User talk:BusterD/Archive 1

Welcome!
Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Angr/undefined 19:08, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Hey there! Newbie asks for some advice from a veteran (so to speak)

 * I was adding some links to the Committee on the Conduct, when I noticed that the American Civil War article lacked links to the Official Records. I was wondering: Do you think OR deserves its own article? BusterD 15:04, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Sure, that would be useful if you have something interesting to say about when/how they were written and not simply a pointer to them. I would recommend calling the article Official Records of the American Civil War to match other article titles. Check out my article Samuel Cooper (general) for a useful data point. Once you've created it, reduce that lengthy edit in American Civil War to be a See Also. (That page is already way too big.)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Hal Jespersen 17:22, 25 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Would you look over my article?


 * I'd love to hear what you think, this is all so new, I'm looking for strong feedback.

Nicely done. A few comments (normally I'd just edit them myself, but since you asked for feedback...)


 * Your first bold entry should match the title of the article.
 * Check your links. Some are too generic, such as Congress, and need more specificity.
 * Look at my style page [the one you edited recently] for an explanation of Sources vs References vs External links.
 * 17 Secs of War? Hard to believe, although I don't question your research. Just a gee-whiz moment.
 * In your final paragraph, you make the edits of the veterans seem entirely positive. The process was widely criticized by historians because many edits were done to make the participants look good (or to slam political enemies), so you may wish to show both sides of that.
 * Your first paragraph should include the word 'comprehensive' because what you say now sounds like only random snippets were collected.
 * I believe one of your other edits referred to Navy-related volumes, unmentioned here.

Hal Jespersen 03:12, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

You're welcome. One thing I neglected to mention earlier is that I would recommend including the Naval records as part of this page, rather than in a separate one. Since the article is called Official Records of the ACW, it would be counterintuitive to say that it covers Army only. You could use '===' headers to separate the two topics if they can't be intertwined cleanly.

BTW, if you have more dialog you'd like on this or other topics, feel free to email me; address described on my User page. This Talk page stuff gets tedious. Hal Jespersen 17:01, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Charles Pomeroy Stone
Thanks for the email. It is great to know we have such an expert on this person. If you would like to expand this article, please do! You could even bring it to Featured Article status, and have the article shown on the front page for 24 hours. If you need help jumping through all the hoops, just let me know. &mdash; 0918 BRIAN &bull; 2005-12-14 14:22


 * Also, since you are definitely an authority on this person, I've listed you on the article's talk page as a point of contact regarding the contents in the article. If you would rather not be listed, feel free to remove your name.

Military history WikiProject Newsletter - Issue II
The April 2006 issue of the project newsletter is now out. You may read this issue or change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you by following the link. Thanks. Kirill Lok s h in 18:30, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

semiprotection
Concerning your query: I'm not a friend of page-protection in general...as it is, IMHO, contrary to the idea underlying wikipedia per se (remember: "...an encyclopedia that anyone can edit..."), and not every vandalism comes from an anon IP or a new user account...3 obvious vandalisms in a couple of hours is not really worrysome. If you want it protected, you can make always make a request here, and if you haven't done so already, have a look at our protection policy. Alternately, you can put the page on your watchlist. Cheers. Lectonar 18:04, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * PS: I forgot: the semi protection policy is here. Lectonar 18:06, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I had a look at RFP in the meantime (should have done that before ;), and a as I see I'm not the only one to find that 4 vandalisms in the same amount of time aren't excessive. I didn't mean tp imply that you were neglecting the page in suggesting to put it on your watchlist (sorry if that sounded agressive), but regardless of your arguments I think my unprotection is well covered by the semiprotection policy. BTW, keep up the good work. Regards. Lectonar 18:30, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your message. This place can have a steep learning curve, and it's editors like you who care about certain subjects who are our real first line of defense against vandalism and other bad faith edits. So thank you for your hard work! &middot; Katefan0 (scribble)/ poll 18:58, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

American Civil War
Good job on the new intro. That is a proper introduction paragraph. -- No Guru 19:01, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

"We're not worthy! We stink!"
Thanks for your contribution to the ACW intro. Sorry if my enthusiasm puts you in anyone's crosshairs, but you've certainly raised the rhetorical bar. Very dense, broad strokes and solid narrative. I'm on board. BusterD 01:51, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * My intent was not to replace yours, but to add details on the military aspects of the war that you omitted. I assumed you could sandwich my stuff in between your two main paragraphs on causes and aftermath, although a good deal of surgery would be required to do so. You may be interested to know that I "wrote" that using my speech-to-text program without notes, so that it represents what I remember as being important about the war, a good philosophy for how to summarize in the intro. The annoying thing about RJensen is that he did not limit himself to pruning my work, he added a lot of bogus things to it. Hal Jespersen 14:59, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * We're building consensus here, and we may get something nice in the process. BusterD 00:46, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject Newsletter - Issue III - May 2006
The May 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. &mdash;ERcheck @ 11:51, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

(First) Battle of Bud Dajo
I've created a new article from scratch: First Battle of Bud Dajo, and I'm planning on merging Battle of Bud Dajo and Moro Crater Massacre to it. Please look it over, if you would. I'm also planning on revamping the Moro Rebellion article and creating a Moro Province article. A lot of other battle articles need to be created also, Bud Dajo wasn't the only place where fighting broke out! crazyeddie 04:58, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

If you think more material needs to be brought in about the anti-imperalist response to the battle, please do so! I'm afraid I'm not sympathetic enough to their point of view to do so myself, so it's probably better for somebody else to do it. I did the best I could in the "Aftermath" section, but I could see how we might need more material there.

I actually went into this research expecting to find a sorry tale of yet another American screw-up (America occupying Muslim-held territory after a morally questionable war? Nah, that has no relevance to today...), but the truth of the matter turned out differently after I started digging. Any other day of the week, Wood's critics would have been right - to put it bluntly, Wood was a friggin' tool. But in this particular case, while Wood didn't do everything right, he didn't do anything wrong. (And that's even assuming that Wood is the one to blame - he was the senior officer present, but he left the handling of the battle to Col. Duncan. I'm not sure how the military assigns blame in such a case.)

Pershing was able to win at Second Bud Dajo with a low body count on both sides, but that's because 1) his troops were able to place the main paths up the mountain under interdiction before the rebels could stock up their supplies, and 2) he was able to completely encircle the crater by cutting a lateral path 300 yards bellow the crater rim, cutting off the minor paths. After that it was a cakewalk. By contrast, Wood wasn't able to get enough troops to Bud Dajo to do any good before his rebels could prepare for a seige. One thing he and Duncan could have done would have been to advance up only two of the main paths, leaving the third one avaliable for the Moros to escape by. Letting the survivors escape would have been consistent with cotta-busting tactics that had become SOP long before (developed in part by a certain Captain Pershing during his first stint in Moroland). The idea was to bust up Moro fortifications with modern long-range artillery (well outside of the range of the Moro's own artillery and small arms, showing the futility of resistance), not rack up a body count. Pershing's situation was different - he was disarming the Moros, so he actually needed to capture the rebels, Wood only needed to disperse them.

The problem with the two-path approach is that 1) it's not obvious and 2) it would have allowed the rebels to concentrate their defense at the trail-end fortifications. That's where virtually all of the American causalties took place, so this approach would almost certainly would have resulted in higher American causalties. The Moros wouldn't have retreated until after those fortifications had been lost.

So, you go up all three paths, and the next morning, you're left with a few hundred trapped, scared/angry Moro survivors, who are all still armed, albeit with the moral equivalent of sharpened sticks. I gather that surrender would have been culturally unacceptable for the Moros in this situation, and there was some mention (the record here is questionable, given the PR firestorm) that the Americans offered it and were refused. So what do you do? Hold a tea-party? Go in with less-than-lethal force (such as clubbed rifles), and accept the high American causalties that will result? (Even sharpened sticks can still do quite a bit of damage up close...) The Moro Crater "Massacre" could have happened to any competent officer. Pershing avoided a similar outcome only through a combination of luck and genius. Wood was competent (on his good days), but he wasn't a genius. You can fault someone for not being competent, but not for not being a genius. You might question why Wood and the Americans were in Moroland to begin with, but that's outside of the control of generals - it's a problem for the politicians.

I agree with the anti-imperalists that the occupation of the Philippines, including Moroland, was morally questionable. But in this particular case, the facts that they were basing their outrage on were flawed. The press's reporters were stationed in Manilla, and simply didn't have a clear picture of what was going on. So they got creative. I feel the same way about the propagandaists who trumpted over this battle as I do about Michael Moore in present-day: I share their position, but I wince at their abuse of the truth.

Sorry to vent, but I suppose that demonstrates why somebody else should do the Aftermath section :-) crazyeddie 08:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Juramentado
I took a look over your sandbox. Such an article is on my list of things to do (after the Moro Rebellion article, an article on the Moro Province (probably just a cut-and-paste of the appropriate Rebellion article section for now), and maybe Second Bud Dajo). Vic Hurley's Swish of the Kris has the best passage on the juramentados that I've seen, including an in-depth description of the rituals involved and his views on how the practice violates the teachings of the Koran. Of course, Hurley is a bit iffy, definitely of the "little brown brothers" school. It's not that good of a history, but it's the only general history of the Rebellion that I've found so far. At any rate, it's worth a look over if you haven't done that already.

Armed outposts didn't do much to stop juramentados, since juramentados saw them as convenient targets - sort of a jihadist drive-through. It's a bit disconcerting to be attacked by someone who wants to die.

One tactic that Pershing tried to use to discourage Juramentados was to bury the corpse with a pig, on the theory that this would desecrate the body, preventing entry to paradise. Reports on the effectivness of this approach vary - some say it worked, while others say that the only people offended by this practice were some anti-imperalist/human rights groups back Stateside. I do remember reading that it earned one of the district governors the nickname of "The Pig."

Hurley does emphasize that amoks killed Muslims and non-Muslims alike, while juramentados only killed infidels (mostly Christans, of course, but perhaps "heathens" as well). It might be a good idea to better clarify this in the introduction.

I'm not sure that juramentado attacks inspired American brutallity so much as they confirmed the pre-existing "only good Indian is a dead Indian" mindset. There seems to be some indication in my readings that the American policy of religious toleration might have reduced juramentado attacks some, although this may just be pro-American propaganda. I hadn't heard about the issuing of shotguns, but it does make sense.

I've heard a rumor through a somewhat questionable source that in addition to being bound, juramentados were also drugged in order to help them withstand gunshot trauma. I haven't been able to confirm this, but that doesn't mean it isn't true...

Other than that, the language could be a bit more neutral, cut down on adjectives like "audacious," use "killing" instead of "murder" maybe. Just the facts, yada yada yada. This being the Wikipedia, there is a good chance of a modern-day juramentado or somebody whose grandpappy was killed by one happening by. Best way to avoid offense either way is to focus on the mechanics and the justifications without making judgements. But it's a good start, given it's a rough draft and all. I'll try to help out after I'm finished with the other articles. crazyeddie 20:13, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


 * <>


 * On reflection, I'm not so uneasy about "audacious" being positive as it is condescending. One of the things I don't like about Hurley's book is that there is this overtone of "yep, those Moros sure put up a good fight - for monkeys." As I try to put myself in the Moros shoes, I don't see juramentados as audacious so much as desperate. Brave, yes, in a more-balls-than-brains sort of way, and bold, perhaps, but not audacious. It seems to me that the juramentados have a lot in common with the kamikazes - a desperate last-ditch defense of the homeland against superior and seemingly demonic forces. (Of course, in the case of the Moros, that last-ditch lasted for 300 years...) The kamikazes also had a prepatory ritual, although not as elaborate as the juramentados, and I think the motivations might have been similar. Would we call the kamikazes audacious?


 * I don't think we have to worry about offending the American POV, since we are both fairly representive of it. I'm more worried about offending the Moro point of view. As I'm sure you're aware, there are modern-day Moro seperatist movements that trace their ideological lineage back to the warriors of the Moro Rebellion and the resistance against the Spanish. IIRC, some of them have websites in English, and it's probably only a matter of time before someone sympathetic to the juramentados happens across the Wikipedia. (Are you 100% sure that juramentado is an archaic term?) The danger of a revert war is bad enough without risking being targeted by an Al Qaeda affilate! :-) Ah, nothing like the Wikipedia to make you appreciate the diversity of humanity!


 * That's part of the reason I'm uneasy about the word "murder." While terrifying, I don't think we can put the juramentados in the same category as suicide bombers (althought they are probably on the same continium). As you point out, the juramentados were selective, while suicide bombers are inherently unselective. Come to think of it, I have never heard of a juramentado attacking a civilian. The closest I've heard about was that one officer was killed while taking his young daughter for a walk. It might be terrorism, used in the sense of an act intended to inspire terror, but many legitmate acts of war might qualify as well. It's homocide, but is it murder? Probably best to use "killing."


 * I'm also unsure of how much to tie the juramentados in with the Moro abilities in other areas of warfare. They were indeed great pirates and fierce warriors, but they probably were like that before the Spanish came. I'd imagine that your average Moro warrior had a better chance of being killed by another Moro than by a Spainard or an American. At most, the Spainards just put the final edge on them. It might be better to talk about their centuries-long feud with the Spanish rather than their warlike nature.


 * <<"The Real Glory" with Gary Cooper>>


 * Sounds like quite a trip. I've already caught myself tuning in what I think was a showing of Swiss Family Robinson and cheering on the "bad" guys. Incidently, what sources do you have on the Moros in general? Maybe I need to expand my research - I'm afraid of getting a bias from these biographies of American generals.


 * <<My introduction distinguishes the amuk who kills randomly, and the juramentado, who kills for specific religious reasons. In the introduction, that's exactly what needs be said. I believe the three paragraphs under "A Path to Paradise" will explain the Moro POV. The next two sections will show how non-Moros view and learn to fear the juramentado. In the last section "Legacy" I plan to briefly relate mag-sabil to beserks, amuks, and assassins--all humans who have committed to prepare themselves in some way for killing other humans.>>


 * The divisions sound about right. I'd suggest change the name of "Technology responds" to "Responses to the Juramentados." "The Moro Wars" also needs a better title, but I'm not sure of what to call it. As for the intro, I'd like to suggest just this change: "Unlike an amok (from the Malayan term for "out of control") who commits acts of random violence,..." to "Unlike an amok (from the Malayan term for "out of control") who commits acts of random violence against Muslims and non-Muslims alike,..."

That's all for now. crazyeddie 22:41, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Found an interesting tidbit: "In one instance, a juramentado received 14 wounds in five minutes, three of which penetrated his brain, and yet he fought on." crazyeddie 20:33, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Re: Assessment
You're welcome! It's always nice to see an article developing about some of the lesser-known—at least in the US—aspects of military history :-) Kirill Lokshin 02:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Moro Rebellion Done(ish)
I'm finished with the initial rough version of the Moro Rebellion article. Still needs a lot of polishing, but the raw material is now there. crazyeddie 22:15, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Mandate in Moroland, by Peter Gordon Gowing (1977, reprint 1983)

Joseph L. Schott in his book The Ordeal of Samar, published in 1964.

Najeeb Saleeby

http://www.msc.edu.ph/centennial/jolo.html


 * Najeeb Saleeby wrote something?!! Yeah, I've come across that name in my other sources. That would be a great source. I've been wanting to see something from the Moro perspective (contemporary, that is, not some MILF propaganda that's half-baked from old Anti-Imperalism League propaganda), and a Syrian Muslim might come close. Too bad he worked for Wood as the education superintendent, IIRC, damn collaborator ;-). On the other hand, I do remember something about him crossing swords with the Americans on certain issues, so might be a good third party perspective. Guess I'll have to read it and see. I've been slaking off myself, mostly due to lack of motivation. Those new sources might do something to get the juices flowing again.


 * I think I've spotted that link you have up above before, and I noticed something about it: "1901: Policy of Disarmanent implemented by Gen. Pershing met with resistance that culminated in the Battle of Bud Dajo on March 7, 1906." Methinks they were slightly off about that... Yet more motivation to get in gear and write that 2nd Bud Dajo article. crazyeddie 06:24, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject Newsletter - Issue IV - June 2006
The June 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Kirill Lokshin 06:06, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Re: Portals, resources, and such
Hmm, interesting question; I haven't really thought about this for a while (most of the work I do on Portal:War is rather more complicated than how most other portals function, so it probably doesn't serve as a good example for someone just starting off), but let's see if I can't come up with something.

(I am assuming, incidentally, that you did mean a portal, such as Portal:American Civil War, intended primarily for readers; if you were talking about something closer in nature to a WikiProject, then these comments obviously won't apply.)

Most (decent) portals these days consist of a number of core elements:


 * Introduction : Only needs to be written once, but may provoke controversy, depending on the wording. It's probably safest to pull a stable version of the lead section from your base article for this.
 * Selected article/Selected picture : These are generally set up in advance to rotate once per month or once per week, and don't require any significant input after that. Getting them together initially will take some time, though, particularly if you have to hunt for good articles and pictures to use.
 * Did you know : I don't know how feasible it will be to actually use new articles; how many tend to be created for ACW topics? If you don't use new articles, you can set this up in advance as well, but you'll need to find some interesting facts.
 * Things you can do : This'll need to be maintained by hand, but the rate at which you need to update things is mostly up to you. If you list a bunch of obscure articles that need to be created, for example, it's unlikely that the list will need to change all that often.  The task force may be able to help significantly with this.
 * Major topics/Categories : Set up once, mostly from the existing templates.
 * Miscellanous portal-related boxes : Set up once, mostly boilerplates.

Overall, I would guess that it may take you anywhere from a day to a week to set things up initially, depending on how fancy you want to get (and depending, also, on whether you want to replace existing inclusions of the big menu template with a link to the portal); but afterwards, it shouldn't be more than an hour a week (if even that), and most of that time would be devoted to updating the to-do list.

Hope that helps! If you have any other questions, please don't hesitate to ask. Kirill Lokshin 23:26, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Rather than having that template at the bottom of an article, you would replace it with, which would produce the box show at right.  It would be more compact, I think, than having the entire massive template on every related article. Kirill Lokshin 00:16, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Got Your Message
I got your message and yes, I'll help out.Jimmuldrow 00:57, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

If you mean Dr J, I know what you mean.Jimmuldrow 05:30, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Request for deletion of WP:PA
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AConfederate_States_of_America&diff=64991344&oldid=64991059 Thanks. --JimWae 06:50, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject Newsletter - Issue V - July 2006
The July 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot.

WikiProject Military history Coordinator Elections!
The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are looking to elect seven coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by August 11!

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot - 18:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

US Russian Alliance
Thanks BusterD for your encouragement, it was much needed in the wake of what Rjensen did. I am new to Wikipedia, about two weeks. I understand that we try to assume that everyone is well intentioned, so I am trying to keep that in mind. Rjensen not only laid into the article with that two page message, but also labeled it a hoax on both that page and the Civil War page. I think we can have the decency to say 'possible inaccurate information' until this matter is decided, hoax is definately very accusatory and labeling. Before the matter had been decided he completely removed the entry on the Civil War page and therefore the only page that had a link. At this point I think its probably just the three of us that are even concerned. I pointed out on the talk page of the article that none of his references listed any facts, only interpretations of authors which is less valid than the letters that I gave between the two heads of state. I asked that he either give refuting fact, or discredit my evidence, and then I will agree that the page should be removed. I feel that I will have to find these letters and post them on the article for this matter to be resolved. I don't know if that will be possible, but I will work on that. If I am not able to do that, I will acquiesce and let him delete the article, as I will not be able to compete with the yet unfounded 'fanboyish' actions of a senior member. I do appreciate your care in the matter, and would greatly appreciate any advice.

Thank you, --Thestevo 17:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi
Thank you for the information about the reversion rule. Rjensen looks like he's on the verge of breaking it all over the place and dragging everyone he can across the line with him. The hostility and stubbornness he's brought to the tariff section on the American Civil War is very unfortunate - to the degree that he, as one single person, seems to be stifling the work of dozens and dozens of other more cooperative personalities who are trying to improve it there without pushing some personal creed. Best, - Tradeeconomist

ACW Template

 * Yes, I totally understand. Actually after I changed the template I almost changed it back realizing that the Battle of Hartsville was just that, a battle and not a campaign.  It was however part of the Stones River Campaign.  My biggest concern was that when people click on the Stones River Campaign link in the template it brings them straight to the Battle of Stones River, skiping over the first battle which actually had a huge significance in Morgan's Raid.
 * Also, has there been any discussion of including Morgan's Raid on the template? Just curious, I guess it wasn't considered a campaign, although Morgan is included on the template.  Thanks!  Stubbleboy 19:32, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Good catch! I didn't notice that crossed link when I was checking link connections. Perhaps you might start a Campaign stub and build it up. I suspect you'd find lots of help. I know neither Hal or I object to worthy contributions, but the two of us have seen so much mucked up, we've drawn a (dotted) line which we monitor closely on this very visble nav box.
 * As to Morgan's Raid, I stopped at including Morgan. I have an informal "two click rule" which is "every major article should be no farther than two clicks from this template." BusterD 23:43, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes I'll have to start a new article for that campaign, sounds good. I still would like to see Morgan's Raid included, but at least you've included his name.  I plan on attending the Civil War  reinactment of the raid in September.  The link is here if you're interested.  I live in Columbus, so it's only about a 2 1/2 hour drive for me.  I went in 2003 and it was truely amazing.  Regards!  Stubbleboy 23:53, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election - vote phase!
The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will select seven coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of eleven candidates. Please vote here by August 26!

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot - 11:25, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Welcome!
 Welcome!

Hi, and welcome to the Biography WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of biographies.

A few features that you might find helpful:


 * The project has a monthly newsletter; it will normally be delivered as a link, but several other formats are available.

There are a variety of interesting things to do within the project; you're free to participate however much—or little—you like:


 * Starting some new articles? Our article structure tips outlines some things to include.
 * Want to know how good our articles are? The assessment department is working on rating the quality of every biography article in Wikipedia.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask another fellow member, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! plange 01:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar Thanks
Hey thanks for the barnstar. Regards Hossen27 08:37, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject Newsletter - Issue VI - August 2006
The August 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot -- 11:56, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the heads up re Jensen. I've had a set of protracted disagreements on Wiki before but that was literally the first time I compleltely lost my rag...and to be fair I don't really regret it. I'll keep an eye out for it in future and try not to let him get the better of me. He has his own set of curious agendas so it's a case of riding it out. So thanks for the info, it's appreciated. Iamlondon 02:36, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Admin coaching
Back in May, you signed up for admin coaching. You mentioned wanting to learn more about vandal fighting. If you just want to do that, I'd be happy to help you with it. If you want the 'full thing' let me know and I'll formally assign you a couple of coaches as soon as they become available. Petros471 21:34, 2 September 2006 (UTC) see User:BusterD/Admin coaching

Shortcuts
A few points you might find helpful: Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 03:08, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Shortcuts for portals begin with P: rather than WP:, resulting in something like P:ACW.
 * Changing the target of an existing shortcut is usually a bad idea, and isn't very polite.


 * Ah, it's ok; I just wanted to make sure that you were aware that (particularly if you happened to take a shortcut that was widely used) people would likely go ballistic. ;-)
 * Great work on the portal so far, incidentally. You might want to look at the alignment at the bottom, though; now that the to-do list is longer, the WikiProject box is sitting on top of a large gap. Kirill Lokshin 03:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Re: Portal
Mmm, quite nice. A few very obvious formatting faults, though: Kirill Lokshin 00:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * No archives!
 * The various image selections shouldn't use the thumbnails, since those force a default coloring that clashes with the background; it's better to use an inline image instead.
 * Maybe merge the list of WikiProjects into the "Things you can do" box?
 * The topic list is rather compressed; while that may have been necessary for a template that appeared on articles, we can probably adopt a looser layout here. That might be something to do after we've replaced the full template with portal on articles (assuming we're going to do that).


 * Thanks. It looks easy, so I'm sure I pushed an envelope or two. I'll add archives in a next stage before release, but I wanted to know if I was playing too much with format before I figured all that out. I'm not sure the requested articles list will be that long after a time. I'm going to whittle at it shortly, and hey, there's a new ACW task force mustering now, so I'm not so worried just yet. Topic list. I'm not 100% sure I understand the phrase in this context. Categories? Too many boxes? Is a portal supposed to fit in one screen without any scrolling? Feel free to adjust so I can see what you mean. BusterD 01:37, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Nope. My point was that the very rich colors and tightly packed links on the main topic list (American Civil War) probably aren't the most readable layout; now that we have more space, we can put a bit more spacing in. Kirill Lokshin 01:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we should take THAT valid talk to the ACW Menu Talk page, once we're closer to done here. I was researching some butternut and blue stuff on the portal/box-header but the colors need to be just right. I wanted Hal to give this page a glance at some point anyway before the public sees it.
 * One more thing. I am thinking about the best posible image so associate with the portal links (as opposed to the blue/pink map currently used). I think the best image is the Confederate Navy Jack. It's so visually easy to recognize, it's the obvious choice, yet its controversial nature makes it a troublesome one. BusterD 02:17, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Might be too controversial (and you'll hear no end of complaints about POV, I think); but the map was just something I found in a hurry to use when I created the task force field in the banner, so there's quite likely some better image available. Kirill Lokshin 02:25, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Portal feedback
Nice start. I'm sure you took a look at Portal/Guidelines. I noticed a few things: How often do you plan to update? &mdash; ERcheck (talk) 01:00, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * You have sections titled "Featured..." and some "Selected..." With the specific meaning of WP:Featured article, unless you plan to have only "Featured" articles in the "article" and "battle" boxes, I suggest you change those titles to "Selected".
 * Do you plan on having each of the main boxes updated regularly (with the exception of the Intro and Categories), etc.? For instance, do you plan to have new battle, map, weapon, and flag with each update?  These could be rotated through the "Selected article" box.
 * You might consider having only one image box &mdash; combining the photograph and the artist's rendering boxes.
 * Thanks for the speedy look and quick copyedit. Good call on the Featured vs. selected. I'll back those down, but FA is FA. Right now I'm scheduled through next March see talk. I do intend a monthly update, and will certainly need advise/help about how best to deal with archived content. I'm feeling four distinct image types, and I would think I could incporporate those four images into selected... boxes if I was clever/fortunate/resourceful. BusterD 01:46, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Other Feedback on Portal
Sorry for the late reply on this but I thought I'd throw in my two cents since you asked. The Portal looks great especially since it was just stood up. My only concerns are that I think you went a bit big. By that I mean when you first start your portal you have a ton of great ideas and and visions for what it is going to entail. You might have a few months worth of content already planned but it will become very difficult to keep the Portal updated with fresh material on a somewhat limited topic. I never really thought about how much effort it would take to maintain the thing at a decent level when I started one. After a few months you will become more discerning about what goes on the main page and you'll find that available articles, maps, etc, will become scarcer. Bottomline is that I think you may have a few too many sections and some of them might be better off merged giving you more content to choose from in the long run. This is just one man's opinion so take it for what it is worth. Again the Portal looks great, I will help out where I can and good luck with it. --Looper5920 00:36, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * As I was tinkering with this, I am starting to think the same thing re: too much to maintain with fresh material. As it stands, I have 7 FA's and a couple of good A class articles which could go FA over time (9 or so months of content with no repeats). 30 major battles on the menu, so that's no real problem. 35-40 states, depending on how picky one wants to get. Scores of good biographies with some real nuggets. I see a dozen or so weapons with good articles, and others which could be requested, built or improved. I'm thinking I'll focus on 4 separate image types. If I have to find, scan and upload 4 images a month, that will be a labor, but not so bad. Flags including regimentals? Thousands of public domain candidates. PD maps? Check. Artist's renderings, I see about a dozen really fine ones already available for use and lots pd available for upload.. Photographs from the LOC? No shortage there. So as far as historical subject matter which must by definition use material in cycles anyway, I think I can do ok with what Ive got, but may trim a few as you recommend. Thanks all three of you folks for nice and very helpful feedback. BusterD 00:59, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * And I was going to mention I've been watching the USMC portal for some time and can see why you guys have have done so much writing, and how you might come to the conclusions you've shared above. I totally respect your experiences and that's why I called on you gentlemen first. But I'm thinking that since ACW is a closed subject matter, pretty much, I'll endeavor to build to a certain scale, then we set up a rotating featured content setup similar to what Kirill is running at War. It's an encyclopedia, not a blog; it won't need to grow in every content area forever (that would be nigh impossible). At that point, we'll be working on the U.S. Navy or Mexican-American War portals or some such. BusterD 01:16, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:AIV
I noticed that you reverted an anonymous AOL editor here on the vandalism noticeboard. The vandal in question had been blocked and the IP editor was trying to help out by removing the expired information. Thanks, Nacon kantari  23:48, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Union Army Balloon Corps
I am the writer of record of the article an the UABC. I am gratified by a possible nomination to GA article. The Talk Page states that it will need inline references, but I am not sure what that really means. I see refs on other articles like footnotes, but all my references for this article are listed at the bottom of its page. Can you give me an example of what an inline ref would be or where it would need to be on this art? Thank you Magi Media 05:35, 11 September 2006 (UTC)Magi Media

Please see my latest edits! Magi Media 05:49, 14 September 2006 (UTC)Magi Media

btw: What is "tip of the kepi?"

Biography Newsletter September 2006
The September 2006 issue of the Biography WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. plange 00:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Do you like this ACW task force "Userbox"?
new ACW task force Userbox!

Fix Bayonets! 13:08, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Portals and navigation templates
Since you've done some work in regards to American Civil War and Portal:American Civil War, you'll probably be interested in this discussion. :-) Kirill Lokshin 02:17, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history Newsletter - Issue VII - September 2006
The September 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by Grafikbot - 18:54, 26 September 2006 (UTC)