User talk:Reubzz

Welcome!
Welcome to Wikipedia, Reubzz! I have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time. I just wanted to say hi and welcome you to Wikipedia! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on or by typing helpme at the bottom of this page. I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Oh yeah, I almost forgot, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or place helpme on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! DylanIloveYou (Talk) 02:30, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Introduction
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * How to write a great article

How to get started
Your welcome! Thanks for leaving a reply on my page, although it was hard for me to find your page again because you didn't sign your post. How do you sign a post? Simply add ~ after your posts and the reader can click on it and it will bring them right here to your page!

There are always opportunities on Wikipedia: you can welcome users, manage IRC boards, edit articles, reverse spam etc. I reverse spam and occasionally help out on IRC, welcoming users, and editing articles. If you want to reverse spam and vandalism there are several gadgets you can use on firefox to help you. Comment on my talk page if you need help finding anything! DylanIloveYou (Talk) 02:45, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

TOC
helpme How do I place a table of contents on a page, like for example, my talk page? Thanks!--Reubzz (talk) 22:28, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * A table of contents appears on any page with more than three section headings (thus this page currently has a TOC). You can force a TOC to appear on pages with less headings by placing either   or    (with two underscores on either side of the word). Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:31, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Haha, alright thanks! :) Reubzz (talk) 22:33, 5 November 2009 (UTC

Sup :D

RE: MedCab Beedle the Bard case
I can't help but feel like this is something that can be settled at the talk page. Thing is, there's only three people who have been part of this. I'm going to bring this up at WP:HP and see if we can't get to a consensus. Personally, I'd prefer to avoid having to take drastic steps like opening up a MedCab case. Thank you for your willingness to mediate. If we can't reach some consensus after about a week or so, then I guess we'll have no choice but to proceed with the case. I'd recommend keeping an eye on the situation though, just in case. Anakinjmt (talk) 00:46, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm also bringing this to WP:BOOK to hear things from their perspective. Anakinjmt (talk) 00:50, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm with Anakinjmt on this. MedCab does seem like a rather heavy step for something that could be settled outside. But at the same time, I'm not going to be contrarian, so I'll go along with it if it's what everyone else wants. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 02:13, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy to discuss on the WP:HP talk page. Thanks for being willing to mediate. Graemedavis (talk) 13:29, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry Reubzz, but after the last post by Graemedavis on the Beedle the Bard talk page, I can no longer continue along this avenue. I've made several suggestions on the talk page there, and if you could review them, that'd be great. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 23:22, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Reubzz, I've posted on the B the B talk page. Yes I'm content to discuss here through a mediation process, or on the B the B board. Whatever people want to do. Almost 1am here, so I'm done for this evening. Graemedavis (talk) 00:55, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Reubzz, let me ask you something. I mean absolutely no offense in asking this, but basically, you've been here exactly four days and seem to be editing all over the place. You were recently offered to be adopted by another user. Do you believe that your grasp of Wikipedia policy is sufficient to mediate this case? —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 23:19, 8 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I've started a subthread on the talk page about closing the MedCab case. Seven editors now have agreed that the book should not be included, and it seems like there's enough of a consensus that we can put this issue to rest. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 17:24, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Adoption
Greetings , I see you're up for adoption, and I'm in the market. If ever you need advice or answers, just ask me -- any question, any time. I'd like to help however I can. Happy editing - Draeco (talk) 19:16, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Mostly medicine; more info is on my userpage. - Draeco (talk) 17:58, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

re: Military history project
Hi! In order to join WikiProject Military history, all you need to do is add your name here. There are several different Task forces within the project that you can also join if you are interested in any of them, which focus on specialised areas of military history. For example, if you are interested in the First World War, you could join the World War I task force. You can edit any article you wish within the Project's scope, but there are several other support services available to editors. There is the Review Department where you can list articles for Peer Reviews and A-Class Reviews, or pitch in a hand and review them for other editors. There is the main Project talk page, where you can discuss things related to the Project, or disputes or announcements. We also have the Assessment Department, where you can list articles to be assessed up to B-Class, and the Contest Department where one can partake in a friendly monthly article development contest that aims at improving articles within the project's scope. These are just some examples of the services the Project offers. I'm glad to see another person interested in military history and joining the project. ;-) If you have any other questions, then do not hesitate to ask. Happy editing! :) Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:29, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of R (on the application of L) (FC) (Appellant) v. Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis (Respondent)


The article R (on the application of L) (FC) (Appellant) v. Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis (Respondent) has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * no evidence of notability

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing  will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. &mdash; RHaworth 07:04, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Classical warfare
Hi, Reubzz. I see you're getting a lot of things done, with vandalism reversion and some work at the Medcab. Keep up the good work! As for the Classical Warfare task force, generally the task forces can be used to help with coordinating work on articles, and it can be as much as you make of it. For instance, say you wanted to work on the Second Punic War article. It's a pretty large topic for just one editor to tackle, so you could post a notice on the task force talk page explaining what you plan to do (like, work on sourcing to meet Good Article requirements) and ask for help from any interested editors. You might also look through the members list to see if there are any editors who are interested in Roman history and drop them a line on their talk pages. An example of what task forces can do on a larger scale is WP:OMT, a project that 6 or so other editors and I are working on through the Maritime Warfare task force.

The Classical Warfare talk page has been pretty quiet lately, so there may not be many members who are currently active. As far as construction goes, you can just pick an article that interests you and start writing. One thing that might be useful is construction, which puts a notice on the top of the page to let other editors know you're working on an article. That will help with edit conflicts and the like. For getting assessments updated, you can post a request here to have it checked for the B-class checklist. Once it passes there, and you feel it meets Good Article requirements, you can nominate it here to be reviewed for GA status. From there, you can take it to WP:FAC to be considered for Featured Article status, or to A-class review at the military history project. I strongly recommend you go to A-class review before you go to FAC, as many of our editors are very familiar with FA requirements, and the A-class review can help you iron out the little details so that the FAC will go a lot smoother. At any point in time, you also can list an article for a peer review to get suggestions as to improve the article.

I can say that the more you work on articles, the better you'll get at writing. I've definitely seen a lot of improvement in my own writing in the time I've been working here. Feel free to ask me for help anytime, and happy editing! Parsecboy (talk) 17:23, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-11-08/fascism
Hi Reubzz. As you requested I have indicated my participation in the above mediation case on Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-11-08/fascism. I had already seen that the case had been created and made some comments on it. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:01, 8 November 2009 (UTC) Hey Reubzz, I Do --Franklinbe (talk) 19:21, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Test your World War I knowledge with the Henry Allingham International Contest!
As a member of the Military history WikiProject or World War I task force, you may be interested in competing in the Henry Allingham International Contest! The contest aims to improve article quality and member participation within the World War I task force. It will also be a step in preparing for Operation Great War Centennial, the project's commemorative effort for the World War I centenary.

If you would like to participate, please sign up by 11 November 2009, 00:00, when the first round is scheduled to begin! You can sign up here, read up on the rules here, and discuss the contest here! This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:23, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIV (October 2009)
The October 2009 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 has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:23, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

MedCab Blood+
Regarding Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2009-11-08/Blood%2B:

Where is the consensus the editors speak of? There are basically editors from the original discussion claiming there is already a consensus and then Collectonian maintaining that line when I re-raised the issue. But I still cannot find any discussion of the CN vs. AS issue in general. That was one of my main points -- if other editors are claiming a consensus over and over then they should be able to actually point too the discussion (or point me in enough of the right direction) to find the discussion. Note that they are claiming a consensus was reached in general regarding the issue, and using that to reaffirm using CN on this article. My contention is that no consensus was ever actually reached because no one claiming it was can (or is willing) to point me to it. That was one of the main reasons I submitted this -- e.g. maybe a neutral third party would come in and just say that someone should send me the link or tell me what project it was on so I can track it down. At best all I can find is a discussion on the scope of what some projects should cover that tangentially touches upon the CN vs. AS issue. Note that those projects do not necessarily cover the issues at all since a big topic was that those projects were only for original content, so Anime like Blood+ would not be covered -- that's what a lot of the discussion actually revolved around. So, again, where is the consensus? Is it permissible for editors to continue to hind behind "consensus" and refuse to even indicate where the consensus was reached when asked? How can I reopen the issue for discussion if I do not even know where the original occurred? Argel1200 (talk) 15:33, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Race and Intelligence
Regarding Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2009-11-12/Race_and_Intelligence, I accept your mediation. Thanks for volunteering to handle this! David.Kane (talk) 14:49, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Accept :) T34CH (talk) 16:23, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I accept the mediation. I hope a careful and judicious examination by an uninvolved party will help resolve the main points of conflict here. Thanks for volunteering. -- Aryaman (talk) 16:29, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

accept --DJ (talk) 18:36, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I accept also. I hope you'll look carefully at the issues involved, and at the viewpoints of the various editors contributing to this article, because I believe Ramdrake's summary of our various intentions to be somewhat inaccurate. --Captain Occam (talk) 18:51, 14 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Please remind Slrubenstein that he is not the mediator in this dispute. He has unilaterally created a new page titled "Opening Discussion" and moved one of my comments from another page along with his response to it. I feel like this is subverting the mediation process, as I was under the impression that formal discussion would not begin until all involved parties had signaled their readiness to participate, and that those discussions would begin with a fair and mediated presentation of the views involved. I would like my comments removed from this new page, as I did not consent to this move, and I do not feel it is fair to extract a comment from the middle of one discussion and paste it at the top of a new page as though to indicate that I initiated this discussion in this fashion. I would prefer if the mediator undertake this removal and remind Slrubenstein that he needs to WP:AGF in the mediation process. Thanks, -- Aryaman (talk) 19:23, 14 November 2009 (UTC)


 * A good decision, in my opinion. I will refrain from commenting any further on that page until the proceedings actually begin. Could you send a note to the usertalk pages when the time comes? Thanks, -- Aryaman (talk) 19:32, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Should we sign our agreement now? Or are we supposed to wait to sign until we have made our opening statement? -- Aryaman (talk) 20:53, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Mediation accepted.--Ramdrake (talk) 20:27, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Accept mediation. Wapondaponda (talk) 00:25, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

race and intelligenc
I accept, Slrubenstein  |  Talk 16:24, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Question on infoboxes
Is there a page or template for making a generic infobox. Somewhere on how to start one fresh?

Thanks! Reubzz (talk) 21:37, 14 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Hey. See Help:Infobox.   Ilyushka88   talk  21:45, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

groundrules
signed. Thanks for the heads-up, Slrubenstein  |  Talk 18:53, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

ANI notice
Hello,. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. GiantSnowman 23:22, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Report on disruption at WP:ANI
You have been editing WP for less than 2 weeks with a total of less than 500 edits. It was not appropriate for you, with such a tiny amount of namespace editing experience, top put yourself forward as a mediator. Not revealing your lack of experience to users was extremely disruptive and irresponsible. You may comment on the thread I have started on WP:ANI here. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 23:23, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I think Mathsci meant to say "NOT appropriate". You've volunteered to help out in an area where help is badly needed, and we know you meant well.  You have our gratitude, but it's an area which really calls for quite a lot more editing and on-wiki dispute resolution experience, especially for long-running, complex disputes like the one about race and intelligence.  Perhaps other medcab members could suggest some better ways to get started. 69.228.171.150 (talk) 23:39, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * This greatly upsets me. While it was deleted from my profile page, I noted there that I was a "snooper" around WP to get a sense of the structure, the rules, and the guidelines. With this understanding, and a real world series of expierence in matters resolving conflicts, I thought the Mediation Cabal would be the perfect thing to fit my interests. With this particular case, even with a low edit count, I have managed it efficently. I have already delved great amounts of time into this case. I have ready lengthy statements, reviewed long-winded debates that are achieved for many years, read online articles (off-WP) on the disputed subject, read lengthy statements, and read and analyized the relevant guidelines. So far, the case has been managed professionally. I have sent out notifications to the parties involved when deadlines were present, I have managed a process that so far has been civil and in good-faith, and I have even been able to (for the time being) make the disputed content on the page at issue stable.
 * With all due respect, what more can you ask for? I have done so much to prepare, I really think a low edit count is not a controlling issue in regards to this. I have managed the case with all professional ability I have. What more? Reubzz (talk) 00:09, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I just want to make sure you're not totally put off by this event. There has been a lot of disruption in the past at R&I by brand new accounts (usually just socks of blocked editors), so it's made us a bit paranoid. I think a fresh set of eyes, such as yours, can really help the situation, and the back-up of an experienced mediator will make sure this is a successful endeavor. T34CH (talk) 01:36, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Like T34CH said, it's gonna be a tough case, but I'm confident you can help.--Ramdrake (talk) 01:40, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Reubzz. For the record, I don't find your behavior inappropriate in the least. It takes guts to jump into a mess like this, and I think you have handled everything in a satisfactory manner so far. Don't be discouraged by some people's reaction to your having volunteered. Everyone who signed up was capable of researching your editing history beforehand - I did, and it didn't bother me at all. Actually, I was hoping that a fresh pair of eyes - both to the issue as well as to Wikipedia - might bring some sorely needed impartiality to the discussion. I hope you continue to mediate the discussion along with whomever else decides to assist. -- Aryaman (talk) 05:57, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

IRC?
Have it? :-) Xavexgoem (talk) 00:12, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Im afraid I'm on my iPhone and thus I am not presently able to access irc. If u need to contact me privately, I would be able to that likely later. Cheers! Reubzz (talk) 00:16, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I read u would like to comediate with me on the RI case. That would be helpful and welcome :) Reubzz (talk) 00:17, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. I would like to talk to you on IRC sometime, though... in the meantime, I'd lay low lest you're seen as climbing the Reichstag. Don't worry: you've done everything fine. Xavexgoem (talk) 00:27, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Mediation
No, I certainly don't think you tried to mislead us wilfully. However, as you probably know by now, this issue has been ongoing for three years now, and has involved a number of very experienced Wikipedia users, a few of whom are still watching the article. I will admit I was rather impressed on your familiarity with opening the mediation. Am I also correct in assuming that since you edit these articles, you also have experience with policy debates? If so, this will come in very handy in this particular mediation. :) --Ramdrake (talk) 01:54, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

history article
Nothing to do with mediating, but you might like the old article Can History be Open Source? (pdf) if you haven't seen it yet. It's about Wikipedia's history articles and how they are edited, from a history professor's prospective. 69.228.171.150 (talk) 03:26, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

CXer?
Just curious: Are you, by chance, an old CXer? I've seen that you have some interest in policy debate, and thought maybe you have competed as well. I was a long-time competitor and coach myself. (And thanks for removing that comment about 2NR being the hardest. Everyone knows the 1AR has the toughest job! lol) -- Aryaman (talk) 06:14, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Mediation
It seems your current framework is generating already a good deal of the conversation that quickly fills up the talk pages at Race & Intelligence. Is this growing faster than your ability to absorb it? You may want to let us know what limits you wish to set, just for this opening stage, so we know when to stop to give you time to read through and consider ...Slrubenstein  |  Talk 22:53, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I take issue with several claims made in Occam's latest statement. Where is the correct place to address these concerns?  T34CH (talk) 00:26, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Same question here, although I already answered after his statement. Please feel free to move to a more appropriate place as necessary.--00:31, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Reubzz, I am sure that everyone - like me - is just trying to "clarify" what we see as the issues in need of mediation, in good faith. But, without trying to push my own point of view, EVERY TIME we try to resolve the dispute, we just go in circles, and repeat the dispute. For example, my intention was to make two different kinds of comments: my account of the dispute, and my suggestion about how to go about resolving it. This does not sound like too much, but I am now embarassed by how much I have writen, at least in replying to other people'scomments on my remarks. I think it is perfectly reasonable for you to impose a cut-off. You already wrote that you will not respond to people right away because you need time to absorb it all, to give you time to digest what people have written. If people use this time (i.e. before you respond) to keep making comments, you will NEVER be able to absorb it all! I think it is perfectly reasonable to protect the page and ask for no more comments, unless you SPECIFICALLY ask for a specific clarification. Consult with the other mediator(s) if you wish, but I would not object to your doing this.

I DO think you can take that has happened on the talk page as a whole to be a good example of why we need mediation. I think everyone is trying to express their views in good faith, but cannot resist commenting on other people's views, and there is a lot of people talking past one another. This is when people are on their best behavior, since we all want to impress you with the reasonableness of our positions. Now imagine if we were not on our best behavior! That's where 70+ pages of archived sicussion comes from. And really, the editors involved have changed over the years. It is amazing how the kinds of comments, the syle of discussion, has not changed even though the names of the editors change. This is why I do not think the conflict can be addressed as a personal behavior conflict or a conflict between specific individuals.

I see one of two basic possibilities: either Race and intelligence is simply an article that, by its very nature, cannot exist on Wikipedia (because people following out content policies will never reach consensus on content) and it really should be replaced by three or four different, smaller articles that divide the problem up into managable chunks. OR, this article is the perfect test case for the current limits of our content policies, and demonstrate the need for a new content policy, or resvisions to our existing content policies, so that following our policies WILL eventually lead to consensus here as it has for many other controversial topics (incest and creationism/evolution are two good examples).

Anyway, I don't want to keep rambling. I think you have a right to say: "STOP - until I have a handle on all this and can come up with a new set of questions or propose principles" or whatever. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 09:10, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * In the same spirit is Slrubenstein's comment above (in which several very interesting points are made): Seeing as you've posted an announcement regarding a future "deadline" of sorts, I'm wondering if it's intended that we move forward with some of the concrete steps that have been suggested (such as compiling a list of literature) prior to that deadline, or whether you'd rather that we cool it until the date you set, at which time things like the literature list will be presented as part of the agenda. I'm not trying to rush you at all. If you need a breather (and I certainly wouldn't blame you for saying so - RL always comes first), just say so, and we can wait until you're ready to move forward. -- Aryaman (talk) 04:33, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I actually think Arya and I just had a misunderstanding or conflict that provides an excellent opportunity for the mediator to test his mediation skills. But aside from this little spark, I think it would be perfectly understandable for you to take several or more days to go over everything that has at this point be writtne (protect the page completely, for a while) until you have sorted out for yourself the best way to move forward.  If a mediator in part has to diagnose the real problem, at this point you have plenty of good data to analyze to make your diagnosis! Slrubenstein   |  Talk 21:35, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Race_and_intelligence
Could you please comment on this? Thanks. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 18:38, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I strongly object to Stevertigo's participation in the mediation. If he is let in, I am out. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 21:36, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * If you want to protect the page any admin would do it for you given that you are mediator and you have posted your intentions and instructions.


 * I would be happy to discuss anything involving the mediation on your mine or the mediation talk page. If you woud like to discuss matters not directly relating to the mediation, I'd rather you e-mailed me at slrubenstein at yahoo dot com Slrubenstein   |  Talk 22:11, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Understood - an email has been sent. Please send the reply to reubenlack1@gmail.com

Reubzz (talk) 22:35, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Issues for mediation
Whether or not I'm right in my suspicion (big word!) I would say that scope of the article should be discussed first. It should spare us a lot of grief.--Ramdrake (talk) 21:57, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Your suspicion has been seen now as true. Dang :) Reubzz (talk) 22:33, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * By the way, you can refer to me as Varoon, Varoon Arya, Arya, Aryaman or VA. I don't mind which. :) -- Aryaman (talk) 22:45, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Something that I think it’ll be very important to discuss at some point is how the article should be structured. I approve of DJ’s suggestion that it should be divided up based on the various lines of data and specific topics of dispute about this, rather than being grouped based on viewpoint.  Discussing the scope of the article first is fine with me, but the structure is probably what we should discuss next after that. --Captain Occam (talk) 05:24, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Varoon Arya

My list of "priorities":
 * 1) Scope: Should this article make necessary assumptions regarding the mainstream scientific view on the issue of "race" and focus on the results of psychometrics in relation to racial differences in IQ testing? If not, where should that discussion take place?
 * 2) Outline: Should this article be structured around specific pieces of literature, around particular viewpoints, or around the main issues involved in multiple sources?
 * 3) History: How can the discussion be presented in its proper historical context?

I think once we have those fundamental issues resolved, we can move forward. -- Aryaman (talk) 17:19, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Mathsci

I take a pragmatic point of view. Despite its inherent controversial nature because of the taboos linked with the topic, I hope the article can eventually become like more conventional wikipedia articles, if that is possible. Such a transformation happened with European people when it became Ethnic groups of Europe, after being rewritten from scratch by Dbachmann (not necessarily to everbody's taste). Since then, although there have minor hiccups with individual editors at the page as happens at larger articles like Europe, that article has been relatively stable.


 * Editing, as in all wikipedia articles, should be guided primarily by the sources.
 * The matter of rewriting the part on the hereditarian point of view should proceed a.s.a.p.
 * The article should be stabilized into an anodyne neutral version so that the talk page can no longer be used as a forum for open-ended discussion and debate. These discussions usually have very little to do with adding content to the encyclopedia, rapidly become personalized and are really only appropriate on off-wiki forums or blogs.

Mathsci (talk) 11:28, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Conflict at R&I
I do not remember every attempt at mediation. I think the best guide to the history is to see the record of page protection.

In the early years of the article, the "hereditarian" view was represented by User:Rikurzhen (who at one point changed his name to user:W. D. Hamilton and also user:WD RIK NEW). He, user:Ultramarine and user:Drummond and I were involved in ongoing conflicts in 2005, here is a page where Stertigo tried to mediate.

Later, user:Patrick0Moran became one of Rikurzhen's antagonists. on this page there is even discussion of seeking arbitration; Ed Poor upped the protection briefly in June 2005.

By August 2006 the principle opponent of Rikurzhen was user: JereKrischel, and user:Ramdrake became active, and again at one point the page was protected. I had long ago stopped participating, and returned to see that talk pages were hundreds of kbs, so I started an aggressive archiving campaign. There was also an RfC as an attempt to mediate the conflict see

here is a very serious attempt by editors to resolve disputes:

Another discussion about possible mediation.

Another time when the page was protected. I attempted to mediate the conflict (and failed )

Another revealing low-point in the page history. I think it was protected during this time, it may have ben in mediation. This was one of the few tims that people were explicitly discussing the charge of "racist science."

Another time when the page was protected. At this point, the two main interlocutors were user:Legalleft and User talk:TheRedPenOfDoom. Ramdrake and I were active as well as user:Jagz who was eventually banned. The page was protected, and I proposed my last failed attempt to mediate the dispute myself here

What is striking is that from 2005 to the present the same issues have been discussed and discussed and discussed. It is really astounding. But if you actually have time to read the archived talk I present here - all of it - you will have earned a PhD in the history of this article!! Slrubenstein  |  Talk 01:32, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

very few mediators have ever taken the time to do even this - look at maybe just ten "slices" of the history of the article talk, to see what arguments are new, and which ones keep getting rehashed. If you are wiling to force people to be patient, and take the time to read through this, you will quickly see what suggestions get introduced and dropped, versus which ones get bounced back and forth like a volleyball.

I think you have already been very successful on the mediation page you created, in getting people to zoom in on what they perceive to be the big problems. Reading these samples from the archives will give you a good, seasoned perspective. If you do this and if you are working with two more experienced mediators I'd say you have the best chance of anyone of actually resolving this dispute.

The topic is often in the news so I bet lots of high school students read this article and take it as authoritative; we have a responsibility to them to make it good. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 01:47, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm also hoping now you understand a bit better why some users were a bit iffy to let you mediate alone this particular dispute, considering you are fairly new to Wikipedia ways. Once you've gotten through this one, you'll have had a true "baptism of fire". :) .--Ramdrake (talk) 02:12, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I certainly can see the reasons in a better light :)
 * Cheers! --Reubzz (talk) 02:15, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, look on the bright side - I narrowed it down to only 9 archive pages - from a talk page that has over 70 archived talk pages - that I think gives you a good sense of how arguments have/have not changed during the life of the article, and what mediation attempts or informal attempts at compromise among editors were tried and failed. 8 pages isn't so bad! I think if Reubzz has patience, he can do it, and if he has the help fo a couple of others, as long as they are patient and willing to read through to archives to get a real sense of what the contents is - since this is a content dispute - mediation has a real chance of sucess now. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 12:24, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Mediation
Hi, I'm not going to have time to contribute to the race and intelligence mediation. Apologies. Fences &amp;  Windows  15:59, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Can we still not edit Race and intelligence?
Four different users who are uninvolved in the mediation process have edited the Race and intelligence article within the past day. I know you don’t want anyone to edit this article until the mediation discussion is finished, but I don’t think I’m going to be able to revert everyone’s efforts to edit it without edit warring.

I don’t think it works well for you to stop the mediation process for several days, yet continue to expect nobody to edit the article during that time. The original reason you didn’t want us editing the article was because it would interfere with the mediation discussion, but there’s no actual discussion going on right now. If the other users currently editing the article have looked at its discussion page, they’re most likely aware of this fact, and aren’t willing to refrain from editing the article because of a mediation process that isn’t currently underway.

I don’t want to let this happen. The article is supposed to be a community effort, but right now the members of the community who care most about this article are those who are involved in the mediation case, whom you’ve asked not to edit it. So now, the article is being indefinitely left to the members of the community who don’t care as much about this article as we do, while we can’t even discuss the changes they’re making. If this continues for much longer, I may not be willing to keep following your instructions to not edit the article or its talk page while we wait for you to reopen the mediation case. --Captain Occam (talk) 05:18, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, I would suggest fully protecting the article while mediation is underway until we're ready to bring discussed changes to it. This will prevent third parties from making changes we later need to revert or edit ourselves. So far, however it seems all changes were minor except one, which got reversed.--Ramdrake (talk) 15:26, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Normally I consider it anathema to block editors form editing, articles from being edited. But this article has ben a mss for over three years and I am concerned that small changes may be perceived as an issue by one or more sides to the dispute.  Given the chance for serious mediation, I would not object to a total protection of the page for a few days and then any condiutions set by the mediator until the issues at hand are mediated.  Let's focus on the real problems, with no distractions, until they are resolved - for once! Slrubenstein   |  Talk 22:13, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Ramdrake, they’re not listening to you and Mathsci; they’re just restoring their edits. One of them has brought this up on the talk page, but according to Reubzz we’re not supposed to post anything there.  And if we can’t reply, they’re going to consider their assertions unchallenged as long as we don’t.


 * Unless the people working on this article can get it protected, trying to revert all of their edits while not posting anything on the article talk page basically just amounts to an edit war. If an edit war is what some of the people working on this article have in mind here, I’m not interested in being part of that.  I’ll continue to participate in the mediation process whenever it reopens, but if other people are editing the article and posting about those edits on the article talk page, I’ll want to be able to discuss it there with them. --Captain Occam (talk) 07:18, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello there
Just to let you know that the mediation case is still waiting for you. I think it would be appreciated if you could at least let us know you're still active in the case. Regards, --Ramdrake (talk) 14:28, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Please reply to me within 3 days, and I will unprotect the talkpage. Thanks, Xavexgoem (talk) 18:45, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Removal of PROD from Jaikoz
Hello Reubzz, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Jaikoz has been removed. It was removed by Yappy2bhere with the following edit summary ' Removed "dated prod" tag; see discussion page '. Please consider discussing your concerns with Yappy2bhere before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 19:42, 27 November 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages) 19:42, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Ambox warning pn.svg An article that you have been involved in editing, Jaikoz, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/. Thank you.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. -- Explodicle (T/C) 17:35, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XIV (November 2009)
The November 2009 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 has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:37, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVI (December 2009)
The December 2009 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 has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 04:22, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVII (January 2010)
The January 2010 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 has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 04:35, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Nominations for the March 2010 Military history Project Coordinator elections now open!
The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 8 March 2010! More information on coordinatorship may be found on the coordinator academy course and in the responsibilities section on the coordinator page. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:15, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVIII (February 2010)
The February 2010 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 has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:09, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Coordinator elections have opened!
Voting for the Military history WikiProject coordinator elections has opened; all users are encouraged to participate in the elections. Voting will conclude 23:59 (UTC) on 28 March 2010. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:15, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIX (March 2010)
The March 2010 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 has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:29, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : L (April 2010)
The April 2010 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 has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:57, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LI (May 2010)
The May 2010 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 has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:36, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LII (June 2010)
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:33, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LIII (July 2010)
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:53, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

The Milhist election has started!
The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. You are cordially invited to help pick fourteen new coordinators from a pool of twenty candidates. This time round, the term has increased from six to twelve months so it is doubly important that you have your say! Please cast your vote here no later than 23:59 (UTC) on Tuesday, 28 September 2010.

With many thanks in advance for your participation from the coordinator team,  Roger Davies  talk 19:33, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LVI, October 2010
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:52, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LVII, November 2010
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 23:11, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Dacia
 Hi! From your edits, it looks like you might be interested in ancient Dacia. Would you like to join the WikiProject Dacia? It is a project aimed to better organize and improve the quality and accuracy of the articles related to these topics. We need help expanding and reviewing many articles, and we also need more images. Your input is welcomed! Thanks and best regards! --Codrin.B (talk) 05:39, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Volume LVIX, January 2011
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 16:35, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LX, February 2011
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:36, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXI, March 2011
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 04:33, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXII, April 2011
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 23:31, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXIII, May 2011
To begin or stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 23:24, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXIV, June 2011
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. BrownBot (talk) 23:50, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXV, July 2011
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. BrownBot (talk) 22:58, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXVI, August 2011
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 18:35, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXVII, September 2011
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 02:42, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXVIII, October 2011
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 08:41, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXIX, November 2011
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:03, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Military Historian of the Year
Nominations for the "Military Historian of the Year" for 2011 are now open. If you would like to nominate an editor for this award, please do so here. Voting will open on 22 January and run for seven days. Thanks! On behalf of the coordinators, Nick-D (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:15, 16 January 2012 (UTC) You were sent this message because you are a listed as a member of the Military history WikiProject.

The Bugle: Issue LXX, January 2012
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:36, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXI, February 2012
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 10:22, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXII, March 2012
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:35, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXIII, April 2012
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:37, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXIV, May 2012
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 15:18, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Military history coordinator election
The Military history WikiProject has started its 2012 project coordinator election process, where we will select a team of coordinators to organize the project over the coming year. If you would like to be considered as a candidate, please submit your nomination by 14 September. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact one of the current coordinators on their talk page. This message was delivered here because you are a member of the Military history WikiProject. – Military history coordinators (about the project • what coordinators do) 09:47, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

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

WikiProject Military history coordinator election
Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election, which will determine our coordinators for the next twelve months. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:07, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Nominations for the Military history Wikiproject's Historian and Newcomer of the Year Awards are now open!
The Military history Wikiproject has opened nominations for the Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year. Nominations will be accepted until 13 December at 23:59 GMT, with voting to begin at 0:00 GMT 14 December. The voting will conclude on 21 December. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:41, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

This message was accidentally sent using an incorrect mailing list, therefore this message is being resent using the correct list. As a result, some users may get this message twice; if so please discard. We apologize for the inconvenience.

Voting for the Military historian and Military newcomer of the year now open!
Nominations for the military historian of the year and military newcomer of the year have now closed, and voting for the candidates has officially opened. All project members are invited to cast there votes for the Military historian and Military newcomer of the year candidates before the elections close at 23:59 December 21st. For the coordinators,

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:33, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history coordinator election
Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 29 September. Yours, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:21, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Nominations for the Military history WikiProject historian and newcomer of the year awards now open!
On behalf of the Military history WikiProject's Coordinators, we would like to extend an invitation to nominate deserving editors for the 2015 Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year awards. The nomination period will run from 7 December to 23:59 13 December, with the election phase running from 14 December to 23:59 21 December. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:05, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election
Greetings from the Military history WikiProject! Elections for the Military history WikiProject Coordinators are currently underway, and as a member of the WikiProject you are cordially invited to take part by casting your vote(s) for the candidates on the election page. This year's election will conclude at 23:59 UTC 23 September. For the Coordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:01, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Voting for the Military history WikiProject Historian and Newcomer of the Year is ending soon!
Time is running out to voting for the Military Historian and Newcomer of the year! If you have not yet cast a vote, please consider doing so soon. The voting will end on 31 December at 23:59 UTC, with the presentation of the awards to the winners and runners up to occur on 1 January 2017. For the Military history WikiProject Coordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:01, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

This message was sent as a courtesy reminder to all active members of the Military History WikiProject.

March Madness 2017
G'day all, please be advised that throughout March 2017 the Military history Wikiproject is running its March Madness drive. This is a backlog drive that is focused on several key areas:


 * tagging and assessing articles that fall within the project's scope
 * updating the project's currently listed A-class articles to ensure their ongoing compliance with the listed criteria
 * creating articles that are listed as "requested" on the project's various task force pages or other lists of missing articles.

As with past Milhist drives, there are points awarded for working on articles in the targeted areas, with barnstars being awarded at the end for different levels of achievement.

The drive is open to all Wikipedians, not just members of the Military history project, although only work on articles that fall (broadly) within the military history scope will be considered eligible. More information can be found here for those that are interested, and members can sign up as participants at that page also.

The drive starts at 00:01 UTC on 1 March and runs until 23:59 UTC on 31 March 2017, so please sign up now.

For the Milhist co-ordinators. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) & MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:24, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

2017 Military history WikiProject Coordinator election
Greetings from the Military history WikiProject! Elections for the Military history WikiProject Coordinators are currently underway. As a member of the WikiProject you are cordially invited to take part by casting your vote(s) for the candidates on the election page. This year's election will conclude at 23:59 UTC 29 September. Thank you for your time. For the current tranche of Coordinators, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:39, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

2017 Military Historian of the Year and Newcomer of the Year nominations and voting
As we approach the end of the year, the Military History project is looking to recognise editors who have made a real difference. Each year we do this by bestowing two awards: the Military Historian of the Year and the Military History Newcomer of the Year. The co-ordinators invite all project members to get involved by nominating any editor they feel merits recognition for their contributions to the project. Nominations for both awards are open between 00:01 on 2 December 2017 and 23:59 on 15 December 2017. After this, a 14-day voting period will follow commencing at 00:01 on 16 December 2017. Nominations and voting will take place on the main project talkpage: here and here. Thank you for your time. For the co-ordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:35, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

User group for Military Historians
Greetings,

"Military history" is one of the most important subjects when speak of sum of all human knowledge. To support contributors interested in the area over various language Wikipedias, we intend to form a user group. It also provides a platform to share the best practices between military historians, and various military related projects on Wikipedias. An initial discussion was has been done between the coordinators and members of WikiProject Military History on English Wikipedia. Now this discussion has been taken to Meta-Wiki. Contributors intrested in the area of military history are requested to share their feedback and give suggestions at Talk:Discussion to incubate a user group for Wikipedia Military Historians.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:30, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

April 2021 WikiProject Military History Reviewing Drive
Hey y'all, the April 2021 WikiProject Military History Reviewing Drive begins at 00:01 UTC on April 1, 2021 and runs through 23:59 UTC on April 31, 2021. Points can be earned through reviewing articles on the AutoCheck report, reviewing articles listed at WP:MILHIST/ASSESS, reviewing MILHIST-tagged articles at WP:GAN or WP:FAC, and reviewing articles submitted at WP:MILHIST/ACR. Service awards and barnstars are given for set points thresholds, and the top three finishers will receive further awards. To participate, sign up at WikiProject_Military_History/April 2021 Reviewing Drive and create a worklist at WikiProject Military history/April 2021 Reviewing Drive/Worklists (examples are given). Further details can be found at the drive page. Questions can be asked at the drive talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:24, 31 March 2021 (UTC)