining. In the watching-a-car-accident-in-slow motion sort of way). -- B figura (talk) 04:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[exdent] I've left a note with the 5th grade, as you requested ... please alert me at your convenience if you feel further admonishments, etc., are required. I'm afraid I'm not familiar with the lady you mentioned. Our Supreme Court is run by a woman and is thus quite sensible these days, IMHO, having recently given us hassle-free gay marriage with hardly a ripple and a bunch of other progressive decisions. Yours is more fun, though, I definitely agree; I find a certain car-accident-like fascination with a system that elects judges and puts the most showmanlike on TV for all to enjoy. Accounting4Taste: talk 04:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

thanks for the mark up
Hi B.

I appreciate the comments. The Susan Hurley piece is coming along. I am probably 2/3's done.

Thanks,

Robert

24.205.81.154 (talk) 17:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Can You Please...
Can you please be a bit patient i'm still working on the page i just got started so chill out thank you for your understanding and cooperation..Have a good one! :)

Tom Salazar  Chat?! 9:55 MT, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It would appear that someone already deleted the page. While I'm sorry this happened while you were working on it, in all likelihood, the deletion would have happened even if you had finished. Most people consider HS sports programs to be non-notable, unless there's some sort of amazing coverage of them. (Ie, producing multiple Olympians, etc.) I think this is kind of touched on in WP:OUTCOMES. Best, -- B figura (talk) 04:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Well.. Excuse Me! but i just got started on that..it was a very important article obviously you didnt even know what was going into it! That was very Disrespectful and regardless of that junk you put on there i spent lots of time on it! Well its people like you that chase people away from wikipedia when there trying to do the right thing! I think you do more harm than good!

Tom Salazar  Chat?! 10:07 MT, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * If you think the article did concern a notable subject, you can certainly take it up with the administrator who deleted it. For more info see this page. -- B figura (talk) 04:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Uhh.. why would i have to do that i know everything about wikipedia i have been on it for over a year now and i have created 78 school pages and 56 other pages..but i'm just saying if you wanna help out wikipedia yourself have some respect next time.. and give A FAIR and REASONABLE warning!

Tom Salazar  Chat?! 10:15 MT, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I didn't know that -- and I didn't mean to imply anything by that comment. As for warning, I believe I did: Twinkle did leave a message on your talk page, and I left a message myself. Honestly, I felt the page qualified for a speedy, so I tagged it. Again, I didn't mean anything personal by this, I just didn't think the subject was notable. Apologies if that caused any inconvenience, -- B figura (talk) 04:25, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Well what struck me was how fast you found the article that wasnt fully created but its cool cool man no worries sorry i went off on you after all it was user:NawlinWiki fault! but what can i do...peace!

Tom Salazar  Chat?! 10:31 MT, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * That would be new page patrolling. (Which is exactly what it sounds like). -- B figura (talk) 04:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Well wikipedia needs to put down some more rules on that cuz i have seen pages that have that tag that says there going to be deleted and there still some that are in existance and in ways some pages do need to be patroled and deleted but it takes time for a great article which i was trying to create but whatever..anyways wikipedia is wack..i dont really really care anymore, but i will let you do your work man.

Tom Salazar  Chat?! 10:40 MT, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh you are right, trust me. It's kinda like trying to gold nuggets out of a firehose of articles containing "I WANNA Sex0r Jenny" and "John is a dick". And about the pages that should get deleted but haven't, do you mean the prods? And about the article, you can probably just ask Nawlin to userfy it for you (or just ask another admin you're friendly with). Oh, as for Wiki being weird... oh yes. See lamest edit wars of all time for proof. Best, -- B figura (talk) 04:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Ya true true man.. and yes i see 5 million of those pages a day and some of them i work on some of them i dont i'm alot more busy now but when i have extra time i do that it's pretty wierd how addicting this site gets haha! I really dont like to work with Admin's cuz most of them think they own this damn place so i work with the smallest it actually gets me further well since i mostly create education pages and this week i have only created a few pages for the first time in a while..

Tom Salazar  Chat?! 10:54 MT, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

blissing
Greetings-I finally found a reference so that I can post (see link below) yet I'm not sure where to go from here...

http://www.variety.com/search/siteall?q=stefan+lysenko&x=0&y=0&s=relevance

...and I'm not even sure where my initial post (that I wanted to put on Wikipedia) ended up (I do know that it didn't make it to the encyclopedia do to the lack of a web reference which I now have ..above)...?

I'm not in any hurry yet you've been so helpful in the past. Please let me know how I can give you a high rating or points for your generous help. Cheers -Stefan Lysenko / Bliss Productions  www.blissing.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 1blissing (talk • contribs)

(our past conversations)

Just a note to follow up on your help desk request. For legal reasons, accounts may not be shared between multiple people. This has to do with the way our GFDL licensing works. You're free to create different accounts for each editor, but those accounts shouldn't be shared or swapped in any way. Also, please remember to follow our policies on conflict of interest and neutrality. Feel free to ask me on my talk page if you have any questions, or just write somewhere on your page, and someone will come along. Best, --Bfigura (talk) 23:24, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi there. Generally, it's highly frowned upon to write articles about people or organizations that you happen to have ties to. (Whether those ties are familial professional). This is because it's likely that there would be a conflict of interest that could lead to lack of neutrality. (Which is a requirement for any article on Wikipedia).


 * Also, articles need to establish the notability of their subject. The acid test for notability is whether or not there are multiple 3rd party independent reliable sources that discuss the subject in a non-trivial way. (This is because all information in wikipedia must be verifiable). Articles that don't meet these guidelines tend to be speedily deleted. (For more information on how to establish the notability of a person, see this guideline).


 * Lastly, I noticed that you refer to yourself as we. For legal reasons relating to our licensing, accounts on Wikipedia may not be shared, or represent the input of multiple people. (Such accounts are termed 'role accounts', and really aren't generally permitted). If you have more questions, feel free to ask the help desk, or just place on your talk page, and someone will stop by. Best, --Bfigura (talk) 00:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi there Stefan. I think the original article has been deleted (otherwise it should appear somewhere in your Contributions). However, I'm not an admin, so I can't figure out what happened to it without knowing the name of the original article. (Was this the one related to Blissing?). I'd be happy to track one down for you though. (You can do that yourself too, using the list of admins).


 * But before recreating the article, you probably would need to consider three things. One is, you probably would need more sources to make the article deletion-proof. (Ideally, you'd want a magazine, newspaper, or famous ezine (not blog) article about Blissing). The link you mentioned only references it in passing, which probably won't stand up to the notability criteria for organizations. I'm not sure if you have access to something like Lexis-Nexis, but that might be a good place to start.


 * The second is you also want to be careful about conflict of interest. (The business' faq gives some good advice on how to write on a subject where you might have a conflict of interest). We tend to heavily discourage people from writing about themselves, or organizations that they run, just because it's really hard to write neutrally about a subject you're close to.


 * The third is your username. Right now, it matches a company, and might be considered a role account, which is any account that's linked to a position, rather than a person. (For legal reasons (based on the way the GFDL liscense handles contributions), each person needs their own account). From your response it sounds like you're the only person on your account, which is good, but your name could give some people the wrong impression. (Of a role account here only to promote a company, either of which would be bad). If you want to change it, you can head over to here.


 * Anyway, hope that's not too much info. I'd encourage you to look around for some more sources, and in the meantime, maybe contribute to some of the articles in the entertainment arena maybe? (Oh, and we're all volunteers, so there's no ranking / rewards mechanism other than building up good will.) :) Hope all that helps, and good luck. -- B figura (talk) 03:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Ummm...
Just bored. Kinston eagle (talk) 00:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Revert and protection
You're welcome for both. Acalamari 03:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

phanart
ok, so no response on this last comment below. someone else wanted to delete it, simply saying 'Notability is not inherited. Just beacause Phish is notable, not every book about them is' this is true, but this book IS notable, as no books have been written about phish. and this book is about the fans, not the band.

for the love of god, dont delete this. in a few weeks, the publisher has it printing, and this thing would have to be restarted all over again. there is no legitamite reason to delete this. please, leave it up. there are a billion articles on wikipedia. one more wont hurt —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pmmason11 (talk • contribs) 03:26, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

i didnt create it, a friend did. i only corrected a couple things after he sent it to me. it was unprompted by me. it helps in people knowing what it is about. it is ready to come out, so if we have say, a review of the book, that would make it legitamite enough for wikipedia?

i think deleting this article really isnt right. just saying. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pmmason11 (talk • contribs) 19:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

sorry--
thanks--didn't mean to go against the Wikipedia guidelines Alan0198 (talk) 04:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem, no harm done. If you've got any questions later on, feel free to drop a line. (Or just type on your talk page. -- B figura  (talk) 04:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for April 21st, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 16:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the disambiguation page example
It seems reasonable, but the anonymous IP editor, as you observed, is getting on the edge of WP:NPA, and certainly is not open to other suggestions.

Perhaps it's my misperception, but the edit history of this article, before I touched it, does not indicate any extensive article or precise definition ever existed. His definition is circular: unconventional is what is not conventional, without a rigorous definition of conventional. The most recent complaint about "smashing" your enemy being conventional does not work, given the other common usage of unconventional warfare involves nuclear weapons.

Any suggestions? The civility is dropping, and I find it hard to regard an anon, coming in under different IPs, as terribly authoritative on history. Non-anon MILHIST opinions have been used. I don't want to get into a revert war.

Thanks again for your help.Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 19:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

UW
Our posts seem to have crossed one another.

There's no really elegant term. In a finicky way, it's probably more correct to say "unconventional warfare (U.S. Department of Defense doctrine)" since that's the organization (or the Joint Chiefs of Staff) that promulgates it. There could even be a series of:
 * U.S. special operations doctrine for unconventional warfare
 * U.S. special operations doctrine for foreign internal defense
 * U.S. special operations doctrine for special reconnaissance...

and so forth for the 5-9 mission that have doctrine.

Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 19:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * In any event, it seems as the disagreement is about what to have at Unconventional warfare, rather than the move of the current article to a more precise title. I propose that we just do the move to a title of your choice, and let people argue over what to place at the disambiguation / more general article. Thoughts? -- B figura (talk) 21:50, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * While I have become utterly frustrated with the anonymous editor's apparently total unwillingness to have things any way but his own, I wanted to express my true appreciation for your effort. You made very reasonable proposals with which I would have been happy to follow, or at least discuss.


 * Ironically, I believe the insurgency article actually meets and exceeds everything that anon wanted. It is very carefully globalised. It is easily six times the length and sourcing of the previous unconventional warfare article, or at least before I first read it.


 * At first, I thought that the anon might have missed certain points, such as the potential that insurgency was a viable alternative title. Had there been actual discussion, I might have suggested verifying if any sourced material in unconventional warfare should go into insurgency. After a while, however, I found the anon was being very selective in his responses, refusing to acknowledge points even if he disagreed.


 * Is it worth, I wonder, trying to escalate the lack of civility, the personal attacks, and what I can only call outright lies? For example, the anon says I gave no notice, yet I posted a query to the talk page on April 14th. The anon did not make any suggestions on reconciling, but simply complained. Because of the anonymity, I have no way to verify anything about the individual's contributions, good faith in discussions, or understanding of the topic.


 * Again, thanks for your help. More and more, I'm looking for a venue that has more control than Wikipedia. Citizendium seems to go too far in another direction. USENET died when anonymity became common, and I see the same outcome for Wikipedia. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 01:36, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I added references to Tom Lloyd
I added references to Tom Lloyd. I think that he is notable for more than the single incident that led to his resignation. You may want to revisit Articles for deletion/Tom Lloyd. --Eastmain (talk) 23:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I've commented on the AfD in question. -- B figura (talk) 00:01, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Lord Bovril
why are my articles about Lord Bovril removed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris robson bcs (talk • contribs) 19:11, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It was deleted as an unreferenced article that appeared to have been made up. Articles on Wikipedia need to be about a notable subject, and be verifiable via reliable sources. This didn't appear to be the case, so the article was deleted by an administrator. For more information on how to go about writing articles, you might want to see suggestions for first articles -- B figura (talk) 19:24, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Yep, sorry, please delete
Sorry, newbie error. Thanks Bergav (talk) 22:10, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem. I've already tagged it for deletion, so it should get taken care of sooner or later. Best, -- B figura (talk) 22:17, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Unconventional warfare (U.S. Department of Defense doctrine)
Wow, looks good so far. Bearian (talk) 18:20, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Not my material, it's split from unconventional warfare. There was a fair amount of drama regarding the purpose of that article, so it was essentially reverted back to a generic form, and I moved the specialized content to a new title. Unfortunately, we may have lost the contributing editor as a result of some of the IP drama on talk:unconventional warfare (see a section or two up on my talk page). Hopefully not though, I'm going to try and encourage him to stay. Cheers, -- B figura (talk) 18:33, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * (Bfigura wrote) I've moved your content to Unconventional warfare (U.S. Department of Defense doctrine)‎. I'm sorry about all the IP drama on the original page, and I hope you'll consider staying on as an editor: it'd be a shame to lose you. I understand the appeal of Veropedia and Citizendium, but I'm personally hoping that some of those issues will be resolved here once the devs turn on stable versions. Best, -- B figura  (talk) 18:37, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Perhaps we should think of it as dark comedy rather than drama. To put it in the context of military history, Dwight D. Eisenhower was asked if he had served under Douglas MacArthur. Eisenhower responded that he had studied dramatics, as taught by MacArthur, for three years.


 * Seriously, there are some attempts to deal with the general issues of POV editing, but I am still dubious about the viability of almost any collaborative process that allows total anonymity. There are technical methods that guard identity, both for privacy and being sure that loud complaints do not make a hostile environment, but I don't know if Wikipedia will begin to use them.


 * I do have another article, foreign internal defense, which logically should move to foreign internal defense (U.S. Department of Defense doctrine). FID is the frankly obscure U.S. term for counterinsurgency. In the existing FID article is some discussion of French and U.K. doctrine, which, perhaps, should move to new articles that show a family of national doctrines. I'll need to find out the proper French and British terms for their approach to counterinsurgency. Counter-insurgency would remain as the globalised article, just like Insurgency is the globalised article from which UW and other national variants descend.


 * I am involved in a discussion, hosted by Folantin, on how to avoid POV tragicomedy(?), at User:Folantin/Userspace Folantin5. If anonymity will not go away, it may be that admins need to take a greater and proactive role. Anarchy just doesn't scale. One could argue that the internal operation of the Internet, one of my professional areas, is the world's greatest anarchy, but there is a fundamental set of agreements in which all the ISPs operate. At least one project on Wikipedia, Sri Lanka reconciation, does a remarkable job of managing POV issues, and perhaps they will serve as a guide.


 * In the particular case of the anon and UW, as he kept speaking of consensus among 73 editors, I kept observing that quite a large number of people believe Elvis Presley still lives. If one takes their consensus, and compares it to the autopsy records, there consensus proves very little. I gave up when I realized that the anon had so little knowledge of military science that he would not have understood a serious critique. Now that he's adding unsourced definitions (ironically from U.S. government sources I recognize), and making OR assertions about UW and torture, his work may self-destruct. Now, if he wanted to talk about torture, which I consider a very bad idea in UW, I could have given him French and Soviet sources, but I had the impression that he wanted to control the discussion. Since he never responded to my repeated requests that he look at insurgency, I had no impression that he was interested in independent input.


 * It rather surprised me to find him turning somewhat conciliatory yesterday, but, at this point, I don't trust him at all. Your assistance in creating a new home for the material seems the best outcome, and I thank you.

Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 19:05, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

←I'm glad I could do anything to help. I agree that eventually something will probably have to be done to ensure that stability of articles, whether it's more admin action, stable versioning, or some other novel approach. (See User_talk:Elonka/Hungarian-Slovakian_experiment for one interesting approach to deal with edit warring on a nationalism article). And regarding the IP and his 73 other editors: consensus does not mean democracy, so a large number of people arguing a point that is against policy is not necessarily a problem. Anyway, if there's anything else I can help out with, let me know. -- B figura (talk) 19:14, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Questions and observations on progressing
Thanks for the continued interest. I signed each point here separately, so if it's easier to respond inline, please do so because we won't lose track of who said what. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 12:48, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

First, let me clarify some semi-mechanical things, one of which has some stability/policy actions. The easiest one is that the existing foreign internal defense should move to foreign internal defense(United States Department of Defense doctrine), as FID is to counter-insurgency as UW is to insurgency, both national vs. global. My only hesitation is technical: I know I can use the "move" operations, but I was a bit concerned about breaking existing links. Is there any simpler way than repeatedly showing "what links here" and manually fixing the links to the new articles?12:48, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Not that I'm aware of, other than invoking something like WP:AWB. However, when you do the move, the old page should remain as a redirect, so readers should be able to get to the right page. (And if a double redirect is created, I believe that there's a bot running around that will automatically fix it sooner or late). -- B figura (talk) 20:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Second, I was deliberately not including unconventional warfare as a "main", as, if anything, that remaining article has gotten less sourced and more political. While it is perfectly logical to have disambiguation of a specific kind of UW, it's an imperfect world, and I'm concerned about a reader that got to the serious article first, then going back to the chaotic one and getting confused about definitions. Any thoughts?Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 12:48, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I understand your point, but I'd still consider leaving a link. (Either via the main template, or see also). After all, maybe it'd attract a reader who can improve that page. -- B figura (talk) 20:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Third, I'm thinking of some "glue" for the sets of both global and national topics. For example, the U.S. defines about fifteen missions for "special operations forces", of which UW was the original mission. I note here that every country of which I know, except the U.S., uses "special forces" as the generic term for all its units, while in the U.S., "special operations forces" are used to disambiguate a specific command, United States Army Special Forces. Presumably, there should be some "introductory" page, possibly with tables, that identifies the global concept articles and then points to the national doctrines. Alternatively, or perhaps in addition to, each nation with such forces should have a "roles and missions" article that identifies its conceptual missions and matrixes these against the units capable of carrying out the mission. I'm not sure about the best way to do that. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 12:48, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It does sound like something worth doing. Not sure what the best way is either though. :\ -- B figura (talk) 20:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Did I mention we are having a discussion on how to deal with (generally) nationalistic/chauvinistic POV wars at User:Folantin/Userspace Folantin5? This may need to migrate to a more official position, depending on the amount of Wikipedia politics involved, since I have seen no proposals anywhere that suggests POV and edit wars cannot be reduced without increasing some control. Somewhat apropos, I have the start of an essay of how to get facts out of inherently POV sources, which, while I admit is right on the edge of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, also partially draws from things that work for the Sri Lanka reconciliation project, and are also fairly standard academic and intelligence analysis techniques. There's a fundamental problem with the model of "secondary sources only": there will be conflicts about which little secondary material of any sort exists, and, in other cases, there will be even less NPOV secondary material. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 12:48, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think nationalism edit wars are one of wikipedia's oldest and most continual issue. Arbcom does occasionally intervene, but as of yet, there hasn't been a definitive solution to the problem. (A stab got taken at a solution in the eastern europe arbcom case, but I'm not sure how much that's helped). I think the solution I like best so far was that created by Elonka (an uninvolved admin who used the EE arb case as a precedent to help reign in nationalistic edit warring with some novel methods)). I think I gave you the link earlier, but it basically came down to her imposing a 1RR, be polite, and stop edit warring or I-hit-you-with-increasing-blocks fiat. It seems to have gotten a decent amount of approval, but it's still in its infancy so to speak. -- B figura (talk) 20:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

About the 73 editors, first, it's vaguely amusing than an anon IP cites this, because there's no way to tell if he were one of them. Let's assume they existed. The reality, however, is what they produced for unconventional warfare is at odds with professional military usage, seems to have an underlying preachy tone about certain weapons and tactics, and is minimally/not sourced. See the sourcing at the global insurgency, or at Unconventional warfare (U.S. Department of Defense doctrine) as an alternate point of reference. Having 73 or 173 editors with no particular knowledge of the subject doesn't empower them to produce meaningful content. One of the first steps of wisdom is knowing what one doesn't know, so you are unlikely to see me editing on cricket, plate tectonics, basketball, llamas (other than Monty Python) or history of (arbitrary country that I have not studied). This is more a meta-question, but I see this becoming more and more a problem with politicized topics; it takes a certain mindset and comparative knowledge to write neutrally on a political topic. For example, I consider George W. Bush the worst president in the history of the U.S., but, although I'd prefer not to do so, I think I could write an objective, stick-to-the-facts article about his policies. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 12:48, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll just say that the IP editors is starting to wear on my nerves somewhat. However, while I agree that experts are important, the one advantage of WP:V is that everyone's arguments get equal weight, so long as they have reliable sources to back them up. (That said though, while I'll help improve articles on topics that I'm not well versed in, I probably wouldn't try to write them from scratch). -- B figura (talk) 20:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Finally, there are, in the special operations world, various criticisms and controversies. In the current Unconventional warfare (U.S. Department of Defense doctrine), I think I'm keeping the sourced ideas about doctrinal reform of reasonable size and in context -- I need to do another flow edit or two today. In my userspace, however, there is User:Hcberkowitz/Sandbox-FIDscraps, which deals with a current roles-and-missions argument that affects all of U.S. special operations. Perhaps that should branch from a general U.S. doctrine article should one be created. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 12:48, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Again, thanks for the interest and support. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 12:48, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Anytime. -- B figura (talk) 20:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Mark Holtzapple
Dear Bfigura:

We are configuring this wiki about our Thermodynamics professor. He absolutely loves wikipedia and we thought it would be appropriate to create a page about a brilliant man who has made many contributions to Chemical Engineering including but not limited to:

-Developing a more fuel-efficient engine -Developing a solution for world-hunger -Acting as a consultant and building a modified vapor compression unit for Qatar -Increasing to the enthusiasm of Thermodynamics in his students

Honestly, we intend for this page to be viewed by Dr. Holtzapple on the last day of class, Tuesday April 29th. If he does not appreciate it, we will terminate it ourselves.

Regardless, the Kevin Spacey reference is intended for humor. It will not remain on the page after he reads it.

Thank you for your consideration and concern. Best, Beamerfan —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beamerfan (talk • contribs)
 * Hi there. While I'm glad you're showing an interest in Wikipedia, any article, once created is not owned by anyone. As a result, pretty much everything needs to conform to our guidelines and policies. Essentially, Wikipedia is not the place for private in-jokes. For what sort of standards should be followed for biographies of academics, see this page. Best, -- B figura  (talk) 04:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Translate Tuscany Dog Project from de.wikipedia
"Did you mean to create this in article space? --Bfigura (talk) 22:54, 28 April 2008 (UTC)"

Uhm... I think so. It is an article in the German Wikipedia and it would be useful to have it in the English Wikipedia. If I've made the request incorrectly please let me know.--Hafwyn (talk) 23:00, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I asked as it would appear that the page is meant to organize the translation project. (As opposed to being the translated content). If it's the former, then I think you want to move it to Translate Tuscany Dog Project. Best, -- B figura (talk) 23:02, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Semperviva
Hello Bfigura,

I still do not know if I should talk to you or to Ashanda? I removed probably some things that I should not remove. I am not so very experienced in Wikipedia. Sorry for that! Here you can see the messages, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Karak1

What I did was publishing text from a website which is about Semperviva. I represent Semperviva. So there is no mention of any copyright violation. The problem is that the article on this website is ours, but we do not own or have acces to the website. Because it is from the save-foundation. I do not now if the are willing to put a GNU tag on this website. So we (Semperviva) did write a new article for Wikipedia. It does have the same content, but in other words. I hope this is in accordance with the Wikipedia rules.

Regards,

Karak1 (talk)


 * Hi Karak. The issue here is that I (and other editors) can't just take your word for it. (Not that I disbelieve you, but I can't verify your identity, given that it's relatively easy to make claims online). To verify that you do own the copyright in question, you need to follow these steps. Best, -- B figura (talk) 20:29, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello Bfigura,

I have taken a look on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IOWN The problem is that Semperviva only uses Gmail. Could you have a look on http://www.karakachan.eu.org there you will see my name (John Zeiner). I am Semperviva's representative for Europe and the USA. The most members of Semperviva are in Vlahi (which is in the middle of nowhere) in Bulgaria. The other member (Atila) is at the station in Pernik. For internet acces he must go to BlueLink (also on Wikepedia). BlueLink is located in Sofia (the capital city). What I could do is make a note permitting reuse under the GFDL at the site of the original publication on karakachan.eu.org and add the article about semperviva to Wikipedia.

Karak1 (John Zeiner) (talk)
 * Hi John, if you add a note permitting reuse under the GFDL at the original source, that should suffice. (When you create the article, you might want to leave a note in the edit summary stating that reuse is permitted under the GFDL, with a link to the website). You'll still probably get a message from an automated robot, but you can ignore it and just note that the reuse is permitted. As a reminder though, you'll still need to make sure the article meets our policies of notability, neutrality, and verifiability. Hope that helps, -- B figura (talk) 21:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Bfigura,

You mean this? http://www.karakachan.eu.org/semperviva_EN.htm


 * Yep. (Although do bear in mind that the tone would probably need to be made more encyclopedic before it's used to create an article). If you want to create a draft article, you could do so by placing the page in your userspace (for ex: User:Karak1/DraftArticle), making revisions there, then moving it into article space once it's ready. (I can help with any of that, just let me know). Best, -- B figura (talk) 21:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your help! I first will make a more encyclopedic article and then put it as a draft on my userspace (didn't know I had that) and let you know!

John

Hello Bfigura,

I did this on my draft page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Karak1/DraftArticle Could you have a look, and tell if it is goig the right way?

John
 * Sure, I'll post my comments on the talk page of your draft article. (PS, when leaving messages on talk pages, you can sign your post my typing four tildes ' ~ '. It'll leave your name and the time/date). Best, -- B figura (talk) 00:29, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Bfigura, Karak1 (talk) 23:53, 30 April 2008 (UTC) I made some changes. Please could you have a "new" look on the draft article?

Random break
Sure. Will do. -- B figura (talk) 00:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I guess it is much better now? Karak1 (talk) 20:14, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll go take a look. -- B figura (talk) 20:21, 4 May 2008 (UTC)