Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/February 2007

Tally edit
Candidate	Votes
Kirill Lokshin	68
Wandalstouring	39
LordAmeth	32
Carom	23
Kyriakos	23
Petercorless	23
FayssalF	19
ALR	17
AQu01rius	10
Hossen27	10
WangKon936	9
Shibumi2	7
Ineffable3000	4
Lmcelhiney	4
Dell970	2
John Wallace Rich	0
Kevin Kahle	0

Overview

The project coordinators are generally responsible for maintaining all of the procedural and administrative aspects of the project, and serve as the designated points-of-contact for procedural issues. They are not, however, endowed with any special executive powers.

The Lead Coordinator bears overall responsibility for coordinating the project; the Assistant Coordinators aid the Lead Coordinator and focus on specific areas that require special attention.

Responsibilities

From Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators:

The primary responsibility of the project coordinators is the maintenance and housekeeping work involved in keeping the project and its internal processes running smoothly; this includes a variety of tasks, such as keeping the announcement and open task lists updated, overseeing the assessment and review processes, managing the proposal and creation of task forces, and so forth. There is fairly little involved that couldn't theoretically be done by any other editor, of course—in only a few places, such as the A-Class review, have the coordinators been explicitly written into a process—but, since experience suggests that people tend to assume that someone else is doing whatever needs to be done, it has proven beneficial to formally delegate responsibility for this administrative work to a specified group.

The coordinators also have several additional roles. They serve as the project's designated points of contact, and are explicitly listed as people to whom questions can be directed in a variety of places around the project. In addition, they have (highly informal) roles in leading the drafting of project guidelines, overseeing the implementation of project decisions on issues like category schemes and template use, and helping to resolve disputes and keep discussions from becoming heated and unproductive.

Some more specific examples of day-to-day coordinator work can be found here.

Incumbents

Name	Position	Standing for re-election?
Dryzen (talk · contribs)	Assistant	No, due to time constraints
Grafikm_fr (talk · contribs)	Assistant
Kirill Lokshin (talk · contribs)	Lead	Yes
LordAmeth (talk · contribs)	Assistant	Yes
Nobunaga24 (talk · contribs)	Assistant	No, due to time constraints
Oldwindybear (talk · contribs)	Assistant	No, due to health problems, it has been an honor to help Kirill, and I urge his reelection
Wandalstouring (talk · contribs)	Assistant	Yes

More information on the history of the coordinator positions can be found here.

Election process

• The election will run for two weeks, starting at 00:00 (UTC) on February 12 and ending at 23:59 (UTC) on February 25.
• The election will be conducted using simple approval voting. Any member of the project may support as many of the candidates as they wish. The candidate with the highest number of endorsements will become the Lead Coordinator (provided he or she is willing to assume the post); the next six candidates will become Assistant Coordinators.

• Both project members and interested outside parties are encouraged to ask questions of the nominees or make general comments.

Candidates

ALR

ALR (talk · contribs)

I've been a member of the project for several months, and a member of the subordinate British element within it. My main interests are current military organisations, strategic thinking and methods, unconventional military activity and intelligence. My activities in WP tend to focus around enforcing rigour in articles, trying to combine the odd fragments and single sentences left by editors into coherent prose and ridding the unconventional activities articles of fanboy cruft based on comics and fan-fiction. In wider Wikipedia I'm involved in discussion around Reliability, verifiability and sourcing. I do have recent operational experience so am aware of how to represent the subject area in meaningful terms, although I avoid articles about operations I've been on.

As with FayssalF, it was suggested to me by Wandalstouring that I should consider running and I'm honoured that he feels that I would add value to the project. In terms of the co-ordination role which Kirill leads, and should continue to do so, I see myself mainly involved in the article grading process and providing some available expertise on substantiation.

I look forward to participating as an assistant co-ordinator should you see fit to support that.

Response to Askari Mark

In terms of my contribution to articles I've put quite a lot of work into various Royal Marines and Royal Navy articles, predominantly around their current C2 structure and strategic purpose. Of the two I think the more significant was on the RM article, although the history section there needs more work.

In the last week I've done quite a lot of work reducing POV on the recent fratricide inquest in the UK, by converting the article from a collection of news media cut and pastes into a reasonable representation of the event. Notwithstanding that I'm still not convinced of that particular articles notability but am keeping a weather eye on its future.

I hope that goes some way towards answering the question and if there is any more clarificaiton required I'd be happy to help.

ALR 12:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Response to Petercorless

I'll answer these in the round, rather than point by point, if you don't mind. The first thing I'd say is that I wouldn't consider any one type indicator in isolation, the MBTI categories are only crudely useful at the top level and the implications need to be considered in light of ones experiences and development. With that in mind I'd draw in my professional experience, with several years of military experience and a pair of COs postings under my belt I have a standard British military issue sense of humour and a staff officer style of writing; terse, results focussed and strategic. That leads me to be quite demanding in terms of content, evidence (or appreciation of the lack of) and linkage. I personally tend towards synthesis, which is something I need to keep in check from an encyclopedic perspective. My current work involves information strategies as well, so it tends to emphasise these aspects of my approach.

In terms of my interactions with others I acknowledge that the sense of humour is frequently lost on many contributors, less so in MilHist, who don't have exposure to the harsh realities of the type of work that we do. I say we because having been there it's a mark that never goes away. I probably come across to some as abrasive, so when I'm offering feedback I'll generally try to temper that a little. I don't believe that the tendency in some quarters of WP towards a love-in, huggy, sweetness and light culture is particularly healthy. I wouldn't say that is present here in MilHist but it is prevalent elsewhere. I do see a risk there for the more mature groupings of editors becoming isolated. From a content perspective that culture leads to bloated articles with a low signal to noise ratio.

Rather than expound on the theory of motivation and leadership I'll focus on what I see are the main issues; since this effort is mainly about the practicality of supporting the smooth running of the project. The main thing for encouraging alignment within the project is a clear vision of what we're trying to do. Once everyone understands the vision then effort in support of that is focussed. There are a number of areas in wider Wikipedia which do have an adverse impact and generate a risk to this project:

The pseudo-democratic process of content validation leaves the barrier to entry too low, that leads to participants in the project having to expand effort on articles which really shouldn't be here. It's challenging to write a meaningful article from a weak basis, and given the amount of effort available it means that other articles which would benefit from work don't get the level of investment they deserve.

At the other end of the scale the grading system can be quite brutal, many participants in that process show little consideration for the humanity of the editor on the other side of the screen. Within MilHist I think we deal with that well, the review process means that MilHist material put into the wider approval system has already been through a fairly thorough vetting process. It would be good to have more involvmenet in that, but again it takes up resource.

The relatively fluid nature of the content policy and guidelines is a concern. There is clear evidence of small groups of people seeking to elter the material to suit particular interpretations in content dispute. This has a wider effect as changes to policy may undermine effort made by editors, which becomes disheartening. I'm not a fan of special case rulesets for projects but baselined version which have a significant barrier to change would be useful.

The lack of a content strategy in WP as a whole is a concern and probably encompasses several of these points above. If a content strategy existed then the policy would fall out of it and content inclusion and exclusion decisions would be more rigorous.

In the context of my comments regarding boredom, mainly a sardonic observation on interaction which goes round in circles.

My comments about obnoxiousness are mainly related to a couple of instances of sock-farming and the relative difficulty in getting that dealt with.

I think that a lot of burnout is related to content dispute and difficulty and the reasonably weak response by Administrators. Too few admins actually engage with these issues, perhaps a reflection of the fluffy bunny culture alluded to above. A more robust approach to enforcing policy would assist in that.

I hope that clarifies some of what you're looking for.

ALR 10:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Response to Carptrash

I'm happy to contribute to organisations and roles which I've been involved in, since in general they can be reasonably substiated, however in Ops my own position carries an implicit POV. I'm also very conscious that my experience of an Op frequently doesn't sit well with the available material on that Op which meets the requirements of WP:RS. From a personal perspective it's easier to acknowledge that the core of WP is verifiability not truth and leave well alone.

In the sense of your question then I would tend to agree, I find many articles are made up of single lines, or even fragments, which don't hold together as a coherent whole. My experience helps me in drawing that set of points together into prose in a way which someone not involved, and therefore not understanding the subtlety, couldn't do.

The main principle which I apply is WP:COI, I don't think that it's a conflict to write about something I understand well having been associated with, but in terms of actual Ops then I feel that the COI pointer goes too far to be acceptable to me.

I hope that's some way towards what you're looking for and I'd be glad to amplify fuirther should you want to explore any particular area.

ALR 17:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Response to content related question from Carptrash

From a first cut I would question notability at present, the article makes no assertion of notability other than the occurence. So the first thing I'd be asking for is some published evidence of importance.

Clearly both WP:COI and WP:NOR would have some bearing on how to approach things. My interpretaion of COI isn't too strict so I wouldn't wish to prevent you writing on what's clearly a hobby. In terms of OR and reliability I'd be prepared to discuss unpublished sources as long as there was some way to demonstrate their authority. There is a lot of material which could be used but doesn't meet a strict interpretaion of the guidelines, ephemera, internal documents (regimental history for example) which are now available in public domain etc. I'd be expecting a fairly rigorous discussion of the situation though, drawing attention to the ephemeral nature of the evidence used to support the article and caveating the content. There are some who take a much harder line than this but I'm very conscious that WP brings people from all disciplines, not just academia!

I would not support the use of the archeologists markers as evidence and would await the publication of their results before it can be used.

If the detailed location of the site is not published then I would respect the wishes of the archeologist. There are many good reasons for not encouraging visits to sites where field research is not complete. Should the location be included in any subsequent publication of results then it can be sourced and included.

ALR 19:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Comments and questions for ALR

• I suggested ALR to run for coordinator because of his well-researched way of working and reliability. Wandalstouring 18:17, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
• Would you please identify some of your most notable contributions to WP:MILHIST? Askari Mark (Talk) 00:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• Questions from --Petercorless 21:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I've note in some of your postings you speak about almost being driven away by obnoxiousness and also citations of occasional boredom. What do you think is most important to avoid long-term burnout in Wikipedia?
  • You list yourself as INTJ in the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI). How does that affect or influence your working and communicating with others?
  • What elements of motivational theory do you believe are key to keep in mind for the Wikipedia military history community?
• Another question from -- Carptrash 16:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I found that this line from you jumped off the page at me. I avoid articles about operations I've been on. I am more and more inclined to believe that wikipedians SHOULD draw on their person experiences when writing here. Would you care to expand a bit on this?
• Yet another q: I have created a very short stub for the Battle of Cieneguilla and have put my questions here. I am going to ask this of all the candidates and would prefer your answer to be on the election page, here, though perhaps duplicating them on the talk page would be a good idea too. Carptrash 19:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Votes in support of ALR

1. Support for assistant Cheers — WilsBadKarma ^(Talk) 00:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
2. Support Carom 04:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
3. Support Wandalstouring 08:32, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
4. Support -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 14:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
5. Support for assistant--Dryzen 16:34, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
6. Support Arnoutf 13:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
7. Support — MrDolomite • Talk 14:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
8. Support --Mmx1 16:01, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
9. Support --Cla68 03:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
10. Support --XCalibre 10:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
11. Support --Carptrash 03:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
12. Support FrankDynan 05:10, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
13. Support. --Czj 07:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
14. Support - NDCompuGeek 14:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
15. --Pejman47 18:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
16. Support Secutor7 15:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
17. Support Tirronan 23:02, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

AQu01rius

AQu01rius (talk · contribs)

With the respect to Kirill, most of us are merely running for assistants :) I have been an active member of WP:MIL since July 2006, specialized in East Asian military history task forces (Japan, Korea and mostly China, as I'm a native Chinese). My experiences on WikiProjects (mainly China and Taiwan) should be an asset to me on maintainig WP:MIL pages.

There are various tasks in WP:MIL that needs to be done. Updating the announcements and completing the new open tasks to reduce the work load of the Lead Coordinator is one of the main focus. Enforcing the organizational guidelines to all military pages is also important. The main objective: to unify all military history articles in Wikipedia.

Comments and questions for AQu01rius

• How do you want to unify all milhist articles? Wandalstouring 14:08, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Fundamentally, enforcing the common MILHIST project banner in all appropriate articles. Then I will ensure the correct application of infobox on articles. Lastly, I will try to help on maintaining the Manual of Style of WP:MILT.

• Would you please identify some of your most notable contributions to WP:MILHIST?

Askari Mark (Talk) 00:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

All my contributions are listed under User:AQu01rius/Wikipedia. Most of them are history-related, if you read the articles I created. Some of the more lengthy articles that I have created includes Xinhai Revolution, Battle of Wuhan, Central Plains War, Liaoshen Campaign and etc.

• How do you think about guidelines, are they just that: a help for editors to build consistent articles within the project, but if an article only partially matches a guideline there should be room to deviate. Or do you think of guidelines as being the laws of the project that need to be enforced rigorously, whether the guideline fully applies to a situation or not. Arnoutf 13:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Guidelines should not be the "law" of the project, but the formal recommendation of certain style.

• Question

I have created a very short stub for the Battle of Cieneguilla and have put my questions here. I am going to ask this of all the candidates and would prefer your answer to be on the election page, though perhaps duplicating them on the talk page would be a good idea too. Carptrash 19:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Votes in support of AQu01rius

1. Support for assistant Cheers — WilsBadKarma ^(Talk) 00:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
2. Support -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 14:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
3. Support --Petercorless 21:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
4. Support Wikimachine 22:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
5. Did some wonderful work with WP:CHINA, no doubt can do the same for WP:MILHIST. -- 我♥中國 00:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
6. Support Asiaticus 02:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
7. Support --Cla68 03:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
8. Support Wandalstouring 20:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
9. Support -- wbfergus 13:37, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
10. Support -- Tirronan 23:05, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Carom

Carom (talk · contribs)

I've been a member of the project for about six months, now, specializing mainly in 20th century Europe, although I have other interests as well. My main involvement with the project proper has been in the assessment department, where I'm active in the in-house A-class assessment; I've also done a fair amount of drive-by article assessment as well. If anyone is overly curious, I'm also the maintainer of Portal:World War I (insofar as one person can be the "maintainer" in a collaborative project).

Generally speaking, I'd like to work on some more fine-tuning of the assessment process (both A-class and the new B-class standards, as well as anything else that might crop up). I'd also like to encourage the development of more military history - related portals, as I think they are an underutilized method of bringing a lot of wikicontent together in one place.

• Response to question by User:PocklingtonDan:

It's difficult to say how more editors might be induced to contribute to these particular efforts. They are well advertised, and people who follow the workings of the project should probably be aware of both by now. One possibility would be to update our welcome boilerplate to feature the peer and A-Class reviews more prominently, with the idea that new members (who actually read the boilerplate) will be aware of these processes from the beginning, and therefore perhaps more likely to participate in them in the future. Ultimately, as the project grows, so will the number of editors who contribute to the reviews, so the real solution may just be time.

I would also encourage all the coordinators to contribute as much as possible, as this will help increase the pool of reviewers. Carom 04:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• Response to question by User:Askari Mark:

My most notable contributions to the project itself are probably my participation in creating and refining the A-class review process. Obviously, this was a "team effort," and a lot of the legwork was done by Kirill, Wandalstouring, et al., but I think my participation was fairly significant. I also contributed to the recent changes in the naming convention for military units, and was fairly active (along with a number of other editors) in implementing the new coventions. Carom 04:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

• Response to questions by User:Petercorless:

1) I'm somewhat indifferent as to whether or not Serbia is included on the list of leaders. In my mind, it's really an artificial problem peculiar to Wikipedia, created by the need not to overflow infoboxes, etc., and not representative of any real-world historiographical debate that I'm aware of. In general, most of the information in the World War I portal was based on (if not cribbed directly from) the articles on the topic, and I simply assumed that what existed there represented a consensus viewpoint.

2) This question really goes beyond Wikipedia - viewing history as "blocks" is a deeply rooted cultural artifact. Portals are one way to overcome this on Wikipedia - while it might not be appropriate to link to the Pancho Villa expedition from the World War I article proper (due to the potential for an overload of links), a portal can accommodate a greater number of links without becoming bloated.

3) Well, I think that "inventing" sources, while truly an egregious breach of good faith, is ultimately not a real problem, at least in the case of military history articles. For the most part, an editor with access to a university library can obtain most books, and a librarian can, with a little work, get almost anything, so checking a source (or the existence thereof) is not necessarily problematic. And ultimately, if an editor can only produce one extremeley obscure source to support an argument, it's possible that argument (or piece of information) may not even warrant inclusion.

Hopefully those answers are useful to you, if you have further questions, please do ask. Carom 19:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

• Response to question by User:Carptrash:

If your own research is the only source for the information, and you have not published this information, I would say that this is the very definition of original research. However, if you have simply collected information generally available (and are not postulating any new thesis), your research is not "original," and doesn't come into conflict with this guideline. As to the second part of your question, I cannot think of any reason for Wikipedia to adhere to the requests of the National Park Service - if information is notable enough for inclusion, then it should be included, unless there is some kind of Office Action/Jimbo directive to a different effect. Carom 20:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Comments and questions for Carom

• I like your ideas. I would also urge for a better interaction of information. Wandalstouring 22:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• In my experience the article review processes are under-used in the sense that it seems very few people review articles in A-class and peer reviews. Have you any ideas for incorporating a process to encourage greater numbers of people to contribute reviews of articles? It seems this is an important part of wikipedia's collaborative effort but one that not enough people contribute to. - PocklingtonDan 06:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• I've always found Carom most helpful. Raymond Palmer 12:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• Would you please identify some of your most notable contributions to WP:MILHIST? Askari Mark (Talk) 00:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Questions from --Petercorless 22:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Looking over Portal:World War I, I noted Serbia was not described as a main combatant for the Allies, while Bulgaria was listed as one of the Central Powers. I took to add Serbia to the list. How do you feel about that as a change?
  • The Great War is often taken as a four-year block out of context, enshrined apart from the events of the preceeding and subsequent decades, other than perhaps how it eventually led to World War II. The portal does an admirable job of listing contemporaneous conflicts, yet even that list is partial (leaving out, for instance, the Pancho Villa Expedition). The page on the Causes of World War I leaves out a glaringly obvious mention of Irredentism. What are your thoughts to broadening the contextual understanding of the Great War?
  • You are an Assistant Librarian. In many cases, people have avoided citing print publication sources on Wikipedia, since they can be misconstrued or even blatantly invented by unethical editors without recourse to fact checking by others. How do feel about the obvious, verifiable (but often unprofessional or questionable) use of Internet/Web resources versus citation of inobvious, difficult-to-verify (but hopefully more professional and academic) print publications?

• Question

I have created a very short stub for the Battle of Cieneguilla and have put my questions here. I am going to ask this of all the candidates and would prefer your answer to be on the election page, though perhaps duplicating them on the talk page would be a good idea too. Carptrash 19:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Votes in support of Carom

1. Support for assistant. Kyriakos 05:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
2. Support. Hossen27 05:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
3. Support.--Looper5920 08:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
4. Support Wandalstouring 08:32, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
5. Support -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 14:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
6. Support for assistant--Dryzen 16:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
7. Support Carom has helped me extensively on some of the articles I've written (at least, written partially). From what I've witnessed Carom is dedicated and is a perfect candidate. JonCatalan 20:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
8. Support — Askari Mark (Talk) 03:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
9. Support - PocklingtonDan (talk) 12:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
10. Support --ScreaminEagle 18:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
11. Support — MrDolomite • Talk 14:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
12. Support - Mhaesen 15:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
13. Support - Underneath-it-All 15:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
14. Support--Cla68 04:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
15. Support Buckshot06 15:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
16. Support--Tristan benedict 02:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
17. Support -- Carptrash 02:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
18. Support -- wbfergus 13:33, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
19. Support Secutor7 15:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
20. SupportJFDunphy KC2QGM 01:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
21. SupportALR 19:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
22. Support – Harlsbottom 21:33, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
23. Support -- Tirronan 23:08, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Dell970

Dell970 (talk · contribs)

I am serving in the Canadian Forces and I am a history buff. I know all about Candian and Military history. I have been creating pages on Wiki and I love to expand the WP:MILHIST section on wiki. I have come along way from bing a n00b on Wiki to being a page creator that people look foward to reading my articles on the worlds armed forces. I am familiar with the projects rules and processes and what they do.

I haved help make the army helicopter section better. I am writing a page on Modern Warfare section about U.S MC snipers. I am improved the U.S amry page as some of the information was wrong. I am curently working onn the page about the Candian forces as it needs some fresh information!

Questions for me- In your own campaign brief above for this position, there are a number of grammatical, syntax and spelling errors. What is your background in writing? What three battles in Canadian history do you believe were most responsible for shaping the present nation? Which of the current military conflicts that Canada is engaged in today (either as combatant, peacekeeper, or peacemaker) are least understood and require the greatest attention?

Answers My spelling is not so good, that is why I am using a spell checker I downloaded. My backgorund in writing is good as I write webpages for people.

2. I think Canada's #1 battle for changing history would be the- Battle of the Plains of Abraham as it shaped the outcome of Canada so that the Brits won and freed us from the French

3. The Most Inportant Current Operation is the War On Terror in Afghanistan as we are help rebuild Afghanistan while rooting out the enemy.

About my book I have contacted the publisher and it turns out that their website crashed and some of the books were forgoten but they are working on putting it back on their website. Please Bear with me as it is going to be put back on.

What I want to do: I want to Maintain stuff, contribute ideas

Comments and questions for Dell970

• OK and what do you want to do? Maintain stuff, contribute ideas or create articles? Wandalstouring 18:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Just to expand on the above, could you list some contribs of yours in milhist admin, or creating/maintaining milhist articles? A milhist coordinator might find they had less time to contribute to their "own" articles and having to spend more time on admin, would this switch be ok with you? - PocklingtonDan 19:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• I would like to contribute ideas and/or create articles!! I know alot about Military history and Modern History because Im serving in the Canadian Forces. Dell970 14:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• Would you please identify some of your most notable contributions to WP:MILHIST? Askari Mark (Talk) 00:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Questions from --Petercorless 22:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  • In your own campaign brief above for this position, there are a number of grammatical, syntax and spelling errors. What is your background in writing?
  • What three battles in Canadian history do you believe were most responsible for shaping the present nation?
  • Which of the current military conflicts that Canada is engaged in today (either as combatant, peacekeeper, or peacemaker) are least understood and require the greatest attention?
• How do you think you will be able to help this project beyond the military history of Northern America (US and Canada)? Arnoutf 13:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Dell also mentioned to us that he is the author of A Guide to the World Armed Forces, published by Osprey in 2001. I was unable to find it on their website, however. --Habap 16:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

• Question

I have created a very short stub for the Battle of Cieneguilla and have put my questions here. I am going to ask this of all the candidates and would prefer your answer to be on the election page, though perhaps duplicating them on the talk page would be a good idea too. Carptrash 19:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

• What are you talking about Carp?? Iont seem to understand what you are saying.CF Captain Dell970 19:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Votes in support of Dell970

1. Support Bryson 00:16, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
2. Support Tirronan 23:10, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

FayssalF

FayssalF (talk · contribs)

First i have to thank Wandalstouring for their invitation to join these elections and the trust they've put on me. I also have to congratulate everyone involved in this project for their hard work and achievements.

I am an administrator and a member of the African military history task force where i worked on Military history of South Africa at its early stage. As an assistant coordinator, i'll make sure i help review articles in accordance with WP:NPOV, WP:RS, WP:V, WP:COPYRIGHT and report problems to the lead coordinator and my collegues in the project while making suggestions. I'll also try to involve other editors in the process by contacting them. I'll also be helping coordinate as best i can between this project from the inside and other areas of Wikipedia such as WP:PR to get better results and WP:DR when needed.

I believe strongly on team work and therefore i will be ready to help and coordinate w/ other assistant coordinators in their respective roles in the areas where they will be working on. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 12:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Comments and questions for FayssalF

• What is your plan on overcoming the under-representation of African and South American wars? --Ineffable3000 16:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I am an active participant at Wikipedia:Africa-related regional notice board. The participants are very active and very hard working folks. As an example, Maraba Coffee could become a FA within 3 weeks (between Sept. 19 and Oct.9). The same noticeboard served bringing more members to the African military project who have been working hard on many related articles.

On the other hand, I had coached User:Richardshusr (see User talk:Richardshusr/Admin coaching) a couple of months ago. This user is very active at South American wars and i'll be counting on his assistance and help on the project.

In brief, as you may note, i'd mainly rely on external assistance and involve many other editors in enhancing those areas in particular and the project in general. Note also that i focused on teamwork on my presentation above. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 17:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Well done. Although Maraba Coffee has little to do with the military history of Africa. --Ineffable3000 02:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Exactly and by that i wanted to emphasize on the value of teamwork. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 15:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• Give an example of an extremely esoteric article that it was extremely difficult to find information about. However, you took time; you went to the library; you looked in special journals to expand it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ineffable3000 (talk • contribs)

  I am not sure if the question is related to milhist. Please note that the only milhist article i created was Military reserve force and that was just a stub. I than helped Military history of South Africa as i mentioned above.

  If not then this question brings to my mind Location hypotheses of Atlantis. Back in August 2006, the article was just a collection of places w/ very few references and no references section at all. It was tagged both {{verify}} and {{NPOV}}. I considered it a shame that such an article didn't source its edits.I dedicated around a day to bring references to the article. The diff is shown here. Later i created Category:Atlantis. Now the category contains a dozen of Atlantis-related articles.

  Another article was Arabic music. It was a really poor article. The difference is that i had to dedicate more than a day to fix it. It took 4 days instead. It wasn't an easy task although i mainly relied on one prominent book. It still needs some work though.

  I also created Swahili literature. It took me 4 days of research as well.

  I've just created recently the PVLAS (Polarizzazione del Vuoto con LASer) article. That was a cool challenge due to its scientific nature though the article is still almost a stub.

  Sometimes, i'd just create a skeleton w/ a reference or two and wait for other contributors for help as it happened in Spanish architecture here. It looks as if this article is approaching a GA status. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 15:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• No experience with this user, but I think he has expertise in an area that needs expanding on wikipedia, and I also was impressed with his rational discussion of the inflammatory issues on Talk:Pontic_Greek_Genocide. - PocklingtonDan 11:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• this editor needs more time and more articles to prove his interest. Stillstudying 13:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• I supposed Fayssal to run for coordinator because I value his work, dedication and reliability. The number of articles produced by coordinators during the current term wasn't a very good indicator of their visible efforts as coordinators. With this in mind I consider that someone who isn't strictly editing milhist has a broader perspective but isn't always included in our who is who(Like me in the last election). Wandalstouring 14:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• I still feel this editor needs more experience. Not enough of the assistant coordinators from last time were encouraged to run this time. Those who did not toe the party line were certainly not encouraged to run again, and people like this, with no experience, are proposed to replace them. What a farce! Stillstudying 20:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Err, there are two incumbents who haven't stated whether or not they're running yet, and both of them have been encouraged to run; so I'm not sure what you're suggesting here. If you think you can be more persuasive, by all means try to convice people (incumbents or otherwise) to run! Kirill Lokshin 20:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
  • What party line? Wandalstouring 21:17, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
  • My choice of words was poor, so I apologize. But this editor I don't feel has enough experience. Stillstudying 15:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
• Questions from --Petercorless 22:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  • What are your thoughts regarding the regional coverage of Wikipedia for Africa? Which areas are in most need? Southern Africa? East Africa? Central? West? North Africa?

    As a member of the African milhist taskforce, i noted that i am interested in covering the Muslim military conquests in Africa mainly in North and West Africa (including Sahel region). -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 13:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Which military conflict on the continent has garnered your attention the most? What is compelling about it? Why would it be of key interest to a Wikipedia reader?

    Barbary Wars. This is a very critical conflict with many historical impacts on the region (i.e. friendship treaties signed, colonization, etc...). The coverage of these wars is very limited in Wikipedia. We must aknowledge that these wars marked and influenced relationships between European states of the time and the U.S.A. on one hand and between North African states and the West on the other hand. Let's not forget the implication of the Ottoman Empire as well. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 13:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Which century, other than the present 21st or the recent-past 20th Century, is of criticality for documentation on Wikipedia? What articles do you feel already cover that time period best, and what needs to yet be done to cover the period better?

    Late Middle Ages which were characterized by Medieval warfare. It is true that the area is well covered in general in Wikipedia but only little is achieved in relation with Africa in particular. We all know that during this period, weaponry and military tactics were extremely developed but we know little about the way such things developed in Africa. A good deal of work is needed. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 13:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

• Question

I have created a very short stub for the Battle of Cieneguilla and have put my questions here. I am going to ask this of all the candidates and would prefer your answer to be on the election page, though perhaps duplicating them on the talk page would be a good idea too. Carptrash 19:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I have expanded the article and maybe by doing that i've answered some of the questions raised at the article talk page. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 19:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Votes in support of FayssalF

1. Support for assistant Cheers — WilsBadKarma ^(Talk) 00:27, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
2. Support Wandalstouring 08:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
3. Support Hooray for CSB! LordAmeth 11:27, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
4. Support Proabivouac 11:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
5. Support — I like that he has supported two weakly covered areas, those of Africa, and through his mentoring, South America. The latter strikes me as a really effective way to build the Project and encourage new members. Askari Mark (Talk) 04:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
6. Support. Kyriakos 05:04, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
7. Support - good to see more attention for relatively underdeveloped parts Arnoutf 13:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
8. Support - Dan D. Ric 14:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
9. Support - Mhaesen 15:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
10. Support --Habap 16:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
11. Support --XCalibre 10:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
12. Support --Petercorless 13:15, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
13. Support --Lmcelhiney 19:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
14. Support --Carptrash 03:23, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
15. Support--Aldux 17:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
16. Support Secutor7 15:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
17. Support -- John Moore 309 12:59, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
18. Support ALR 19:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
19. Support Tirronan 23:11, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Hossen27

Hossen27 (talk · contribs)

I have after long deliberation decided to throw my hat into the ring for one of the positions for Assistant Coordinator. I have been a member of Wikipedia since November 2005 and have contributed to Military History related articles since then. I am a member of both the Australian and World War I taskforces and was part of the creation of the Australian taskforce which now has 19 members. My contributions are mainly related to Australia but I do venture out occasionally into other areas. My proudest achievement is the recently featured Military of Australia portal which I created and have made major contributions to. One of my goals is to increase the amount of non European ans US military history articles on Wikipedia especially concerning Australia.

I believe that this is the best run and most organised of all the WikiProjects on Wikipedia and would like to assist in making it better. I have in the past helped with the A-class nominations and assessing articles and intend to contribute to those areas more in the future. Thanks Hossen27 11:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Comments and questions for Hossen27

• Does Australia (I assume it includes Aotearoa/New Zealand and the other Pacific Islands) suffered from systemic bias because of a lack of interested and capable editors with internet access? Wandalstouring 18:26, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

• Answer to question from Wandalstouring I believe that Australia and the greater Oceania region does suffer from a level of systemic bias, though the lack of editors in the military history field is not down to a availability of the internet (in Australia and New Zealand). From conversations I have had with people interested in the field and the public at large I have come to the conclusion that Wikipedia is seen by the majority of Australian adults as an unreliable source. Though this view is shared by many all over the world I believe that it is much more prevalent in Australia than other western countries. There have been many times when I tell people I contribute to Wikipedia and they respond with why and what a waste of time or my favourite what is Wikipedia, there is a mind set in Australia about Wikipedia that must change before more interested and credible editors join up. I believe that this mind set is changing as more people learn about the process in place on Wikipedia to avoid false and unreliable contributions but the view has not changed enough to have an impact on the level of bias. Hossen27 01:42, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

So the problem are the usual worldwide bias towards wikipedia. Cheer up, you can hardly change that attitude, there are too many comedians and underpaid journalists out there who help people to get their official opinion of wikipedia. On the other hand you can always be surprised how many of them inform themselves via wikipedia. It's a bit like dildos. In most cultures a girl would never publicly admit having one, but in the Netherlands they sell them like bubblegum in every supermarket(not limited to the tourist areas). Wandalstouring 02:05, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• Questions from --Petercorless 20:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  • What perspective do you bring to ANZAC military history?
  • Which conflicts in Asia/Pacific do you believe are not covered well, if at all?
  • What major problems or issues do you think we need to tackle as a community of editors?

• Answer to question from Petercorless
  • Q1 - The perspective I bring to Anzac history is an Australian one and one that I do not believe is substantially different from that of other Australian editors. Though one factor that does alter my perspective is my age, I believe I am much younger than the other major Australian contributors. Therefore I have lived through only a small part of Australia's Military History and my perspective is affected by my reading more than by my own experiences.
  • Q2 - Unfortunately there is a large portions of the Asia/Pacific regions military history that is not covered well. One such area is the New Guinea campaign of WWII, this was a pivotal conflict in history and is extremely under covered. Though I will point out editors such as User:Cla68, User:Grant65 and User:Nick Dowling are doing their best to improve this.
  • Q3 - The main problems that community of Wikipedia faces is a major one and needs to be addressed. The issue is one of credibility and how Wikipedia is perceived by the wider world. I believe that Wikipedia will one day grow into the greatest free source of knowledge and information in the history of the planet, but this can not be reached until the widely held negative views are addressed. Another slightly less important issue is one of bias, the coverage of non American and European articles must be improved to an equal level. Hossen27 04:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

• Question

I have created a very short stub for the Battle of Cieneguilla and have put my questions here. I am going to ask this of all the candidates and would prefer your answer to be on the election page, though perhaps duplicating them on the talk page would be a good idea too. Carptrash 19:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Votes in support of Hossen27

1. Support Carom 04:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
2. Support Nick Dowling 07:43, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
3. Support --Looper5920 08:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
4. Support -- ScreaminEagle 18:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
5. Support--Cla68 03:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
6. Support - NDCompuGeek 14:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
7. Support Wandalstouring 20:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
8. Support JFDunphy KC2QGM 01:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
9. Support Grant | Talk 08:49, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
10. Support – Harlsbottom 21:41, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Ineffable3000

Ineffable3000 (talk · contribs)

I am highly interested in military history and I enjoy editing and reviewing Wikipedia pages on military pages. I work on military articles from all parts of the world, and from all time periods. Since I joined the Military history Wikiproject, I have became familiar with the project rules and processes and have even participated in some reform discussions. As a coordinator, I would help others review and fix articles. I would also help with sorting articles. I have access to many resources to make my dream a reality.

My current research interest is the Uruguayan Civil War but I mostly edit articles about individual battles. If elected, I would ensure that all main Wikipedia and WP:WARS policies are followed. I have done many other battles. Go to User:Ineffable3000 to view them. --Ineffable3000 16:38, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Comments and questions for Ineffable3000

• I have only seen Ineffable in the last month but in that month I have seen his dedication to the project and his willingness to take part in discussions. Good job so for, Ineffable. Kyriakos 22:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
• Very mild objection - only because, in contrast to several of the other candidates listed here, I have not encountered him before, which to my mind suggests less activity on the project. I accept that his not being an incumbent cooridinator may be the reason for this - PocklingtonDan 11:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• I, too, have only noticed his activity relatively recently, within the last few months, but he seems dedicated and passionate, and doing some excellent work on subjects that are somewhat outside the normal realm (e.g. Uruguayan Civil War, various battles of the Nanboku-chō period of Japan).LordAmeth 13:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
• Not enough experience. Stillstudying 20:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
• I very much like what he has done so far with Uruguayan Civil War (a poorly known event for norteamericanos but quite signal in South American history), but I tend to agree with the perspective that he's on his way to becoming a good candidate. I've been very active here for six months myself and don't yet feel I know enough about the in's and out's of Wikipedia to be a candidate myself. Askari Mark (Talk) 04:00, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
• I've been impressed with this user's involvement in the project over the short time he's been here, but I think he needs a little more time in grade before he takes on more responsibilities. Perhaps the next election would be a better time for him to run. --ScreaminEagle 19:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
• Questions from --Petercorless 21:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Looking over Battle of Bands, I noted the illustration is definitely post-medieval and ahistorical. Do you feel artistic but ahistorical illustrations help illuminate the article, or might they also cause teeth-grinding and conflict with purist historians?
    • I believe it is ok to use modern paintings of ancient rulers as long as it is explained in the article. I will be fixing the Battle of Bands article shortly. --Ineffable3000 23:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
  • You are in 12th Grade. How do you feel about the role of young people in Wikipedia?
    • A large portion of my school uses Wikipedia to do homework, and a few use it for recreational reading. I believe that Wikipedia has revolutionized research for many people. Teachers do not usually allow it to be used on papers but good Wikipedia articles have legitimate citations which can be followed and then cited. Most high schoolers editing Wikipedia are vandals, although a few of my friends helped me copy-edit articles (and others vandalized my article. lol) --Ineffable3000 23:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
  • What article caused you the greatest amount of back-and-forth debate with others? How did the situation ultimately resolve?
    • The question about Italian forces in the Uruguayan Civil War seems to be debated. It is still not resolved. I am doing research into it. --Ineffable3000 23:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

• Question

I have created a very short stub for the Battle of Cieneguilla and have put my questions here. I am going to ask this of all the candidates and would prefer your answer to be on the election page, though perhaps duplicating them on the talk page would be a good idea too. Carptrash 19:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I will answer your main question. Wikipedia is all about research. Read WP:OR. --Ineffable3000 23:59, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Votes in support of Ineffable3000

1. Support -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 14:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
2. Support -- --Bryson 00:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
3. Support --Petercorless 23:59, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
4. Support -- wbfergus 13:36, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

John Wallace Rich

John Wallace Rich (talk · contribs)

Yours truly would like to contribute to more articles and hopes to see things managed well at Wikipedia. Military history provides a personal, academic, and professional interest. Fellow members have already elected me to patriotic organizations or organizations for veterans, even to officer positions in them.

Though they vary on the type of membership, The Sons of the American Revolution (SAR), Sons of Union Veterans of the Civil War (SUVCW), and Sons of the American Legion (SAL) have welcomed me, as well as other organizations such as the American World War II Orphans Network (AWON). In SUVCW and SAL, fellow members also elected me Camp Guard and Squadron Historian respectively. Being a member of various groups provides a lot of "hands-on" stuff, including socializing with other members and veterans, importantly wounded-in-action ones as well, and it allows my participation in Veterans Day and other parades annually, sometimes in a Civil War and at least once so far in an informal SAL uniform.

I have attempted military-history classes at San Jose State but have completed only one so far. I have also re-applied for school and plan to return in the fall. However, I also did well enough in college English, at least for graduation requirements of a 4-year degree, as well as one graduate-level course in "generative syntax" in Spain through UMASS/Amherst, and I've taken other classes there and in other Spanish-speaking countries besides.

The USA KIA/DOW Family Foundation (USAKIA) also elected me its first president, where I helped found the organization. In addition, I have KIA in the family. My grandfather, John Wallace Rich, was KIA in 1944 just across the German border, and my cousin, Louis E. Bartning, was KIA in 1951 in Korea. John Wallace Rich 07:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Comments and questions for John Wallace Rich

• Hi. How would you address the balance of articles on wikipedia from a preponderance of articles dealing with eg US, British and European military history and the relative paucity of articles on the military of other states? - PocklingtonDan 08:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
• Do you have an idea how we could improve our constant lack of images? In many cases connections are helpful. Wandalstouring 17:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - This user is currently blocked for 3RR, block evasion, Meatpuppetry and personal attacks. pschemp | talk 14:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

• It seems from his talk page that his self-nom for the MILHIST coordinator is aimed at giving him greater legitimacy in an ongoing edit war, I'm not sure that's the best reason for candidacy. Still, it is only fair to hear his version of events here if he cares to post it after his block expires - PocklingtonDan 15:12, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

And a bit more info on his work in wikipedia and less unverifiable claims about possible jobs in rl. Wandalstouring 18:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

You may want to read his talk page and see how he deals with conflict. pschemp | talk 19:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

• This editor would be a terrible choice for assistant coordinator. Stillstudying 20:02, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comments from --Petercorless 23:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  • The user is presently blocked. Thus I will make comments rather than ask rhetorical questions. I am uncertain if he will ever be allowed back into the Wikipedia community, which is odd, since he seemed reasonable and the conversation turned objectionable.
  • I read over the Talk:Killed in action. I have to say I am rather disappointed in the level of disagreement reached over what I see as trivial differences. John, it seems to fell into the trap of making a continuing arguments based on an appeal to authority, which is a good way to get doomed in this environment. The ideas speak for themselves, generally. The best edit tends to stick, though you do have to defend your work at times.
  • This is the sort of contributor who likely needed intercession and coaching of what is good, better and most acceptable in the Wikipedia community. Rigidity seemed to have been his fatal flaw. I find it highly ironic that the article that got him banned was Killed in action. Fortunately, he is only a editorial casualty. Best wishes in other endeavours, John.
• Comment. Reading, Talk:Killed in action & the user's block log, I can only think this user would be a terrible choice.--Bryson 00:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

• Question

I have created a very short stub for the Battle of Cieneguilla and have put my questions here. I am going to ask this of all the candidates and would prefer your answer to be on the election page, though perhaps duplicating them on the talk page would be a good idea too. Carptrash 19:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Kevin Kahle

Kevin Kahle (talk · contribs)

Hi I love History and Guns! I have made a lot of gun articales including Ruger MP-9 I am good at doing resarch and try hard at all that I do! I have been here for a while and even got a firearms merit. Kevin Kahle 04:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Comments and questions for Kevin Kahle

• If you do get elected what tasks and jobs do you plan on helping out on? Kyriakos 04:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

• Question

I have created a very short stub for the Battle of Cieneguilla and have put my questions here. I am going to ask this of all the candidates and would prefer your answer to be on the election page, though perhaps duplicating them on the talk page would be a good idea too. Carptrash 19:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin

Kirill Lokshin (talk · contribs)

I've been the project's lead coordinator since the position was instituted last February; as such, I suspect that most people have formed some opinion of my performance in this regard. My own view is that I've been generally successful in keeping the project running; and I hope to continue doing so—in whatever role the project believes to be appropriate—for as long as my presence is considered useful. I welcome any questions or comments that anyone may have. Kirill Lokshin 00:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Comments and questions for Kirill Lokshin

• What can I say about Kirill than Kirill has done nothing but good for the project and has made it one of the best if not the best in Wikipedia. Hail, Kirill. Kyriakos 05:19, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
• I agree with Kyriakos. Kirill Lokshin is definitely a miracle in Wikiproject Military History. --Ineffable3000 21:44, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
• Definitely support Kirill's candidacy. Buckshot06 08:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
• Kirill is the work horse of the project without him it would not be where it is today. Hossen27 09:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
• It has been an honor to help Kirill, and I urge his reelection. I did what I could but health problems worsened in the last couple of months, and I feel we need someone who can devote time out of bed to the project. Kirill deserves reelection - he is a wonderful coordinator. old windy bear 01:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• I have absolutely no reservations in voting for Kirill to be re-elected - PocklingtonDan 11:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Kirill is the force that sets the project into motion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beit Or (talk • contribs) 13:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• I don't like to say nice words for other people, but this time I'll make an exception! Being one of the persons who maintain WP:GREECE, I felt the need to say a few words, because Kirill's work here has been a benchmark for all of us trying to establish, set in motion, and maintain other wikiprojects. He is the Pharos who show us the way with his devotion, and with his innovating initiatives in WP:MILHIST. He is also a model Wikipedian, who constitutes an expample for all of us: always there to offer guidance and advice, and still finding time to create some of our top-qualite articles around like Battle of Ceresole. I think that there is only one reason for not voting again Kirill: If we decide to shut down this project!--Yannismarou 15:24, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
• Kirill is the man in my view. I've worked a lot of history articles here, but I've been in a bunch of battles in the process, and once engaged I'm about as diplomatic as a Sherman Tank. Hail Caesar!Marky48 03:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

• Question

I have created a very short stub for the Battle of Cieneguilla and have put my questions here. I am going to ask this of all the candidates and would prefer your answer to be on the election page, though perhaps duplicating them on the talk page would be a good idea too. Carptrash 19:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, there are two somewhat related issues here:

• Articles—and particularly historical articles—need to be based on published information. While this has, in the past, been interpreted to include things like archived primary documents and other materials that, while available to the public, are not widely published, it cannot really be extended to on-site observations. (Images, however, are not really subject to WP:NOR in quite the same way; I suspect that you could, for example, include photographs of the markers in the article with no complaints.)
• The desires of archaeologists are rather a secondary concern to the above. If the exact location is available in published sources—even obscure ones—I would include it regardless; this does not appear to be a BLP issue or anything of that sort, and withholding information from the reader merely because someone else would prefer that it not appear is somewhat antithetical to the ideal behind Wikipedia. Conversely, if the location can't be sourced, then it really shouldn't appear in the article regardless of whether anyone wants it there or not.

Kirill Lokshin 19:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

• Question

What will you do (if anything) differently than has already been done to this project? Zazzer 03:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Mmm, the most significant thing would probably be trying to do better at keeping the assistant coordinators in the loop; Wandalstouring was correct when he mentioned that the coordinators weren't really very coordinated amongst themselves. ;-)

(As far as the project as a whole is concerned, I think we're mostly on the right track. We are, admittedly, moving more slowly in some areas than might be possible; but the general trend is overwhelmingly positive and quite productive.) Kirill Lokshin 03:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Votes in support of Kirill Lokshin

1. Support for lead. Kyriakos 00:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
2. Support for lead coordinator Cheers — WilsBadKarma ^(Talk) 00:06, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
3. Support for lead coordinator. There are few harder-working Wikipedians! Askari Mark (Talk) 00:39, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
4. Support for lead coordinator. — ERcheck (talk) 03:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
5. Support for lead coordinator. He is the straw that stirs the drink. old windy bear 04:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
6. Support Carom 04:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
7. Support. Hossen27 05:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
8. Support for lead coordinator. --Looper5920 08:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
9. Support Wandalstouring 08:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
10. Support - When I look around and see how few WikiProjects function as smoothly or actively as this one, I know that it's in large part due to Kirill's devotion. And to the rest of us working together. LordAmeth 11:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
11. Support for lead coordinator- PocklingtonDan (talk) 12:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
12. Support for lead coordinator. NDCompuGeek 12:50, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
13. Support for lead coordinator. Stillstudying 14:50, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
14. Support -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 14:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
15. Support for lead--Dryzen 16:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
16. Support for lead -- JonCatalan 20:16, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
17. Support for lead. Kiril is the Man!--Mike Searson 22:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
18. Support for lead. --Ineffable3000 01:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
19. Support for lead -- TomStar81 (Talk) 18:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
20. Support for lead again. --ScreaminEagle 18:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
21. Support big up you'self! --Petercorless 20:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
22. Support for lead Arnoutf 13:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
23. Support for lead -- Abel29a 13:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
24. Support -- Dan D. Ric 14:04, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
25. Support - very amable user. --Attilios 14:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
26. Support for lead coordinator. — MrDolomite • Talk 14:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
27. Support for lead coordinator. --MoRsE 14:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
28. Support for lead coordinator. Oberiko 15:04, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
29. Support for lead -- Mhaesen 15:12, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
30. Support for lead.--Yannismarou 15:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
31. Support for lead coordinator. Valentinian ^{T / C} 15:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
32. Support for lead. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{Walkie-talkie} 15:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
33. Support for lead - Underneath-it-All 15:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
34. Support for lead --Mmx1 16:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
35. Support for Lead. --PaxEquilibrium 16:08, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
36. Support for Lead. --Habap 16:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
37. Support for Lead. --Larry Dunn 18:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
38. Support for Lead. -- S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 19:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
39. Support for Lead. FOUR MORE YEARS!!!! Antimatter---talk--- 19:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
40. 〈REDVEЯS〉 19:39, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
41. Support --JVkamp 21:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
42. Support - Well duh of course! Spawn Man 23:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
43. Support for Lead Coordinator. —Squalla 23:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
44. Support for Lead Coordinator. There's no one like Kirill on Wikipedia. Period.UberCryxic 23:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
45. Si! Support el lead coordinator-for-life! -- 我♥中國 00:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
46. Support - Asiaticus 02:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
47. Support for lead coordinator--Cla68 04:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
48. Support for lead, no question about it. IZAK 05:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
49. Support for lead. Vyasa 07:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
50. Support for lead coordinator and Commander-in-Chief, WPMILHIST (that's USCINCWPMILHIST, by the way!!) Buckshot06 15:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
51. Support for Lead/CIC --Jpbrenna 17:15, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
52. Support --Carptrash 03:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
53. Support for lead coordinator. Beit Or 10:49, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
54. Support for lead.Proabivouac 10:51, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
55. Support for lead.--Aldux 17:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
56. Support for lead. Tristan benedict 02:10, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
57. Support for lead. Patar knight 03:04, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
58. Support for lead. wbfergus 13:32, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
59. Support for lead. --KalusK9 17:43, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
60. Support for lead. Secutor7 15:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
61. Support for lead. Sam D Ware 16:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
62. Support for lead. Raoulduke47 22:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
63. Support for lead. "It's better to have a vote and not need it, than need a vote and not have it." Shibumi2 23:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
64. Support for lead coordinator. We always need someone with experience to be the head of this project. Zazzer 03:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
65. Support - exemplary work as lead coordinator. John Moore 309 13:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
66. Support ALR 19:12, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
67. Support for lead. Grant | Talk 08:50, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
68. Support for lead coordinator. – Harlsbottom 21:35, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Kyriakos

Kyriakos (talk · contribs)

Hey everyone the name's Kyriakos. I have been part of WP:MILHIST since the 28th Feburary 2006. Since then I have taken part in discussion on the Project's talk page, assessed articles and A-class reviews. I am going for the role of assistant coordinator because I think I have the experience and decication help this project improve. As assistant coordinator I plan to assist the Project in every way possible. I will post a note on the talk page of the Project when a new A-class review has started and when a new peer review starts I will place a note at the peer reviews talk informing the member that there is a peer review under the task forces scope. I would also help welcome new members and if I see anyone that would help the project who is not already a member I would invite them. I would also like to state that I am the creator and maintainer of Portal:Military of Greece.

Thank you very much for taking the time to read my discussion and all the best. Kyriakos 04:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Comments and questions for Kyriakos

• I never had much experience with Kyriakos. But his Cretan War article is one of the best on Wikipedia. --Ineffable3000 21:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
• Mild Support. Again, not much experience with this user (although some), but I can add Roman-Spartan War tot he list of articles this user has been working to push towards FAC. - PocklingtonDan 11:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• mild support, his articles are good, but he has insufficient experience for this position - I wish Lord Ambeth and oldwindybear had stayed. Stillstudying 13:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Very good editor. Creating all the time new well-written articles, being an active member of this project, having created and maintaining the Portal:Military of Greece, always civil, polite, and with constructive opinions ... What else can I say?! I think he will be a gret help for Kirill.--Yannismarou 15:17, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

• Question

I have created a very short stub for the Battle of Cieneguilla and have put my questions here. I am going to ask this of all the candidates and would prefer your answer to be on the election page, though perhaps duplicating them on the talk page would be a good idea too. Carptrash 19:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Votes in support of Kyriakos

1. Support Carom 04:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
2. Support.--Looper5920 08:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
3. Support for assitant coordinator. Still gaining momentum.- PocklingtonDan (talk) 13:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
4. Support -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 14:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
5. Support for assistant. There are still (and always) things to learn but From your past dedication I think you'll do nicely.--Dryzen 16:31, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
6. Support — I think his work with assessment and A-class review give him a good perspective and experience for the kind of work expected from coordinators. Askari Mark (Talk) 04:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
7. Support Wandalstouring 11:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
8. Support --Petercorless 21:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
9. Support -- Dan D. Ric 14:04, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
10. Support -- MoRsE 14:52, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
11. Support.--Yannismarou 15:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
12. Support.-- Mhaesen 15:16, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
13. Support --TheFEARgod (Ч) 15:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
14. Support --Habap 16:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
15. Supportfor assistant --old windy bear 18:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
16. Support.-- Asiaticus 02:44, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
17. Support--Cla68 04:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
18. Support for assistant --Jpbrenna 17:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
19. Support--Aldux 17:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
20. Support--Tristan benedict 02:14, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
21. Support--Pudeo (Talk) 16:24, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
22. Support Secutor7 15:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
23. SupportJFDunphy KC2QGM 01:14, 22 February 2007

Lmcelhiney

Lmcelhiney (talk · contribs)

I am a recent member of this project, but a longtime student of Military History. I served in the USAF during Vietnam. I was stationed in The Netherlands for 3 years in the late 1960s and spent countless hours researching history on-site. The Siege of Maastricht, Vauban, Fort Eben-Emael, Operation Market Garden, Meuse-Argonne Offensive, Maginot Line, Siegfried Line, Bastogne, Ardennes offensive, Malmedy massacre, St. Vith, etc. were all within my normal range of travel and purview. In addition, I have travelled to South Africa to visit sites of the Xhosa Wars and the Khoikhoi-Dutch Wars. I have reviewed and provided editorial input to some of these articles as well, as well as 100s of others. I have worked as a quality professional for over 30 years and have significant skill in the areas of editing and technical writing (policy and procedure), which I have brought to WikiPedia. I have done a lot of Recent Changes editing and vandal patrolling during my time here. I have always done my best to establish NPOV in the articles with which I have worked. I have stepped in to try to mediate several small edit wars and achieved some success. I look forward with excitement to having the opportunity to serve this group in any way that I can.

Comments and questions for Lmcelhiney

• Were you a professional researcher on military history or a qualified soldier with an interest in the topic? I'm a bit confused. Wandalstouring 17:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry that I didn't make that clear--I was just trying to keep from writing an "article". I was in the USAF, stationed with NATO in The Netherlands. As my job was on a Mobile Maintenance Team, I lived in Maastricht and had the opportunity to visit 6 radio sites in The Netherlands, Belgium and Germany, as well as travel through France and Luxemburg for logistical support. Since I already had an interest in the military battlefields of Europe, this became the perfect opportunity to learn about these actions on site. I worked 8x24-hours days each month, so I had a large amount of time to pursue these interests. In the Provincial Archives in Maastricht, I was able to view and photograph original original campaign maps as marked up by Vauban's engineers. I hope that this answers your query. Lmcelhiney 18:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

• Questions from --Petercorless 21:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I looked through your recent past changes, and saw a lot more on Payton Manning, Rex Martin and The Bob & Tom Show than, say, George S. Patton, John Pershing or Romulus and Remus. What are your current interests and contributions in military history?

As I had mentioned, earlier, I am newly involved with this project, so I do not have the contributions in depth in this area. I am closely associated wih the Bob and Tom Show, so have been moderating their articles for several months (including Rex Martin). Obviously, being fom Indianapolis, makes me want to keep the Peyton Manning article fair and correct. I have done a number of edits on the Seige of Maastricht in the recent past. My skillset keeps me focused more to the administrative aspects of WikiPedia, unfortunately.

• • What are the emerging and ongoing global conflicts you feel it is most vital to keep the Wikipedia community focused on covering?

I believe that, until there is the emergence of new globally-dominant powers, such as the former Soviet Union, there will be a significant activity in the bush-war-type of conflict. As there is more support form emerging nuclear nations (such as Iran and N. Korea), there will be more bullying by countries like Venezuela and Nicarauga in the Americas. The African continent is a hotbed of militias and dictatorships with lots of Socialist activities (Namibia, Zimbabwe, Angola, Congo, and potentially even South Africa (as potentially the largest money and arms supplier in Africa). In addition, piracy on the high seas will continue to run rampant as long as there are no longer strong national navies as in past.

• • As a former member of the USAF having worked with NATO, what elements of post-World War II European military history do you think Wikipedia can help illuminate better?

The nuclear developments of the post-WWII era are the "big stick" these allow even smaller countries or terrorists to have the power to intimiate and direct weaker or mor pacific nations. The developing military strength of Islam is a cruciual concern and Indonesia, one of the fastest-growing Muslim nations could indicate, could become a stong player in ASEAN militancy, even potentially overshadowing the weakened ANZUS alliance. The limited military presence of the US in SEA is an area that changes the balance of power in the region. The are areas which need both current history and the development of the post-WWII audit trails.

Lmcelhiney 19:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

• Question

I have created a very short stub for the Battle of Cieneguilla and have put my questions here. I am going to ask this of all the candidates and would prefer your answer to be on the election page, though perhaps duplicating them on the talk page would be a good idea too. Carptrash 19:39, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

• [www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1106457/posts "A LOSING BATTLE" Newspaper Article]
• National Park Service - Battlefield Update (Contact information for Archeologist)
• Several links and contact information
• {http://h.whyville.net/smmk/whytimes/article?id=4660 Reference to a History Channel offering]

Found within top 5 response on a Google search for "Battle of Cieneguilla" Lmcelhiney 20:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Votes in support of Lmcelhiney

1. Support -- ScreaminEagle 18:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
2. Support -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 12:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
3. Support - NDCompuGeek 15:00, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
4. Support - I've worked with him on other non-wiki projects, and found him to be conscientious and dependable. --Elonka 19:02, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

LordAmeth

LordAmeth (talk · contribs)

I've been happy to serve as Asst Coordinator for the last six months or so, and will gladly serve again. I admit that I have not been particularly active in organizing things on the site, managing infoboxes, or any of these somewhat more technical or day-to-day things. But I have made a habit of contributing to A-class nomination discussions, have assessed a great many articles, and contributed fairly frequently I think to various discussions throughout the project. I hope that my contributions have been considered "sufficient" for what is expected of an Asst Coordinator - for me, I'm happy to contribute in what ways I can, and in particular, I've gained a fair bit of visibility, as I had hoped.

Over the course of the last six months, we've refined I think the description of expectations or responsibilities for Coordinators, but (writing this without even looking at that list) I continue to see myself treating the position as more of a general leader and "coordinator" of the members and the projects, perhaps moreso than as holding technical maintenance-type responsibilities. I enjoy welcoming new users and helping people get started, helping editors know the WP:MOS standards, infoboxoes or other elements like that, and sharing my passion and (albeit quite geographically limited) knowledge of history. Whether I end up staying as AsstCoord or not, I encourage people to come to me with their questions or concerns.

If others desire the position, and intend to be more active than, admittedly, I have been, in terms of the technical elements and the day-to-day maintenance type stuff, that's perfectly fine with me; I'd be happy to pass on the torch, and to just continue doing the same I've always been doing, Asst Coord or not. I'm glad to be a part of such an active and passionate/involved group of people, and to have gained some visibility and recognition within this wonderfully large group. Cheers, all. LordAmeth 17:40, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Comments and questions for LordAmeth

• Would be a shame if all assistants were technocrats. We may although try to improve the incorporation of individual abilities. This didn't work that good during our current office. Personally, I consider you quite an enrichment to our group. Wandalstouring 20:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• Glad you are staying, wish oldwindybear had stayed also. Stillstudying 13:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

• Question

I have created a very short stub for the Battle of Cieneguilla and have put my questions here. I am going to ask this of all the candidates and would prefer your answer to be on the election page, though perhaps duplicating them on the talk page would be a good idea too. Carptrash 19:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I am taking it upon myself to copy this candidate's answer to my questions and add them here. Carptrash 22:49, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, sorry. Right. Thanks, friend. LordAmeth 09:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I could be misinterpreting the purpose of this exercise, but as it appears to be something of a test towards our opinions and approaches as asst coordinators, I'm responding w/o reading anyone else's responses. -- (1) I think that if you have access to actual research data or results, even unpublished, it's fine to use here on Wikipedia, as it's produced by professional archaeologists & researchers, and reflects the truthful, accurate results of their research even if it's not officially published. If, however, you've simply found the site and are essentially interpreting it yourself based on what you've found, then I would advise against pursuing it unless you're a professional. Using unpublished research produced by professionals is not original research, but interpreting the site on your own is. (2) I couldn't care less what The Government wants, but I have a great respect for archaeologists and researchers - if they do not want their site invaded, trampled, or otherwise disturbed by visitors or tourists, then I think we owe them our cooperation in not revealing its precise location. LordAmeth 11:51, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Votes in support of LordAmeth

1. Support for assistant Cheers — WilsBadKarma ^(Talk) 00:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
2. Support Carom 04:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
3. Support. Hossen27 05:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
4. Support --Looper5920 08:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
5. Support Wandalstouring 08:34, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
6. Support for assistant coordinator. Stillstudying 14:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
7. Support -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 14:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
8. Support for assistant--Dryzen 16:31, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
9. Support old windy bear 02:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
10. Support — Askari Mark (Talk) 02:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
11. Support -- ScreaminEagle 18:54, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
12. Support --Petercorless 20:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
13. SUpport. Kyriakos 10:08, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
14. Support -- Dan D. Ric 14:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
15. Support — MrDolomite • Talk 14:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
16. Support -- MoRsE 14:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
17. Support -- Mhaesen 15:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
18. Support - Underneath-it-All 15:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
19. Support --Mmx1 16:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
20. Support Wikimachine 22:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
21. Support - For ass. Nice guy all round, not too self important. Spawn Man 23:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
22. Support - Asiaticus 02:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
23. Support--Cla68 04:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
24. Support --Lmcelhiney 20:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
25. Support - NDCompuGeek 14:41, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
26. Support--Aldux 17:10, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
27. Thumbs up --Kuuzo 08:10, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
28. Support -- wbfergus 13:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
29. Support -- Carptrash 22:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
30. Support Secutor7 15:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
31. Support for second assistant. Excellent commentary and insights on many articles. Shibumi2 23:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
32. Support for assistant – Harlsbottom 21:36, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Petercorless

Petercorless (talk · contribs)

Hello! I am a late entry into the running. However, after having gotten myself involved in a fair few articles, I thought it best to formally toss my hat into the ring. I became heavily involved in editing Wikipedia in December 2006 with the advent of the War in Somalia (2006–present). See my User page for more articles I've originated or helped edit, and the maps I created for the Somali conflict. Also feel free to check out the community recognition I've garnered. Most recently, United States Africa Command was chosen for a "Did you know?" article on February 11, 2007.

My present aim is to focus on modern conflicts, mainly independence, insurgency and irredentist movements, as well as issues of ethnic and religious extremism and terrorism. While many long-past conflicts can be written about "safely," current or recent conflicts all-too-often evoke strong emotions from the parties involved and their partisan public audiences and editors, and these conflicts can be exacerbated by a lack of understanding or sympathy by outside commentators. My hope is to be able to help steer us through those rough patches, to arbitrate some of the resultant editing conflicts, to put "stakes in the ground" to maintain the integrity of Wikipedia articles, and help look out for the sanity of harried contributors.

When not covering modern conflicts, I like to spend time researching European and especially British medieval history, from Celtic and Roman Britain, passing through Anglo-Saxon and Norman England through to Hundred Years War and the War of the Roses. Hopefully I'll have more time to look over those more as time unfolds.

I hope you choose to support me, and I pledge to provide leadership, friendship, and service to the Wikipedia military history community.

Onwards to adventure!

--Petercorless 14:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Comments and questions for Petercorless

• Though seemingly not a very experienced editor, you seem to have your head on straight, and have done rather extensive and high-quality work on ethnic conflicts around the world, in particular the current war in Somalia. I applaud your efforts to cover these controversial and highly pertinent topics. What do you intend to do as asst coordinator? That is, what sort of asst coordinator do you intend to be, and what kinds of changes or improvements do you see as your top priorities? Thank you. LordAmeth 15:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Thank you very much, LordAmeth! You hit the nail on the head: what separates an active individual contributor from an Assistant Coordinator? Mostly it has to do with process, rather than product. While I will continue to produce articles, I'd also think the following would be desired activities of a good AC:
    • Socialize desired changes and set new directions - Such as the {{Template:Infobox_War_Faction}} which I originally pioneered for the Islamic Courts Union article for the Somali Civil War, and which then must credit Kirill Lokshin for taking over to "make swell." I had an idea and did a quick-first-cut, and he had a better grasp of the guts of Wiki's template system. Perfect example of collaboration. Now, we can socialize this to editors for other related conflicts to get a common look-and-feel for how we treat civil war factions and insurrection movements. Establish teamwork.
    • Stir pots and sweep dust bunnies - Periodically check-in with other contributors to sub-projects, such as the Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/African military history task force to see where they are having barriers and resistance. The virtual dust bunnies are also piling up on some projects that haven't been attended to in months or years. Looking at the Military history of Africa, especially the heavily-red template at the bottom, you can see there's a big list of things-to-do, even if it would simply be to stub out some articles or put in redirects to sections of other articles related to the country. Looking at the African military history task force page, you can also see there's already many stubs and not many A-class articles. We need to check and match what-needs-to-be-done with the limited pool of eager volunteers, and keep a sort of "production chain" thinking. Foster initiatives.
    • Workload and worker watching - I'd like to see what we can do in terms of creating an editor retention initiative. Hand out some barnstars. Celebrate successes. Wikipedia tends to have "flash crowds" of massive numbers of editors around hot topics which can lead to contentious debate and burnout (especially related to ceaseless argumentations and reverts of edits), and then troughs where no one wants to wade in (leading to editors feeling they are "working in the wilderness" all alone). Like myself, many editors might have come to Wikipedia to work on one project. Once that's done -- Quo vadis? It would be best to retain our good people and to ensure they are not burning out or wandering away once the initial project they came here with a burning passion to contribute to is completed or the passion fades away. Or, if they are leaving no-matter-what, to thank them for major contributions to the community. Provide balance.
    • Followership is as important as leadership - Like a military formation, we have a chain-of-command. While I like to provide leadership towards some of the projects I have a vision for, I'd also like to be a good assistant coordinator by being a go-to guy for the lead coordinators. Any project lead often pulls their hair out when no one aligns behind their vision. I'd like to be someone others feel would take direction (even correction) well and take on tasks you wanted to see accomplished which others did not personally have time for. Lobby for and monitor the overall communal agendas set by the leads and by the consensus of the editors. While I can have a strong opinion on topics, some of that passion takes a back seat to establish consensus, or to maintain initiative once we've converged on a decision and direction. --Petercorless

Wow. Well said. Thank you. I'm particularly excited about the ideas of leadership and followership - I'm sure all of us think about this kinds of things, but you've really put it quite nicely. Through the kind of socializing and teamwork you talk about we can accomplish quite a lot - I'm excited to see the Military History of Africa topics start to turn from red to blue :) LordAmeth 09:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good, but ideas should always be evaluated afterwards. My constructive criticism approach to reviews was a flop for example. Wandalstouring 23:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

• Question

I have created a very short stub for the Battle of Cieneguilla and have put my questions here. I am going to ask this of all the candidates and would prefer your answer to be on the election page, though perhaps duplicating them on the talk page would be a good idea too. Carptrash 19:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

• Answers
  • I'd leave the mention of the specific archaeological markers out as non-notable and original research, but I'd probably put in a DMS geographical coordinate so people could find the general location on a map.
  • More resources for the battle and preservations efforts
    • FORT UNION: CHAPTER THREE: MILITARY OPERATIONS BEFORE THE CIVIL WAR
    • Jicarilla Apache Nation, New Mexico
    • NATIONAL PARK SERVICE AWARDS GRANTS FOR PROTECTION OF BATTLEFIELD LANDS
    • First Dragoons: Muster Rolls Battle of Cieneguilla 30 March 1854
      Do a better Google search. :) --Petercorless 22:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
  • My general comments is the stub can be easily fleshed out into a good short article drawing from the above resources, which I would expect an editor to look around and check before doing things such as marking them for deletion (AfD), and also to corroborate the assertions of even a stub. I'd encourage you to do a bit more checking, as what I came up with was only cursory initial findings. You mention archaeologists. In a way, we are data archaeologists. So... Get into a search engine and start digging!
  • Also tagged the article with Category:History of New Mexico. --Petercorless 23:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Votes in support of Petercorless

1. Support Wandalstouring 18:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
2. Support LordAmeth 09:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
3. Support -- Dan D. Ric 14:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
4. Support — MrDolomite • Talk 14:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
5. Support --TheFEARgod (Ч) 15:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
6. Support -- Mhaesen 15:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
7. Support despite newness. --Habap 16:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
8. Support per LordAmeth's comments. Wikimachine 22:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
9. Support -- Admire your Somali article Asiaticus 03:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
10. Support --Lmcelhiney 20:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
11. Support-- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 12:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
12. Support - NDCompuGeek 15:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
13. Support--Aldux 17:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
14. Support Dedicated editor --MarshallBagramyan 18:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
15. --Pejman47 18:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
16. Support Kugelmass 16:28, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
17. Support He's helped alot with the problems on Nagorno-Karabakh war page, dedicated to his work. - Fedayee 17:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
18. Support -- wbfergus 13:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
19. Support -- He's doing a great job on Nagorno-Karabakh War page Vartanm 08:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
20. Support Secutor7 15:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
21. Support Raoulduke47 08:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
22. Support -- John Moore 309 12:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
23. Support New blood is good – Harlsbottom 21:39, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Shibumi2

Shibumi2 (talk · contribs) I have partial Japanese ancestry and I have made the Imperial Japanese Navy and related articles at Wikipedia my personal mission. I noticed for three years this area is a weak spot in Wikipedia article coverage. My early efforts include Japanese aircraft carrier Ryuho (created), Japanese destroyer Momi (created) and Japanese cruiser Abukuma (expanded from a stub with photo I uploaded). The Ryuho and Abukuma articles featured on the Wikipedia Main Page in the section called "Did you know?"

I have expertise on the Pacific War. It is not honorable to brag about my achievements. I am a university student with much spare time for the project. My grandfathers served in the war on opposing sides (Imperial Japanese Navy and Royal Australian Navy). I inherited the libraries and I have many research materials.

English is not my first language but I will always concentrate on correct use of the language. I will be happy to serve the project in any capacity the voters choose for me. I welcome any questions. Shibumi2 23:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Comments and questions for Shibumi2

• Questions from --Petercorless 21:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  • You speak about what is "honorable;" a virtue hardly ever spoken about in modern conversation. What role do you believe honor has in maintaining the integrity of Wikipedia and the conduct of its contributors?

Please forgive my delay in offering a reply. We have a blizzard here. This caused a power failure. My host family is very kind to me. In these difficult times I had duties to help them. "Honor" is a virtue shown by speaking the truth, repayment of debts, helping others who are less fortunate and showing respect for others at all times. This means no insults to other members of the community for any reason. Provocation is met with kindness. It means all facts presented in an article must be true. The author must be prepared to defend any statement which is challenged. He must provide sources in the form of websites or the names and authors of books he uses as his sources. I inherited libraries full of books about the Pacific War from my grandparents. I will use these as sources. Honor also means refusing to present a claim that cannot be proven if it causes dishonor for the veterans and fallen soldiers of the war. Shibumi2 01:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• • What aspects or elements of Japanese military history do you feel are lacking from Wikipedia, or could use serious expansion or revision?

Each major warship of the Imperial Japanese Navy (destroyers and larger ships) should have its own article. Each article should have a table with armament, tonnage, performance, propulsion data, crew complement, and important dates such as launching and date of completion. Each article should also have one photo or more. Many articles are missing and many others lack these important features. I notice also a lack of articles on self-propelled and towed artillery of the Japanese Army. Shibumi2 01:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• • You mention having both an Australian and Japanese grandfather, and how they fought on opposing sides of World War II, which is quite remarkable and must stir deep feelings and thoughts at times. What is your philosophy towards dealing with zealous, chauvanist or partisan contributors, and what are your recommendations for resolving and moving past conflicts?

The truth is its own reward. Members must seek the truth always. If sources conflict with each other, one source can be judged more reliable than another in most cases. Patience and mutual respect are the keys to a cooperative spirit. We must proceed with the project in an effective way. Too much time and effort can be spent on argument and it is wasted. It could be invested in making better articles. I watch other projects on Wikipedia self-destruct in bitter fights. This is foolish. We have much work to do. The veterans and fallen heroes deserve better from us than hearing arguments among our group.

My feelings about my grandfathers are that both were men of great honor and courage. Each served his nation and did his duty. My Japanese grandfather married an American and my Australian grandfather married a Korean when they were at the university. All four served together as missionaries in Papua New Guinea. As more time passes war proves to be more foolish. The weapons are terrible and the killing is too great. War belongs in the history books, not the news reports.

I would be honored to serve this project in whatever role my fellow members choose for me. The project is more important than any of us. Shibumi2 01:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I wish to add this to my previous response if this may be allowed. On another project called Free Republic, there is much conflict between editors. One side in the conflict is not honorable. The other side is one new editor, defending himself alone and with great honor and skill.

The Military History Project must never approach this level of conflict. The project is more important than any agenda that any one of us may have. The fight at Free Republic is like lighting a match and throwing it on a gasoline spill. We must try harder to avoid spilling the gasoline before such things happen. If the spilled gasoline (representing time and energy of editors) had been pumped into engines, much constructive work for the project would be done. Instead it is wasted on a foolish conflict. Shibumi2 17:41, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

• Question

I have created a very short stub for the Battle of Cieneguilla and have put my questions here. I am going to ask this of all the candidates and would prefer your answer to be on the election page, though perhaps duplicating them on the talk page would be a good idea too. Carptrash 19:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Again I must regret that my answer is delayed by the blizzard here. Petercorless and Lmcelhiney have already run Google searches for you on the Talk page of your article. Google is always the place I start. In the Pacific War of course I have many, many books in the libraries of my grandfathers.

You say there is obstruction from the Park Service. There is a Wikipedia policy against original research called WP:NOR as well. Progress will be frustrating, beyond what the Google search produced, until the archaeologists publish their report.

Such a small and obscure battle can be a difficult project without violating WP:NOR. You may wish to publish a magazine article, or an article in an online military journal, and then using the article as your source may be allowed. In publishing the article there, you will be subject to peer review. This would make the article a reliable source when it is published. You must also make full disclosure that you are the author of that article upon your return here. This may be the source of WP:COI concerns.

Best of luck my friend, and may honor guide you in this and in all things. Shibumi2 17:34, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Votes in support of Shibumi2

1. Support - --Bryson 00:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
2. Support -- Dan D. Ric 14:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
3. Support -- MoRsE 14:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
4. Support --Petercorless 18:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
5. Support -- wbfergus 13:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
6. Support Please consider adding/expanding on articles concerning Thailand's role in WWII Secutor7 15:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
7. Support --John Moore 309 12:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Wandalstouring

Wandalstouring (talk · contribs)

I have been the most nerving assistant of the current session. However, my wikitime is very likely to drop during the next semester, but I will still be able to take a look at least three times a week. So far running again as a candidate has been a bit conflicting for me because among other things I pushed for more active participation of the assistant coordinators. In my opinion there would be a problem if the lead coordinator of the last two terms was not able to edit on wikipedia: None else is experienced with all maintainance tasks (and I'm not the most suitable person to keep track of them all). By now there is a small handbook, but the job requires routine and somehow a schedule. Another point is that so far we coordinators did little to coordinate our efforts, what was clearly our fault. However, sometimes Kirill Lokshin and me had more or less productive discussions and disagreements. To set the record straight, I want to credit him because he made every effort to improve our wikiproject and I would be looking forward to another term as assistant coordinator. Wandalstouring 01:32, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Comments and questions for Wandalstouring

• Wandalstouring is a good and helpful Wikipedian and a good nominee. Kyriakos 05:17, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
• Wandalstouring helped me a lot with Military articles. He definitely deserves the position. --Ineffable3000 21:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
• If 500 members per 7 candidates post their opinions we need at least 3.5k lines for such comments only. I really hope the information is worth it. Wandalstouring 02:08, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I rather doubt we'll actually have anywhere close to 500 people writing comments; the last election had a maximum of ~20. It would be trivial to deal with, though, even if it did occur; we'd just split out each nom into a subpage. :-) Kirill Lokshin 02:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
• Wandalstouring helped me every time I asked, and deserves reelection. I will help him, and Kirill, any way I can, as my health permits. Wandalstouring is knowledgable and for a non-native english speaker does very well in the language. I strongly urge his reelection. old windy bear 01:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• he has been helpful with several articles I have been working on - PocklingtonDan 11:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• I have only positive impressions of Wandalstouring. Beit Or 13:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Wandalstouring is a good wiki editor, and deserves reelection. Stillstudying 13:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Wandal is one of the names I see quite often - he's quite active in discussions and the like, and is very helpful. Certainly one of the more active and dedicated editors. LordAmeth 13:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

• Question

I have created a very short stub for the Battle of Cieneguilla and have put my questions here. I am going to ask this of all the candidates and would prefer your answer to be on the election page, though perhaps duplicating them on the talk page would be a good idea too. Carptrash 19:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

• Answer?

I just received this unsigned message, which I believe to be from this candidate and which I take to be an answer to my questions.

stop asking everybody this question - the elections are absolutely not the right place to ask such specific question on an article. Try the milhist project's talk page and the wikiprojekt archeology. Wandalstouring 19:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

He's also responded more fully on the article's talk page. Kirill Lokshin 20:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Once in a while it can happen that I forget to sign, my bad. Wandalstouring 23:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Votes in support of Wandalstouring

1. Support for assistant Cheers — WilsBadKarma ^(Talk) 00:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
2. Support — Definitely keeps the "dust" from settling! Askari Mark (Talk) 00:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
3. Support for assistant coordinator. A good guy, and a very good editor and assistant coordinator. old windy bear 04:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
4. Support Carom 04:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
5. Support. Kyriakos 05:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
6. Support. Hossen27 05:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
7. Support.--Looper5920 08:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
8. Support LordAmeth 11:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
9. Support, he pops up everywhere, which is a good thing! - PocklingtonDan (talk) 13:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
10. Support for assistant coordinator. Stillstudying 14:50, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
11. Support -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 14:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
12. Support for assistant. Need one wonder why? Always with my support.--Dryzen 16:31, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
13. Support always very helpful.--Mike Searson 22:43, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
14. Support -- ScreaminEagle 18:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
15. Suppport --Petercorless 18:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
16. Support -- Dan D. Ric 14:08, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
17. Support — MrDolomite • Talk 14:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
18. Support -- MoRsE 15:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
19. Support -- Mhaesen 15:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
20. Support --Mmx1 16:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
21. Support due to sttrong understanding of the project and its needs. --Habap 16:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
22. Support -- S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 19:10, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
23. Hardworking, very active. Support all the way. -- 我♥中國 00:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
24. Support - Asiaticus 02:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
25. Support--Cla68 04:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
26. Support --Lmcelhiney 20:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
27. Support -- cyclosarin 02:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
28. Support -- Carptrash 03:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
29. Support -- Beit Or 10:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
30. Support -- I have full confidence in Wandalstouring's competence and neutrality.Proabivouac 10:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
31. Support - NDCompuGeek 14:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
32. Support--Aldux 17:23, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
33. Support--Tristan benedict 02:12, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
34. Support -- Oberiko 15:28, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
35. Support -- wbfergus 13:34, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
36. Support Secutor7 15:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
37. Support for assistant lead coordinator. Some decisions are easy. Shibumi2 23:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
38. Support ALR 19:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
39. Support for assistant – Harlsbottom 21:37, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

WangKon936

WangKon936 (talk · contribs)

Hello everyone, I'm WangKon936 and I'd like to be considered for an assistant military history coordinator's position here on wikipedia. I am experienced and knowledgeble in many areas of military history, but my specialties are in ancient East Asian military history, World War II and the Napoleonic era. I have made major edits and strong contributions to a number of wiki articles from battles to weapons technology. My focus has been in battles, events and technologies that have made a strong impact on East Asia. This is still a poorly understood (often misunderstood) topic in the West as there is a lack of accessibility to primary sources. Often, Asian history articles are edited by those with a poor command of the English language or worse, by people with a nationalistic, hence biased, agenda. However, as East Asia becomes more important to the rest of the world due to its continued economic, commerical and technological rise, I want to be a part of helping the West accurately understand the important military events that helped shape that part of the world.

I am qualified as a coordinator for several reasons. First is knoweldge and experience. I am a prodigious reader of military history and have my own library of sources that I use for ready reference material. I am also in regular email contact with military history experts such as Stephen Turnbull, who often writes for Osprey publications and with Eric Niderost, regular contributing author to Military Heritage magazine, as well as other history experts. I am an official staff moderator to the China History Forum, or CHF (url www.chinahistoryforum.com). I have very strong "academic" (a opposed to real life, i.e. I have not fought in any wars or lived through a war) understanding of military matters including tactics, logistics and strategy. For example, I don't take primary sources at face value, particularly if the numbers and/or claims appear to be exaggerated or inconsistant with historical military results.

I would like to help by improving the quality of existing articles, prioritizing the creation of non-existant articles, editing out and monitoring nationalistic sentiment, and fact checking.

Below are a list of wiki articles that I have made major edits to:

Battle of Hansan Island

Battle of Baekgang

Battle of Myeongnyang

Panokseon

Turtle Ship

Comments and questions for WangKon936

• I appreciate your background, but your citation style is a bit strange(more like German wiki). What's your goal as coordinator? Do you want to integrate more knowledgeable editors int writing articles, improve the review system or according to what criteria/in what fields do you want to expand it? How exactly do you want to achieve your goals?Wandalstouring 23:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the questions Wandalstouring. I actually don't cite my sources and just provide references at the end of each article. The citations you see must have been added by others or are legacy. In consideration of my candidacy, I should make it a project of mine to make sure that the articles I have made substantial edits to have proper wiki formatting. Also, instead of answering your questions systematically, I will further clarify my purpose. East Asian military history articles (with the notable exception of Sengoku Jidai period) are in very bad shape. Few are A-class or above and many are written in poor English or with a nationalistic intent or both! My goal is to make these articles more informative, better written and less biased. I will employ a variety of methods to do this, but I am not familiar enough with the standard methods that are employed by long time wikipedians to give you the sophisticated answer you seem to be looking for. I still consider myself somewhat new to wiki. WangKon936 02:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Finding a cure against nationalist bias would certainly be a great contribution that could be applied in many fields. As far as I can remember the Germans were yet not accused of national POV pushing (perhaps because they had their fair share in pre-wikipedia times).Wandalstouring 02:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• Though he has contributed to a small number of articles, his contributions to those articles have been excellent - he has significantly expanded articles which I feared could never be improved (e.g. battle of Baekgang AD 663, for which I doubted there was interest, or sources). Wang strives to counter nationalistic bias, as he says, and with his focus and expertise on Korean history, also serves to counter systemic bias - there's absolutely nothing wrong with having so many experts on European, American, Australian, Chinese & Japanese history, but it's also wonderful to have people who push forward expanded coverage of other cultures and nations. When it comes to Korea/China/Japan, it can be very difficult to remain cool, objective, and academic - I'm certainly guilty of being biased and losing my cool at times. WangKon seems like the type to manage that objectivity and scholastic attitude well. LordAmeth 10:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
• Questions from --Petercorless 21:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Which period of Chinese history do you feel needs the most work on Wikipedia?
  • What barriers to communication need to be overcome in order to render original Chinese-language sources into an English-language Wikipedia project?
    • Thank you for your questions Petercorless. Regarding your first question, and correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think my duties as a wiki military history assistant coordinator encompasses Chinese history in its totality. Regarding Chinese military history there is much that can be done, particularly in early Chinese military history. Many pivotal battles / wars such as Battle of Talas, Anshi Rebellion, Tang / Koguryo Wars, Tang / Silla wars, Tubo Rebellion, require clarification, proper NPOV, clean-up, etc. I believe that East Asian military history in general (with the exception of Japanese Samurai battles) are rather underdeveloped on English Wiki. Regarding your second question, there are several original Chinese language sources that have already been translated into English including Records of the Grand Historian, significant parts of the New History of Tang, and the History of the Three Kingdoms. However, given that wiki is meant to summarize information, as opposed to being a full exposition of information, I don't know if we always need Chinese original source translation. There is a very large corpus of Chinese military history sources in English out there that are secondary in nature, but should be in most cases sufficient. In cases where translation is required, I am a moderator on the Chinese History Forum (www.chf.com) and I know a number of fluent English / Chinese speakers who routinely provide translations on request and I have access to that. WangKon936 22:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Having as many primary sources as possible in a translated version would be very benefical because the number of primary sources is rather limited compared to the number of secondary sources, what allows us to determine much easier if someone created a pseudocitation or misquote. Wandalstouring 22:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  • There are many times when "east doesn't meet west" in Wikipedia. For instance, the Wikipedia article on the Castle focuses primarily on European castle design, though it does give an overview of Japanese castles near the bottom. In such cases, what do you feel is better? To try to converge a single article, with European/Western examples and Eastern/Cbinese examples on the same page, or to have parallel pages? How do we maintain a global view while not bloating article length or endlessly sidetracking to cover all bases?
    • In my opinion, I wouldn't change content too much for the sake of political correctness. Plus, we shouldn't delete existing corpus of knowledge. Calling Chinese or Korean fortresses castles at this point is to have wiki decide on what scholars are currently debating. I don't think there is concensus from people much smarter then us whether or not Asian fortresses are castles. I think that having Japanese fortresses after the 15th century called castles is appropriate since the Japanese actually learned much from European castle design, thus they actually have a European castle genetic link. What I found confusing is why the writer for the wiki article on Galleys did not think that the yuloh driven Chinese ships were, by definition Galleys. I think that has since been fixed, however, there is still very little information on Galleys of the Chinese cultural sphere. I think that the original article on Galleys should be renamed to European and Near East Galleys, a new article should be put together for East Asian Galleys and a new composite, incorporating elements of both articles, should be put together for Galleys as a whole. This is a large undertaking and I wouldn't imagine doing it without the help of others. WangKon936 23:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
• Question

I have created a very short stub for the Battle of Cieneguilla and have put my questions here. I am going to ask this of all the candidates and would prefer your answer to be on the election page, though perhaps duplicating them on the talk page would be a good idea too. Carptrash 19:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

This question doesn't appear to be addressed to me directly. Shouldn't it be moved to "General Comments"? WangKon936 23:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• • Sorry for not answering some of these questions. Been VERY busy at work this week (plus death in the family). I'll answer all during the coming holiday weekend here in the states! WangKon936 20:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

That is understandable and most regrettable. My condolences to you and your family and friends during this time of loss. --Petercorless 20:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

My condolances to you and your family and friends. I just suffered another death in the family, and there are no words. old windy bear 19:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate everyone's concern and understanding. Thanks! WangKon936 23:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Votes in support of WangKon936

1. Support LordAmeth 11:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
2. Support --Habap 16:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
3. Support Fantastic answers, yes I'm frustrated with national POVs. East Asia-related military articles are in very poor shape, really. I'm disappointed in the low number of votes. Wikimachine 22:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
4. Support Per wikimachine Buckshot06 15:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
5. Support DerekP 06:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
6. Support Wandalstouring 20:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
7. Support for assistant. old windy bear 19:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
8. Support --Petercorless 08:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
9. Support Secutor7 15:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

General comments

Please make any general comments not related to one of the candidates on the talk page.