User talk:Roger Davies/Archive 2008

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I recently sent this sports-related biography to the FAC. The piece benefited from your earlier suggestions and includes more data on the subject's personal life. Now that it's an FA candidate, further comments or recommendations would be greatly appreciated! Thanks, -- twelsht (talk) 16:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your support on the FAC! By the way, your earlier recommendations were helpful. They inspired me to include the (albeit limited) material available on McAleer's two marriages and also to mention his early interest in vaudeville--a detail that provides some context for his later friendship with George M. Cohan. Your comments also led me to dig deeper into the circumstances surrounding McAleer's fallout with Ban Johnson. Below is a small token of my appreciation for your help on this article. Cheers, -- twelsht (talk) 17:01, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Roger, Your recommendations would have been even more useful if we hadn't been dealing with the "Ghost of the American League." They were still quite helpful, however. Happy New Year to you, too, -- twelsht (talk) 17:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi, T. I always enjoy reading your stuff (I never thought I'd find baseball interesting; I loathe cricket) and adding my 2/100 so feel free to ask any time you want input. I can do detailed CE as well as broad brush stuff but I prefer working on directions and expansion rather than combing through for literals. (Seems too much like real life somehow.) Anyhow, when you got a moment, take a look at Hamlet which is up for FAC: it's been occupying my every waking moment recently and I'd be interested in hearing your view. (The Dane will also give you a Total Break from Jimmy McAleer, so you can return to him with fresh vigor and new eyes.) Best, --ROGER DAVIES talk 09:13, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Roger, No problem at all. I feel honored that you asked. This project may be more in line with my longstanding interests. (Baseball is a relatively recent discovery.) Give me a couple hours to handle a New Year's Day obligation, and I'll be right on it! Best, -- twelsht (talk) 17:57, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! Funny, you know, but the link to Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hamlet was entirely triggered by your reference to the "Ghost" of the American League. I'm not sure if this is free association or stream of consciousness. --ROGER DAVIES talk 18:46, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
They both qualify as vengeful "ghosts," too. McAleer did everything in his power to steal the last word on the Red Sox debacle. By the way, I read the Hamlet article, thoroughly enjoyed it, and posted a few comments below. Best, -- twelsht (talk) 15:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! I overlooked it there earlier partly because I was expecting you to dive straight in at the Hamlet FAC. (Any registered editor can comment at a FAC, by the way, you don't have to be part of a committee or anything.) Your Hamlet edits were great. The only one I'd take slight issue with is the change of king to monarch to avoid repetition; sometimes repetition is very useful for clarity. But that's trifling:) And the "20" was a good catch. Thanks very much for such a painstaking approach --ROGER DAVIES talk 15:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Very good! I'll join the Hamlet FAC ASAP. Best, -- twelsht (talk) 16:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
You'll enjoy FAC, I think. The knack is not to spend toooo much time reviewing there. It can get addictive! --ROGER DAVIES talk 16:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
In the case of Hamler, the biggest challenge was composing a message of support that adequately summarized the article's chief merits. I'm not sure I succeeded on this score, but it wasn't for lack of trying. By the way, as someone relatively new to the FAC process, I'd like your advice. Is there a protocol for dealing with reviewers who leave negative reviews and then fail to either revisit the talk page or respond to messages? Your thoughts would be much appreciated. Best, -- twelsht (talk) 17:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Thanks for the comments. Regarding reviewers who go walkabout, best is to mention that you've contacted them and they haven't responded. SandyGeorgia takes a more pragmatic view than Raul, regards subsequent silence as bad form, and will make her own mind up whether the points raised are addressed. It might slow things down a day or two but it shouldn't derail the candidacy. Hope this helps .... --ROGER DAVIES talk 01:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

This helps quite a bit. Thanks! -- twelsht (talk) 02:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
The Barnstar of Life
This Barnstar of Life is for your assistance on Jimmy McAleer, a sports-related biography that benefited significantly from your comments and support. Cheers, twelsht (talk) 17:01, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Your Final Tag & Assess Award

The Working Man's Barnstar
For your excellent work on 3000 articles in Tag & Assess 2007, by order of the coordinators I hereby present you with this Working Man's barnstar. -- TomStar81 (Talk) 23:38, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I do believe you have earned this. Thanks for the help, and Happy New Year! TomStar81 (Talk) 23:38, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

The Hamlet article is wonderful, and I can't think of ways to significantly improve it. The piece offers a seemingly comprehensive overview of the play's incarnations. It describes how Hamlet was adapted to meet the needs of specific cultures or to address popular political concerns. The discussion of critical perspectives struck me as inclusive, and I found the sections on the play's sources and rhetorical characteristics informative. The article is well referenced and includes illustrative (sometimes amusing) details, e.g., the reference to the American actor addressing acquaintances in the audience. By the way, the passage on 19th-century American productions of Hamlet reminded me of Lawrence Levine's Highbrow/Lowbrow: The Emergence of Cultural Hierarchy in America, which might prove to be a useful source. Levine argues that Shakespeare's works enjoyed wide popularity in the U.S. until the start of the 20th century, when they were increasingly identified with the cultural elite. He describes how U.S. productions of Hamlet tended to highlight the more sensational elements of the fifth act, occasionally inspiring unwanted audience participation. You'll see that most of my edits dealt with minor issues related to punctuation and style. I take a conservative approach to comma usage, so I won't be offended if you choose to remove some of them. As the summary edits show, I revised several sentences to improve clarity and addressed a handful of MOS issues. I wish I could be more help. It's a very impressive article. Best, -- twelsht (talk) 06:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

T&A workshop

I dropped a note on the workshop talk page (well, the one it's redirected to), but just to make sure you don't miss it—I've posted my workshop comments here: User:Maralia/MHA07, since they're pretty lengthy. Maralia (talk) 22:45, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


The Barnstar of High Culture
For stunning work on the FA drive for Hamlet, I hereby award you this Barnstar of High Culture. AndyJones (talk) 13:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXII (December 2007)

The December 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the support on the talk page! Most people seem to favor this change. I'd like to invite you to help out as we try to improve 1346, or at least to pop in every once in awhile to see how it's going. A Military History rep is a good thing to have around! Wrad (talk) 06:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Wrad, I missed this earlier! Glad to help, --ROGER DAVIES talk 00:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Here's to many more successful literary collaborations in the coming year! I'm so happy that we've found each other. It's nice to work with people dedicated to improving each word, slowly but surely, on Wikipedia. :) Awadewit | talk 08:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

What a nice thought! And heartily reciprocated. Incidentally, next time you're in London, we should visit one of Dr Johnson's favourite pubs. It's still going strong and only about 200 yds from the Globe theatre :) --ROGER DAVIES talk 09:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Sounds wonderful. I'm sure whatever grant I receive to do research "over the pond" will cover this expense since it is related to the eighteenth century! It is "field work", right? :) Awadewit | talk 19:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Heads up

I've added a few more challenges to the Wikipedia Awards Center. Just thought you might like to know. --Sharkface217 21:25, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Literary Barnstar

The Literary Barnstar
In recognition of your excellent work and tireless contributions to the Hamlet article, I award you with this barnstar. Literary is the closest I could get to Shakespeare / Drama / Theatre, etc. Keep up the excellent work! :-) Lradrama 13:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
You're very welcome. Happy to be of assistance! :-) Lradrama 13:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Thankyou very much for wishing me well with my future plans. It is much appreciated. :-) Yes, I am always willing to award a barnstar when I see a user doing some great work - anything that makes editing Wikipedia a more enjoyable experience I am in support of. Lradrama 11:01, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


Maria has just put up Emily Dickinson for peer review. I have already reviewed the article recently, so my comments wouldn't be much help. I was wondering if you would be willing to review it. It is a good article and worth investing time in reviewing. :) She is planning on taking it to FAC soon and she had a rough time there last time - I want this time to be better. As you know, the more reviews the better before FAC. Awadewit | talk 20:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Favor, part the second: Would you mind translating Joseph Johnson (publisher) into BE? I'm planning on taking it to FAC in the next few days and that is one of the last things Willow and I need to do with it. Awadewit | talk 20:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the help on JJ! If you have time in the next week or two, could you be Britcise Analytical Review? I tried it myself this time, but after I read half of the article and found nothing, I figured I just couldn't see the words. I'm planning on taking the article to FAC after the Joseph Johnson (publisher) FAC is over. Thanks so much! Awadewit | talk 04:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

In thanks for your help

The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
On behalf of a grateful Wikipedian, I give you this barnstar as a token of my undying gratitude for the effort you made to help me and all the others who volunteered in the MHA07 drive. Thanks again! Fléêťflämẽ U-T-C 01:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


Great to see your excellent article promoted. A long journey for the longest play.

And thanks for the star. I'll treasure it.

– Noetica♬♩Talk 23:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you :) --ROGER DAVIES talk 23:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


Say, I've noticed people are still signing up for T&A. Do you monitor this, enforce the nobody-signs-up-in-2008 rule or just let it go? --Ouro (blah blah) 09:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Just let it go, dontcha think? There are only one or two of them, they mean well, and it gets more articles tagged. --ROGER DAVIES talk 10:40, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
I figured the same, more or less. Thanks. Cheers, Ouro (blah blah) 11:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the star. If I happen to reach 4k, that'd be nice, it's just that when I got to 3k this morning I thought, yeah, I'll take another list, because you always had something cool to do when you had nothing pressing, you know? :) --Ouro (blah blah) 11:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, it's official now - I got a text to translate for next Thursday, which means I don't get much time to assess until the 17th :) so, no 4k probably ;) Cheers, Ouro (blah blah) 15:05, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Never mind. You've done more than your fair share already and it's much appreciated. --ROGER DAVIES talk 15:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks loads. Means more than a barnstar to me. Cheers, Ouro (blah blah) 17:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


Hey there RD. When I saw the change in Chinua Achebe to the three-period ellipses, I was curious, so I checked the MOS for myself, and – of course – you were right. But then I wonder: Isn't there a danger of three periods being split up at the end of a line? Isn't that why we use the   before and after? Cheers. – Scartol • Tok 16:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I read "Use non-breaking spaces ( ) only as needed" as meaning only add hard spaces if it does wrap but, to be honest, WP:ELLIPSES is far from a model of clarity. One of the irritations with WP:MOS as a whole is that it too often advocates fixes—which in the real world, are added retrospectively by the proof-reader to resolve formatting problems that have occurred—just in case the problem might occur. It introduces massive clutter. --ROGER DAVIES talk 18:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Oh, yeah – Kudos on the Dane. Did you ever see the Simpsons version? – Scartol • Tok 16:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks :) No, I didn't but I wish I had. --ROGER DAVIES talk 18:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi Roger. As a serious editor at MOS, I just wanted to chip in with a couple of points. First, three-stop ellipses will not break between the stops. Second, the policy with ellipses at MOS is unsettled and has been contentious. This is a contained but complex problem in current punctuation practice (especially as applied to HTML), with wild disagreement among sources and even internal inconsistencies in their guidelines. I have amassed a good body of material on this, and when the time is right the topic should be revisited. For now my attention is focused on improving markup for our friend the hard space. I hope you will have a look at User:Noetica/ActionMOSVP, and perhaps have your say. I'll be bringing a measure of order and focus to the discussion in a few hours from now.
The whole suite of MOS pages needs reform and rationalising. A huge task, given the way Wikipedia works and doesn't work. Some of us are looking at that larger problem also. I hope you will join us in addressing it.
– Noetica♬♩Talk 22:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
I know ellipses won't break between the dots (what gave the impression I thought otherwise?) but I can imagine situations where footloose ellipses might look unsightly. Anyhow, my comments about pre-emptive formatting were mostly about the hard space so I look forward to learning your thoughts later. If I feel I can contribute, I'll chip in.--ROGER DAVIES talk 22:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Roger, Scartol wrote this, above:

But then I wonder: Isn't there a danger of three periods being split up at the end of a line?

Scartol's continuation addresses a different matter:

Isn't that why we use the   before and after?

The answer to that question is yes for before, no for after (with exceptions for each of these). But because the original question, as it stands, had definite content (accurately delivered or not) that was not addressed, I addressed it! I did not say that you knew something or that you did not know something.
Now at least the question has a definitive answer. I care about clarity and completeness; therefore I had my say. Sorry if you judge that improper, or could not see why I did it.
– Noetica♬♩Talk 23:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. I read Scartol's question altogether differently. I took it to mean they detached, with a line break, from the truncated chunk of the text and thus appeared to be part of the subsequent text. His next question appeared to reinforce this, which is why I responded as I did. I didn't imagine for a moment that Scartol, with his considerable copy editing experience and considerable acuity, meant the three dots would separate internally. --ROGER DAVIES talk 00:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
All fixed. No problem! Thanks.
– Noetica♬♩Talk 02:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, sorry for that confusion. I did word my question oddly, and – brace yourself, Roger – I thought there was some danger that the three periods would break up. (I seem to recall seeing as much on a website somewhere once, which is why I memorized the windows code for the force ellipse.) Alas, I was wrong – that's twice this century already! – Scartol • Tok 18:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Good grief! Well just make sure it doesn't happen again :) --ROGER DAVIES talk 19:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
– Noetica♬♩Talk 22:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Anyway Roger, that is indeed better, at Hamlet: "The play vividly charts the course of real and feigned madness—from overwhelming grief to seething rage—and explores themes of treachery, incest, and moral corruption." I had scare-quoted incest because, as the sentence had stood, it must have referred to his mother's "incest" with his father's brother. But not now. – Noetica♬♩Talk 09:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Contextualising Hamletian incest is difficult, simply because the degree of acceptable familial closeness varies wildly from culture to culture and from age to age. For instance, Henry VIII required papal dispensation to marry his brother's widow and obtained it on the grounds that the earlier marriage had not been consummated. A further complication is the Elizabethan concept of treason – namely, that intimacy with the king's wife was treason on the king's person – the best example of which is probably the trial and execution of Anne Boleyn, involving both treason and incest. Henry's marital shenigans were relatively current in Shakespeare's day, of course, and some scholars suggest that the thrust of Hamlet's incest and treachery charges is that Gertrude was intimate with Claudius prior to King Hamlet's death. --ROGER DAVIES talk 10:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes. That makes sense to me, and accords with my scare-quoting a laden and mercurial term. But it's not needed with the more general and abstracted mention that you now give it.
– Noetica♬♩Talk 19:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Does it? A wikilink would have done it equally well. Scare quotes are twee and bring too much POV to a word. --ROGER DAVIES talk 15:30, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

HI Roger. You were my first victim. Enjoy the newfound speed. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

;)Thanks very much, --ROGER DAVIES talk 08:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
You're not an administrator?!?! Then I'm confident that an RFA nomination is impending. Woodyyy!! ;-) SoLando (Talk) 01:40, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of ellipses... ;)

Animation of planetary motion


I've been thinking of improving the articles related to planetary motion, and I've been trying to teach myself Blender, a simply awesome open-source program for 3D graphics. To paraphrase Immanuel Kant, "Two things inspire me with awe: the starry heavens above and the Blender program within." It's that cool, although I'm but a lame neophyte.

After much labours, I've succeeded in producing the animation at the left. What should I do to improve it? For example, is it too dark? Different colours? Once this animation is settled, I'm going to replicate it for several others, so now would really be a good time to make suggestions. I would be really grateful for any aesthetic insights you might have. (Wait, should that be æsthetic in BE? ;) Hoping all's coming up roses for you and Happy New Year, a rarely elliptical Willow (talk) 09:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Ave Salix!
Excellent graphic, very compelling, rather like watching smallclothes tumbling in the drier or a dog racing around with ball :) My thoughts? The burnt umber colour might render too dark for the protanopic among us: perhaps a lighter tone to increase contrast. Also, perhaps adding a thin white outline around the planet might make it stand out a little more? (A friend, a graphic artist, switches his screen display to black and white to test this sort of thing. Squinting through half-closed eyes is another trick, I'm told.) --ROGER DAVIES talk 11:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

How wonderful — you know Latin! :) I may have to conjure you to look over some of my Catulline opuscula once they're anywhere near decent; of course, with Catullus, I'm at a disadvantage, since they often start out indecent. ;)

Those are excellent suggestions and I'll try to amend the image right away. You're right, it does look like a clothes-dryer! :) Willow (talk) 14:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't really know much Latin as I spent more time being beaten than taught. Earlier, I agonised over whether it's Ave Salix or Ave Salice to the extent that I phoned a Classics blue stocking for advice. She was out. :)
Odd day, today. I decided some weeks back to vandal fight, to see what it was like. I prepared scrupulously: for instance, I renamed my computer Rocinante and found a Tupperware salad bowl to serve as a helm. For the uninitiated, the vandal-fighter is at the sharp end of reverting the edits of brats for whom the pinnacle of achievement is deleting half the long-laboured-over text of, say, Odysseus and replacing it with a strange device (typically, "poo" rather than "excelsior", but you never know what lies around the corner). One is expected to leave stuffy pro-forma homilies on the miscreant/perp's talk page in the forlorn hope that this will reform them in their destructive ways. A day is enough. I shall leave this behind soon, I think, and scuttle back to military history or Shakespeare.
--ROGER DAVIES talk 15:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Poor quixotic Mr. Knightly! :( I was thinking of vandalizing a page with the words "Donna Molina de Viento", just for you, but I couldn't bring myself to do it. I do find it strange how some people thrill at their own power to scrawl scatology, don't you? I've never fought vandals per se, but I try to revert vandals of pages on my watch-list with a friendly, witty note. I don't want to provoke conflict, and I secretly hope that they'll be charmed enough to abandon their dissolute ways and contribute meaningfully to Wikipedia. That might be grasping at straws, but I have an advanced degree in carphology. ;)

I've updated the animation as best I could. I couldn't get your rim lighting suggestion to work, but I made both bodies luminous, which might help. I also fixed up the track as you suggested — thanks again, ROGER! :) Willow (talk) 18:02, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for showing me the new version, which works better through slitted eyes (with pursed lips) ¦-| It might be warmer if the background were dark blue rather than black but it is a thing of wonder not matter what colour the sky.
It's probably a good thing you resisted temptation; some of the anti-vandal patrollers might not have appreciated it and most swoop so much faster than me. Anyway, that's me done with vandals I think. I have hung up my salad bowl.
--ROGER DAVIES talk 20:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


Thanks for removing my mistake. I wanted to remove the vandalism on the page. When I discovered, that the vandalism had been removed by a bot, I already had pressed the rollback button. You beat me, bringing the article to normal again. Thanks for taking care and happy editing.--Thw1309 (talk) 11:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I guessed that something like that had happened:) Rollback is neat, isn't it? Good luck, --ROGER DAVIES talk 11:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I still don't know about it. This was my first try and you saw the result. I think, for the moment I prefer the good old undo buttom, which shows the results before saving them.--Thw1309 (talk) 12:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Kingdom for a source

Yeah, like you didn't make this edit just so you could do that edit summary ;-) AndyJones (talk) 17:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Andy!!! How could you even suggest such a thing !!!! --ROGER DAVIES talk 20:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

BackLash 2006

you kept changing back something I corrected. What I said was infact correct, I own the event on DVD and she did choke her out with an armband/braclet she wore down to the ring, which fell off during the match Myselfimmortal (talk) 20:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough :) A citation and a reliable source is the usual solution. Thanks for mentioning it. --ROGER DAVIES talk 20:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
For taking the challenge and warning more than 100 vandals, I, Sharkface217, hereby award you this barnstar. Good job! --Sharkface217 20:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much! --ROGER DAVIES talk 20:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The thing with feathers

Thank you, Roger, for my special sparkly and the encouragement that came with it. Emily is definitely going to FAC, even if I have to beat her into submission first. :) Again, I really appreciate your detailed thoughts and suggestions at the peer review, and you're absolutely correct that it looked a lot worse when I first saw the massive list! I have class tonight, but I aim to have some answers to your questions and a much better looking article by tomorrow. Take care, María (habla conmigo) 13:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I loved that quote. I especially liked it when he ordered the elaborately detailed dry martini and everyone at the table said, "Oo, me too!" "I want one!" Everyone except the bad guy, of course. Anyway, I'm taking a break from dear Em for the rest of today (and maybe tomorrow, as well; she really does drain a person like her friend Higginson said), so now is your chance to take another look. Exciting! :) Btw, any other Shakespeare article on the back burner? I just love the work you guys did on Hamlet. María (habla conmigo) 17:54, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that was one of the highlights for me too :) What I particularly enjoyed was the menace than Craig brought to the role. For the first time in ages, we had a Bond that Her Majesty's enemies would definitely not wish to meet in a side alley on a dark night.
For Emily, I've had a look at what you've done and am impressed by the way you've responded. Incidentally, your remark about her exaggeration and lying made me chuckle: excellent material to help bring her to life if you can work it into the article! I think the best way forward is for you to complete, in whatever time-scale best suits you, your comments/amends in response to my peer review. Once that's done, I'll go right through the whole article again in detail and look at the changes in the light of how they fit into the bigger picture. I think that's good use of both our time and, to be honest, is much more the process I'm (in real life) used to. One thing to consider while working on it is what can be done to reduce redundancy. Almost everything can be said in fewer words than its first draft (including the text of this rambling message!)
All the best, and keep up the good work, --ROGER DAVIES talk 15:26, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Menacing, but Craig could still play young(er) and inexperienced. The free running at the beginning of the film looked especially awesome painful for poor Bond.
I know exactly what you mean about redundancy; I have a tendency to ramble, myself. :) I'll take a week or so to go through the article at length, fix it up, make it shiny, and then I'll give you a shout. I really appreciate your guidance on this, Roger! Incidentally, you said this is your first exposure to her poetry; did you get a real sense of it reading the article? Do I need more "famous" examples? I wonder if American Studies majors are exposed to her; when I was studying in Hull I know there were several American lit/poetry courses offered, but as I took mostly Shakespeare and medieval lit while I was there, I wouldn't know what they were like. While in Rome... María (habla conmigo) 16:49, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Take your time. Mulling works better on intricate subjects than furious writing :) I formed an impression of her poetry, certainly. For a variety of reasons, I found myself thinking of her near-contemporary, Gerard Manley Hopkins. (It was the pre-occupation with nature and uunorthodox structures, I think.) But certainly, I'd like to learn more. Oh, and talking of Rome, I'm in Sicily next weekend ... :) --ROGER DAVIES talk 17:28, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Lucky you! A vacation sounds wonderful. As Emily wrote, "Bring me the sunset in a cup..." María (habla conmigo) 15:30, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay. I think I've reached a stopping point. I'm going to be busy most of the weekend, so I decided to bang most of it out today. I addressed all of your points, but some of them are not completed, per se, for various reasons (waiting for comment, I'm a stubborn mule, etc. :) I'm starting to anticipate putting this up for FAC soon. It's just unbelievable how it looks ten million times better than it did a couple months ago! If you hadn't seen the article before I got my hands on it, btw, it's rather frightening. So whenever you're ready, I'm up for round two. :) Enjoy your weekend, María (habla conmigo) 01:48, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Sounds great, thanks! María (habla conmigo) 00:22, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Possible edit warring on project article

There seems to be some issues going on over on the article : Military history of African Americans, in particularly in the section Military history of African Americans#Confederate States Army. Could you take a look at the article's edit history as well as the discussion, Talk:Military history of African Americans, and possibly give some input? Thanks. Sf46 (talk) 23:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Long overdue

The Working Man's Barnstar
For your brilliant and excellent work at MILHIST Tag & Assess 2007 -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 17:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Peer Review Request

Person Centred Planning is up for peer review. As it is about an approach to confronting and reversing oppressive power structures, I think you in particular will be able to take a constructive approach to reviewing it. Max (talk) 17:55, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


Hi Roger,

Happy new year to you and your family.

Just wanted to ask if the Tag and Assess is still open, coz I havent got the Chevrons for the 1100 pages I assessed. I hope its still open coz I'd love to increase my tally.

Cheers Sniperz11talk|edits 11:43, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back! Did you have a good break? In the meantime, the drive is still open and will stay open until the end of January. I didn't give you your awards earlier because I assumed you'd want to continue :) I'll do them now as an interim award though! Nice to hear from you again, --ROGER DAVIES talk 11:52, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Break was good... it really took all effort to keep away from wikipedia. But it felt good to go cold turkey for a while. Anyway, thanks for the chevrons, but I'll take them all at the end of december... Dont worry, there is no way I'm going to stop assessing pages. Thanks for the help, and great work with the Tag and assess drive. Cheers. Sniperz11talk|edits 13:23, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


Not sure that it was my example originally. I didn't see the point of changing it, and noted that the edit involving switching to US units as the main—unnecessary, I thought. Tony (talk) 12:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I was doing a tag and assess for WikiProject Texas and ran across Fort Parker massacre. Curiously untagged by any other project including Military History. take a look see, perhaps there are other articles covering this under y'all's tag with another name. At first glance it seems to be too good an article to not be claimed by more than TX. Jacksinterweb (talk) 18:19, 17 January 2008 (UTC)



Thanks for your help off-wiki. Please accept my efforts at Briticising Mary Wollstonecraft and her works as a token of my gratitude. Awadewit | talk 01:57, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
For taking the challenge and successfully combating vandalism that has resulted in at least 20 bans, I, Sharkface217, hereby award you this barnstar. Good job! --Sharkface217 04:28, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Can it be?

Someone has taken on the awesome project of William Godwin? Although I am currently swamped by Jane Austen and Mary Shelley, I can help you assemble a good list of books to read! I can review! I can copy edit! I can provide moral support! I can convert into AE (no wait...) :) Awadewit | talk 09:49, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Giggle! I've got a few books here already but he's quite far back on the back burner. I was going to chip away at him, and von Lossberg, and Jacky Fisher while working on my Shakespearean interests. And yes, it'd be great to do it in AE, with plenty of gotten's :) --ROGER DAVIES talk 09:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Godwin is last on my my MW list. I was putting him off until the end. 2011, 2012? :) Unlike, MW or even MS, he lived for a long time - 80 years. He also wrote a lot. Seriously, just let me know whatever you need. If he's still on your back burner when he moves up to my front burner a few years from now, perhaps we can do the article together. (I still can't believe there is no Political Justice article. Oh yes. 2,00,000 articles and people are searching for things to write about.) Awadewit | talk 10:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Tel Aviv

Hi, I listed Tel Aviv for a peer review at Wikipedia:Peer review/Tel Aviv. I saw you are interested in cities and so have contacted you to see whether you might consider helping with this. I have contacted two other users as well. Many thanks in advance.--Flymeoutofhere (talk) 20:24, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Piece of the action

When you contacted me about it back in October, I said I would get back to you. Imagine how embarrassed I am that a quarter-year has gone by ... Regardless, can I still get a piece of the action? I have found a bit of "spare time" at work, and should be able to process a chunk or two before the end of the month. --Kralizec! (talk) 04:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: Operation Camargue PR

Thanks SGGH speak! 09:37, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much! I have never been sure how to cite two different works from the same author before, and it came up again with the inclusion of Windrows second work only recently. Thanks again SGGH speak! 09:42, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
I have just this second cited that tag for you. Thanks for your help! SGGH speak! 11:07, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

My friend we are all volunteers, how can I say that you passed a deadline set by yourself on something we all do in our own free time? SGGH speak! 09:34, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: Boxer's Fracture

Thanks for the kind words. I picked one hell of a time to get clobbered though, getting struck before setting foot on campus for the new semester. Taking this in stride though I figure the rest of the school year should be better by comparison :) TomStar81 (Talk) 06:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: Something for you

Thank you very much! :-) Kirill 01:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


I'm beginning to hate the MOS; conformity of spaces, dashes, hard, n, m, etc, etc. Emily's turning over in her grave right now! Thanks for letting me know and sorry for stepping on your toes... I'll let you work your magic alone now. :) María (habla conmigo) 14:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

That would be wonderful, Roger! If you're able to spend such time on it and are willing to put up with my nuances, I would be relieved for the help, especially during the nomination process; I could understand why some may be territorial about such things, but I definitely believe that the improvement of the article should be the no. 1 priority and not my ego. My first FAC didn't go as smoothly as I would have hoped, so extra support would be great. Would you believe I even asked my boyfriend (the Wiki-clueless man that he is) to proofread the latest version of the article for me? His main comment was, "You have enough time to find 160 references, but not enough time to fold the laundry?" :)
We have four shelves of books dedicated to Dickinson in our library, and although I only glanced at the Gardens book, it did look interesting. If you feel more research is needed aside from that, I can take another stab at things; staff members get leeway in the amount of books they can check out as compared to students, so I can risk the wrath of circulation and empty out what remains of the PS1541.Z5 section -- most of it is in my living room at the moment. María (habla conmigo) 15:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Laundry is the bane of my existence, with bananas and cats at a close second and third, respectively. ;) I look forward to reading your comments, but I have class tonight so I won't be able to reply until tomorrow. Take care, María (habla conmigo) 17:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Hope you don't mind if I pop in here to mention that when I was at the MLA book fair in December, I saw a beautiful reproduction of Dickinson's herbarium and thought of you, Maria. :) Awadewit | talk 08:09, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Welsh VC recipients

Hey ther Roger, hows things? Anyway, as part of my whole VC list drive thing, I just revamped List of Welsh Victoria Cross recipients, when checking the what links here, I found your page. I was thinking about merging it into List of Victoria Cross recipients by nationality as I have with other lists which are quite short. You can see a previewed version here. Do you mind if I go ahead? I don't want to step on toes. Woody (talk) 16:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Funnily enough, I've just this minute left a message on Solando's talk page about this. Inspired, I must confess, by your string of triumphs, I was vaguely thinking that Something Ought To Be Done With It. That said, there's no good reason to treat it differently to the list you're doing :) So, in short, no, I don't mind at all. --ROGER DAVIES talk 16:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Cool. By the way, I would be happy to over a co-nom if you want, I was thinking about asking you this week anyway. Woody (talk) 16:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you very much; I really appreciate the offer :) Is there anything you need to know? Oh, and I'm away this weekend (Fri-Mon) so any time after that I suppose.--ROGER DAVIES talk 16:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Well-intentioned ramblings. SoLando (Talk) 17:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


Have fun answering the questions, take your time. When you are ready to transclude, leave a note on my talk page. Woody (talk) 19:15, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Done. Good luck, though I am sure you won't need it. ;) Woody (talk) 15:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Oh and the exam has begun by the way. You have already got more questions than I did! Woody (talk) 15:50, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
It is my pleasure Roger. The tide of questions seems to have slowed down now anyway! Woody (talk) 12:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Free time?

If you have any spare time in the coming weeks, might you consider peer reviewing Fanny Imlay? I know it is not a very important article, but it is certainly a difficult article! If you want a challenge, this is one of those tricky little articles. :) I would appreciate the help. Imlay was surrounded by famous people and their drama: Godwin, Shelley, the other Shelley, Byron, etc. She ended up committing suicide. It is a difficult story to tell without sounding Wagnerian. It is also difficult because scholars disagree about all of the details. So, if you feel like taking a stab at a review, I would be most grateful. Awadewit | talk 08:13, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure. I'll take the article to Sicily with me. Taormina, and its Grand Tour associations, seems rather a good place to peer review it :) --ROGER DAVIES talk 08:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

RfA thank-spam

Roger Davies/Archive 2008, I wish to tender my sincere thanks for your support in my successful request for adminship, which ended with 37 supports, 2 opposes, and 2 neutral. The results of the RfA are extremely bittersweet because of the recent departure of my nominator, Rudget. Hopefully I can live up to his and your expectations. I would especially like to thank Epbr123 and TomStar81 for mentioning that they were preparing to offer me a nomination. The past week has been one of the most stressful weeks in my life, and I appreciate your vote of confidence in me. If you ever need anything, just get in touch. -MBK004 21:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


You are a volunteered copyeditor listed at Wikipedia:Peer review/volunteers and I'd be glad if you could have a look at the article Vädersolstavlan I just nominated for peer reviewing. My shortcomings in English most likely makes copyediting both necessary and easy.
/ Mats Halldin (talk) 05:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry to take so long to respond to you but I have been away for a few days. The article looks very interesting but I have quite a big backlog which I must reduce before I commit to anything else. If there's anything specific I can help with just ask but it might be some time before I get round to it. --ROGER DAVIES talk 14:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Tel Aviv

Hi. I have carried out extensive work on the article based upon your feedback. If you could take a look at this and see if it meets your expectations, I would really appreciate it. Many thanks--Flymeoutofhere (talk) 19:26, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Heroes peer review

I noticed that your user name was on the Wikipedia:Peer review/volunteers list. I was wondering if you could take some time out of your schedule to head over to the Heroes (TV series) talkpage and give us an honest peer review. The page has gone through some major changes in the last few months, and it would be fantastic if a prominent editor/contributor like yourself, could head over and give us at the Heroes Wikiproject some sound opinion and ideas on improvements for the page. We have all worked very hard at improving the page, and we need great outside, reliable and trustworthy users to come over and help us improve. I you are interested in joining the peer review discussion with other prominent users/contributors, much like yourself, please follow the link. Thank you very much for your help and your continued effort to improve Wikipedia and its quality! Wikipedia:Peer review/Heroes (TV series)/archive2--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 05:38, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the invitation but I must decline as I have too much on my plate to give the article the time it deserves. If you are still stuck in a couple of weeks, things - hopefully - will be quieter. --ROGER DAVIES talk 14:24, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Nancy Reagan

Hi. I am new to Wikipedia and am having some trouble with some of the editors on the Nancy Reagan article. As you identified here (, many of the items are written in a Non NPOV. I.e.: you identified that the China Pattern replenishment colors were trivial, but Happyme22 insists that her violation of the Ethics in Gvmt Act of 1978 and her fashions-for-publicity trades with designers are not relevant to expound upon.

I have cited many sources and offered many solutions to minor details in the article to improve it's viewpoint (on the Nancy Reagan discussion page), but four editors in particular (Users: Happyme22, Wasted_Time_R, SandyGeorgia, and Tvoz) have consistently teamed together in support of each other's actions and edits in moving this article forward to FA status while giving little or no validity to any contrary opinions., despite multiple reasonable requests and many many reliable cited sources.

I have begun the appeal process but the same three editors acted in the same way, and I don't know how to move forward to make the changes necessary. Can you PLEASE PLEASE review my comments on the Nancy Reagan discussion page and PLEASE PLEASE help?

Thank you in advance so very much for your cooperation. (talk) 21:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

This is a most interesting message that the IP has canvassed multiple editors with. I can't recall the last time I edited Nancy Reagan, and my last review of the talk page a few days ago revealed no problems. (Someone should tell IP that Tvoz is an Obama supporter has far more edits to Obama and other politician's articles than Reagan.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the invitation but I am no expert on American political figures and feel my contribution would be waste of other - better-informed - people's time. --ROGER DAVIES talk 14:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Improving Article Pakistan Air Force Academy

Can you help me in improving the article PAFA. I want to know how i can make it more better. Like what more information i must add in it or what should be the structure of the article? And if you can give some examples of some model articles of Military Academies, I will be grateful to you! Regards --SMS Talk 11:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Waiting for your response! --SMS Talk 11:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
The first things to concentrate on are getting some citations and building up the lead. I can give you a much more detailed list in a few days but I'm rather busy at the moment both here and in real life :) If you can wait, that would be great :) --ROGER DAVIES talk 15:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Oh yeah! sure, i can wait. Well about citations thing is that i got all info from books........ so will discuss it later! i will wait until u ping me back! Thanks! --SMS Talk 19:08, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for appreciation! --SMS Talk 22:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Ok! i will take guidance from WP:LEAD. Thanks again for the help! --SMS Talk 22:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back!

Hey, hope you had a good time on your getaway. I've been busy with lit theory and such so I haven't gotten, er, anything done regarding Dickinson. I did, however, pull a few more books from the library which have joined the towering collection in my living room. If you get some time (and if you're not too exhausted from your trip), there are a few lingering questions and concerns on the talk page. María (habla conmigo) 14:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Aaand you had already replied there before I had posted here. Nevermind, nothing to see, move along... María (habla conmigo) 14:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks very much for the welcome! I read ED on the way out and the way back. I also took Farr's Collection of Critical Essays which I thumbed through. Progress will be a bit slow for the next couple of days but after that I hope to hit the ground running :) --ROGER DAVIES talk 14:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Hallelujah! Thanks for the note; overkill is right. María (habla conmigo) 13:17, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Copyedit request

Hi Roger. I was wondering if you would mind giving All Blacks versus France at rugby union a copy-edit. I have an editor opposing it's FAC based on criteria 1a (see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/All Blacks versus France at rugby union), and he says an independent copy-edit is neccessary. I'm not 100% sure exactly what he wants, other then to make the article more engaging. Would you be able to help me out? Thanks. - Shudde talk 07:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd love to but it might be a day or two :) Is this okay? If so, I'll read it through properly in the meantime. --ROGER DAVIES talk 15:15, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Sure, the FAC shouldn't close for at least a week I hope, so that's sweet as. Thanks a lot for your help. - Shudde talk 22:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Sorry mate. They were a bit quick off the mark and I see the FAC has just been archived. It's a shame the article was not promoted first time round but we can fix the copy and re-submit quickly. I'm working on it today and have some questions for you (buried in the text), mostly aimed at fleshing it out in places. What I'm trying to do is give it more structure, which will make it look more accessible. The bit that needs most work is the intro, which we can leave til last. --ROGER DAVIES talk 07:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Yeah that was a bit quick off the mark! Thanks for your help. - Shudde talk 22:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


In answer to your question, yes I do have access to JSTOR, but I see you have it sorted now :) SGGH speak! 10:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

RfA thanks from Happy-melon

I just wanted to say thanks for your support for my RfA, which closed (74/2/0) this morning. Your comment and support was very much appreciated. Happymelon 15:58, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you!

Hi, just dropping by to say thanks for supporting my RfA, I totally wasn't expecting to get so much support, it was a really pleasant surprise. Melesse (talk) 04:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


Hi, I'm not very experienced in this, but could you look at wp:aiv? Users Pvsamrat and Ankur0412 are both active in creating and recreating these articles, which on the face of it don't show their notability. I thought there were rules about instantly recreating articles in the same form they were deleted? Mjroots (talk) 10:26, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

you say you added the {{db-repost}} tag? It seems to have gone again! Oh well, the admins can sort it out.Mjroots (talk) 10:31, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
If you have doubts re the notability then you should tag it as such and let the admins deal. Like I said, it has been deleted twice so far. I've tried to hold of an admin to look at this, and have now requested assistance in discovering whether the two accounts are sock-puppets. Mjroots (talk) 10:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I did a bit of searching and found some copyvios on a couple of articles. Have also managed to work out how to report as socks, which has been done. Mjroots (talk) 12:53, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Taking one for the team

If I didn't love the little guy so much, I would have given up hours ago and let the vandals have at it. The question is, however, do I care enough about Miss Emily to protect her article from the inevitably numerous and oh-so-witty plays on the name "Dickinson" that await? :) María (habla conmigo) 17:18, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Heavens! The punning possibilities had never even crossed my mind :) --ROGER DAVIES talk 17:20, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm sure the disgruntled grade school students will have more than enough puns saved up to keep us busy whenever that glorious day arrives. Thank you for my pretty purple barnstar, I shall wear it with pride! María (habla conmigo) 17:26, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I dunno. We only had 753,000,000 hilarious jokes when Balzac was TFA. – Scartol • Tok 19:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
That wouldn't be one hilarious pun repeated 753 million times, would it? (This conversation is taking me places I'd never even contemplated... Incidentally do you have roger as a verb in the US?) --ROGER DAVIES talk 19:10, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Roger that, Roger. Transitive verbs are fun, eh? María (habla conmigo) 19:54, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Alas, no .... There's also an intransitive verbal meaning in BE, which may not have tranversed the puddle. It means (and I'm trying desparately hard to be delicate here) to, um, hyphenate with someone. --ROGER DAVIES talk 20:01, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Really, now? Lucky you! And I thought BBC America had taught me everything I needed to know... María (habla conmigo) 20:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

LOL, so am I! I'm looking forward to getting back to ED. :) María (habla conmigo) 19:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Street Children

Greetings, I recently embarked on a complete re-write of the Wikipedia article on street children:
Before I did this I made a few contributions on the article's talk page (the three at the bottom of the page):
However, I had a growing feeling that I had so many quibbles with the article that I should attempt a completely new version rather than trying to fix what was there. The new article is about 90% finished but I suspect there is a lot wrong with it. And while I worry away at what remains to be written I would appreciate any criticism that can help me to make this a better and more Wikipedian article.
My version of the article may be found on my user talk page.
Thanks. Almudo (talk) 20:39, 4 February 2008 (UTC)Almudo


A consensus has been reached by your peers that you should be an admin. I have made it so. Please review Wikipedia:Administrators' reading list and keep up the great work. Sincerely, Kingturtle (talk) 15:13, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Well done. Congratulations. Remember such fame is fleeting, however, and the real work is ever ahead. All the best! BusterD (talk) 16:12, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Warmest Congratualtions. Now get to work! Oh, and I can't even say "don't delete the main page" .....'cause we can't any more. Shame !! Pedro :  Chat  16:56, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

You're very welcome and congrats! That picture is just lovely. María (habla conmigo) 17:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Great! Congrats. - Rjd0060 (talk) 17:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Congratulations! May you not tire or rest, or get pissed with us :) --Ouro (blah blah) 17:29, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
No problem. You seemed like a faithful editor who would not abuse the tools. SexySeaShark 17:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Well done, always knew you would fly through it! Good job those skeletons stayed hidden! ;) Woody (talk) 17:52, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I love that patio Roger! Congrats. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 18:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Congrats on the RFA. Do you think the above is ready for FAC yet? I think it might be, but will await the co-collaborators opinion. SGGH speak! 17:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't bother me who does it. Feel free SGGH speak! 23:17, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

About your RfA

The admins' T-shirt. Acalamari 17:50, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations on your successful request for adminship. I am glad you passed, and you are welcome for the support. For information on using your new tools, see the school for new admins; you will find it very useful. Good luck! Acalamari 17:50, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome! Acalamari 17:03, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Congrats on RfA... now get to work

Congrats Roger... now, take thy broom and tools and say unto all vandals, "I am thy admin, who shall forgive thy trespasses and liberate you from wikipedia". And we editors will praise your name and say:

"Our admin, who art newly elected,
Roger be thy name,
thy chance will come,
thy will be done,
on vandals,
to send them to heaven,
give us today our daily block,
and clean up our messes
as we clean up other's vandalism,
lead us not into wikiholism,
but deliver us assistance.
[for thine is the adminship,
and the power, and the tools,
and the broom and the block
for ever and ever,

Cheers T/@ Sniperz11 editssign18:13, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Whoa! Nice. --Ouro (blah blah) 18:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations is the operarative word. Awesome! You deserve a hydrogen-powered hoover! SoLando (Talk) 19:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations, Roger; well deserved! Normally I dislike "Thank you spam", but what a joy to find my favorite place on earth on my talk page! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:08, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Great to see you made an admin, Roger. Like Sandy I appreciate this particular spam. I was at the Alhambra myself a couple of years back (a long way from Australia), and it's good to have a random recuerdo.
All best wishes to you.
– Noetica♬♩Talk 21:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I would like to congratualte you as well. You helped me out with the Nancy Reagan FAC, and your WP:BIO amendment. Congrats! The other page I've been working hard on - Ronald Reagan - is due to be featured on the main page in a couple of minutes. I can hardly wait to see how much vandalism that will generate.... Best, Happyme22 (talk) 23:53, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Congratulations! Kirill 02:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

My pleasure, and congratulations! Jayjg (talk) 02:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations, and a small, selfish plea: please don't let the pretty new buttons distract you overly much from your great article work! Maralia (talk) 05:41, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey! Congrads, if you need anything gimme a yell. Cheers! Dfrg_msc 08:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, congrats, I am thrilled to see that your rfa encountered such favorable conditions. Good luck with your new mop. TomStar81 (Talk) 18:36, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations! on your successful RfA. --SMS Talk 19:42, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Deletions guidelines

Try Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators, but the circumstance changes every-time. Ues your admin judgement! ;) Stay Frosty! Dfrg_msc 05:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: Welcome Back

Life is busy but good, which is perhaps the best that can be asked of it! Congratulations on your recent "promotion," although I can't claim to envy you! I see you've also been doing good work with MilHist - keep up the good work, etc.

And, if you have a minute, I wonder if I might get your thoughts on this as an alternative to this - just a small project that I'm trying to finally finish. Happy editing, etc. Carom (talk) 13:13, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Earthbendingmaster/Poll Basketball110 Clinton, Obama, McCain, Huckabee, Romney, or Paul? 00:11, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Eric B. Anderson

Hi. I just created a page for myself --- I'm a children's book author and a filmmaker and have been getting numerous press mentions, so I thought there should be a Wikipedia article where fans can find me. I'm not sure why my page was marked for speedy deletion and I'm very upset...

Eric Anderson etc... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eanderso (talkcontribs) 17:06, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Eric B Anderson deleted page

Hello Roger, I'd like to add my viewpoint for your consideration. I don't know Mr. Anderson personally, but I'm the one who wrote him and asked him to add a page. I ordered his book through Amazon and wanted to find out more about the author as I was writing a review on his book. When I typed in his name, the Wikipedia list of Eric Anderson's came up, but he wasn't on it. I thought he should be on it for clarification purposes, and because if I was curious about him, chances are his other readers would be. His significance as a children's author, in my view, is twofold: first, he fills the father-daughter niche in children's books, an important one that has been overlooked by most writers. Second, he's gained notability for using the "Radiohead Model" of advertising. Most writers (as well as musicians and other artists) are loathe to make their products widely available without charge, for fear of losing their grasp on profits. Radiohead (making the break among musicians) and Eric Anderson (among authors) have broken the mould in this area. For more information, please see the independent review I wrote of his book at: . —Preceding unsigned comment added by La Tavola Calda (talkcontribs) 19:12, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Re:A bit overdue ...

Thanks you very much for the medal and congrats on becoming an admin. Kyriakos (talk) 20:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, no!

Did I miss out on my chance to get an RD peer review of Fanny Imlay? I had heard rumors of a red pen and paper. :) Awadewit | talk 04:26, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

No, you didn't miss out. You made the mistake of mentioning that it wasn't particularly urgent :) I've done a lot of work on it (four-hours-flying-time worth) but haven't got round to typing it up. I will do so shortly, honest. --ROGER DAVIES talk 05:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
PS: I'm glad to see that Thoughts on the Education of Daughters didn't get too rough a time.
Oh, it's not urgent. I have plenty of other projects to work on. Say, a dissertation. :) Awadewit | talk 05:35, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Natalie Kononenko

The appropriateness of the article Natalie Kononenko was written in the talk page, yet it was still deleted. Kononenko is cited in several wikipedia articles and is the only major scholar on the subject of tradition of blind musicians of Ukraine. UPA99 (talk) 05:35, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Andrew Keenan-Bolger

You removed the speedy tag without comment in the edit summary. Please state your reason. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 08:36, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Deaf Pedestrians

I undeleted this (was in the process of removing the tags when you deleted) given that the article asserts, with a source, that they are signed to major label Virgin Records. Hope this is OK with you. NawlinWiki (talk) 18:49, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator elections

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by February 14! Kirill 16:55, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the support vote, meant alot coming from an editor I respect, though unfortunatly/fortunatly it looks like I won't be co-ordinating :) Good luck in getting/avoiding lead co-ordinator status -.o Narson (talk) 09:43, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. If you get your profile up a bit (quality contributions in discussions, chipping in at peer reviews etc), I'm sure you'll do much better next time round. Circumstances this time are not really with you as there is an unusually strong field of candidates. Thanks for your support, too. Much appreciated, --ROGER DAVIES talk 09:52, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I only started taking a look at non-article non-article talk space pages in december or so. OH well, I didn't come in last so, I am more than happy :) Narson (talk) 08:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Somebody's got to. Brutal business elections :) Get stuck into the reviews: you'll hone your own editing skills no end by studying other people's work. Other thing to consider is copy-editing. There's a real shortage of copy-editors and, if you take the time to familiarise yourself with WP:MOS, you can make a big difference and perform a useful function. --ROGER DAVIES talk 09:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

ED Stubs

Two stubs created, my liege. Also, question about layout for ED: would you approve of removing the "The Dickinsons of Amherst" section out of the "Childhood" header, much like it was before? It is really the prologue, in a way, and doesn't technically deal with Emily specifically. María (habla conmigo) 13:47, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Well done, fair and noble damsel :)
No, I don't mind but it contributes towards a sense of sprawl. If the remaining bit about published lifetime works gets moved into the "Poetry" sub-section it brings Childhood and Adulthood down to nine sub-sections, which isn't really too long to be merged back one section (called, say, "Life"). We could also easily make "The Dickinsons of Amherst" instantly more relevant by using it as back fill. (ie Emily Elizabeth Dickinson was born on 10 December 1830 into a prominent, but not opulent, Massachusetts family. The Dickinsons of Amherst first arrived in the New World from England in 1630, with the Great Migration led by John Winthrop. After farming in Wethersfield, Connecticut, the family settled in Amherst ...).
--ROGER DAVIES talk 16:12, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I quite like the latter option; I hadn't even considered that. I wouldn't mind getting rid of the random Amherst picture, as well, as it seems somewhat random since it was taken in the 1880s and all. I'll give that a try. Oh, and I emailed the Emily Dickinson Museum asking for permission to use their image, but seeing as how it's one of those catch-all email addresses for "Information" regarding the place, a backup plan may be in order. I'm home sick from work today, so between drug induced naps I'll be able to get some more work done! María (habla conmigo) 16:27, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
It don't look too bad at all! Needs a bit of a CE for flow. I may do that next. Do you fancy extracting the last paragraph of Productivity and moving it to Publication History? Incidentally, Habegger reckons ten poems were published during her lifetime (and ALL the Bowles ones were without her permission). I've promised to help a friend finish his dissertation (due in on Thursday) so he's here for the duration. --ROGER DAVIES talk 17:18, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Sure, we could move that paragraph, as well. Habegger does say ten, but every other scholar has another estimate, unfortunately; and I don't think Emily's level of permission, or lack thereof, will ever be fully known. Sewall says that a couple of the poems were most probably personal that she sent to either Bowles or his wife. Either way, she wasn't too satisfied with the outcome, obviously. María (habla conmigo) 17:30, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Okay. I'm thinking of semi-protecting ED. Vandalism is getting silly. I've just had two edit conflicts because the page was being mutilated. Thoughts? --ROGER DAVIES talk 17:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Agh, boo on edit conflicts. Semi-protection may be a worthwhile experiment, but I hope not to have it protected when we're ready to nominate it for FAC. That kind of makes me nervous, thinking that others may think the article's not stable. María (habla conmigo) 18:31, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Great news:

Dear Ms. xxxxxxxx:
The Emily Dickinson Museum: The Homestead and The Evergreens owns the copyright to the image mentioned in your email letter and found at
We grant permission to you to use the image in the Wikipedia Site article: <>.
Thank you for requesting permission, and thank you for your interest in Emily Dickinson and her homestead, it is greatly appreciated.

Spiffy pic now uploaded to the Commons with temporary template here. Yay! María (habla conmigo) 16:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Very well done! You are an example to use all! --ROGER DAVIES talk 06:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Muchas gracias! Pero, tengo una... er, I have a question regarding the much famed daguerreotype; the individual who emailed me about allowing use of the Homestead picture also said I needed to get permission from the Amherst College Special Collections to use the daguerreotype. I thought it would be in the public domain since it's 160 years old; that's how it's listed in the Commons, anyway. Is that correct?
Also, where do you think the Homestead pic should go? I was thinking the "Legacy" section... María (habla conmigo) 15:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
You're right. The daguerrotype itself will be long out of copyright but (certainly on this side of the pond) museums claim copyright in the photograph of the work rather than the work itself. Publish and be damned I say!
Good idea! Looks very similar to the evergreens, doesn't it?
--ROGER DAVIES talk 03:59, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Hello gentlepersons—Miss Busybody here, butting in as Roger knows I am wont to do :) I've taken a stab at cleaning up the daguerreotype. Dear Emily deserves better than a hole over one eye, a stain under the other, and great clawing scratches everywhere. I also tweaked contrast and brightness a bit; her dress was so dark it masked the detail, and her skin color was so blown out that she only had half a chin, poor thing. It's not an elaborate restoration by any means, but I think it's an improvement, and it certainly served my purpose ("oh look, here's something I can play with to avoid my real work!"). Here is Emily redux; do with her what you will! Maralia (talk) 06:21, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Maralia, I am lost for words. I've replaced the image and the lead looks much better for it! Thank you. --ROGER DAVIES talk 11:37, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure. Maybe I'm a purist, but this seems somewhat disingenuous, don't you think? I mean it looks great, but is it common place to "clean-up" such historically popular images and pass them off as the real thing? Dozens of books have that shoddy image on the cover; why should Wikipedia be any different? I kind of put this alongside rotating portraits so the individual is facing the opposite way for "better readability" -- it takes away from the work itself. Again, I'm just not sure. I really want to keep the integrity intact. María (habla conmigo) 13:06, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Whoops, sorry! That'd not occurred to me. That said, the reproduction of this daguerreotype in the Gardens of Emily Dickinson is considerably less knocked about than ours and has certainly been retouched. It is credited to Amherst College Archives and Special Collections. Perhaps it is worth asking them if we can use theirs? in the meantime, feel free the retouched image if you wish to. --ROGER DAVIES talk 14:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I get your concerns, Maria. It's quite common on wiki to retouch historical images to remove egregious damage, but either you like it, or you don't (personally, I'm on the fence). The Amherst College version would be the best solution: it's less damaged than the University of Illinois image, and doesn't suffer from the synthesis of my restoration :) Maralia (talk) 18:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Operation Camargue is a featured article

The WikiChevrons
For helping make Operation Camargue a featured article, I proudly award you these Military History Wikiproject stripes. I hope to collaborate with you again in the future, that was the most painless FAC I have ever experienced. SGGH speak! 10:04, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Request for peerreview: Nahuatl

Hello Roger, if you have the time I think the article on Nahuatl which I have nominated for a pre-FA peerreview might be right up your ballpark. I would certainly appreciate any comments and suggestions you have that might lead me to improve the content, style and grammar of the article. Thanks beforehand. ·Maunus· ·ƛ· 15:43, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah, sorry I didn't see your notice on top. Please disregard the previous message (unless of course It's sparked your interest)·Maunus· ·ƛ· 15:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry but I have promises to fulfill first. --ROGER DAVIES talk 11:38, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


Hi Roger, could you please check your email? --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 19:37, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Deletion Review for Caitriona Reed

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Caitriona Reed. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Mind meal (talk) 08:08, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I speedily deleted it because it contains no assertion of notability and the subject is not obviously notable. I'll restore this to your user page if you want to fix this problem before reposting it. --ROGER DAVIES talk 08:25, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi there. The problem is that you should have realized, with all of the references, that speedy delete was not an option for you to consider. If you wanted the article deleted, you should have instead taken it to WP:AFD. Furthermore, WP:Notability makes clear what notability is, and it isn't whatever you apparently think that it is. This notability guideline should help you in your further endeavors on this site in understanding what constitutes notability. Quote: "The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice". This concept is distinct from "fame", "importance", or "popularity", although these may positively correlate with notability."

Notability criteria:

  • "Presumed" means objective evidence meets the criterion, without regard for the subjective personal judgments of editors.[1] Substantive coverage in reliable sources suggests that the subject is notable.[2]
  • "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive.[3]
  • "Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.[4]
  • "Sources,"[5] defined on Wikipedia as secondary sources, provide the most objective evidence of notability. The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally preferred.[6]
  • "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including (but not limited to): self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc.[7]

So, there you have it. I hope this helps you from here on. (Mind meal (talk) 08:33, 16 February 2008 (UTC))

Thank you for the pointers. --ROGER DAVIES talk 08:36, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
No problem. One more relevant bit of information for the future here: Wikipedia:CSD#Non-criteria, i.e. Non-criteria: Notability. Articles that seem to have obviously non-notable subjects are not eligible for speedy deletion unless the article does not assert the importance or significance of its subject. So now that we have established how notability is established, and asserted, I think the speedy delete was improper. (Mind meal (talk) 08:40, 16 February 2008 (UTC))
Funnily enough, I'm familiar with that. Apart from being rather strangely written, the thrust is clear enough. What it means is that unless the subject is blatantly notable, the article must state why the subject is notable. The world is full of teachers, not all of them are notable. --ROGER DAVIES talk 08:56, 16 February 2008 (UTC) are right. There is no "statement" that would assert notability beyond her being a Zen teacher, as that is why she has been "noted" by multiple reliable sources. As for there being many teachers, you are right. It is the teachers who are covered by multiple sources that are the ones considered to be notable! ;) {Mind meal (talk) 09:15, 16 February 2008 (UTC))
I've restored the article and moved it here in your user space. The original has been deleted so you can simply move to Caitriona Reed when you've fixed it up. A bland sentence like "CR is notable because [reasons]" should keep it bullet-proof from other CSDs until it's bristling with refs etc :) Good luck, --ROGER DAVIES talk 09:29, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, i've restored the article with some more info. (Mind meal (talk) 10:15, 16 February 2008 (UTC))

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 23:11, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Peer review of Huldrych Zwingli

Hello Roger. I found your name on the list of volunteers and I also saw your banner mentioning that you are not available for a peer review until March. I just wanted to mention this one to try to get an early "reservation". It is a Religion-related article and unfortunately there are very few people interested in the topic so if you could help I would greatly appreciate it. Just to mention, I did leave a message for one other Religion-reviewer but got no response. Anyway, if you manage to fit in even a cursory review that would be fine with me. Thanks! --RelHistBuff (talk) 08:14, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello again. You had mentioned to me on my talk page to remind you about this. I know we are still in February, but I am bringing it up early because I will have to return my sources to the library next month. So I would like to make at least one attempt on FAC sometime in March before having to return and to retrieve the sources. Any help would be appreciated! --RelHistBuff (talk) 14:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I've done it (skimpier than I would have liked but I don't have a lot of time until mid-March). Good piece! --ROGER DAVIES talk 07:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! Your comments are more than enough to help me move it forward. Will work on it and I assume there will be more comments during FAC. --RelHistBuff (talk) 07:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Success is counted sweetest

Ta da! Let the games begin... :) María (habla conmigo) 17:18, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

This is going entirely too well! When does Tony come in and rain on my parade? :) María (habla conmigo) 13:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Hey, User:Spangineer‎ is asking about the article's use of "for some reason" in the "Decline and death" section, which I believed you advocated. Could you give your opinion on the matter or suggest an alternative? Thank ye kindly. (p.s. it's still going remarkably well!) María (habla conmigo) 13:20, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


Hi, Roger Davies, thanks for voting in my RfA, which passed with 47 supports (I hoped for a perfect square, but two away is close enough!), 3 opposes (the first odd prime), and 0 neutrals. I'm glad the community has decided to trust me with the mop and bucket (the flamethrower isn't supported). Of course, special thanks goes to my nominators Auawise and that one guy who buried stuff (not that the thanks I give to the you isn't special!). If you ever need a hand with something, or just want to say hello, tough feel free to drop a line! Best wishes, Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 23:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

This doesn't even vaguely resemble a mop, but I couldn't find a picture of one.

GA Review?

Roger, I know you to be a careful reviewer and someone who is interested in military history. Thus, I wonder if you'd be willing to do a GA review of an article I've written over the past couple of weeks, Indonesian occupation of East Timor (1975-1999)? I'd be ever so grateful. Without trying to be immodest, I think you'll agree that it meets most of the GA requirements right away; and I think even the NPOV mandate has been carefully maintained. (Of course, I'm biased.) Cheers. – Scartol • Tok 01:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Passed it. I think you should take it to Milhist Class-A review immediately. You'll hopefully get good input on the military side of the occupation (not my period). Oh, and join Milhist. You get a free monthly newsletter and userbox. --ROGER DAVIES talk 09:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Fantastic. Thanks so much! I will indeed take it to Milhist Class-A review. But I can't sign on to any more projects or forces or teams or gangs. Don't want to spread myself too thin. Cheers! – Scartol • Tok 12:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: Wotcha! :)

Hey, I'm here on and off but as I said on my user page - a lotta stuff on my mind recently so I'm limiting my activities to the Reference Desks. But, yeah, I'm always here. And my desk is a permanent mess, but also my kingdom :) Cheers, Ouro (blah blah) 10:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I can has thankspam?

Thanks for your response

To the questions I asked for your bid for leadership. They were the most thought out of the answers I've gotten so far. And the detail shows that you have actually thought about this question before, not just something that I asked and you came up with. Thank you again. You got my vote! Leobold1 (talk) 22:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

OhanaUnited's RFA

Emily Dickinson

Hey, Roger, I was expecting that question (also on Woody's FAC, which has strong support right out of the gate). I know Raul sometimes promoted in four days, but after some complaints about U2's deficiencies from reviewers who didn't get there in time (promoted on ten supports in four days) and some other concerns I've read here and there about the process "speeding up", I've decided to give promotions more time. I realize that may slow down some of our strongest writers and articles with Support from some of our strongest reviewers, but hopefully the one extra day that I allow will help prevent weaker articles from slipping through on strong support. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

"Glee – The great storm is over –" (and you didn't have to resort to protecting the FAC page!)

The "Myth", the Nun of Amherst, dear Emilie, E. Dickinson, "Your Scholar", "Your Gnome" is now featured!

The Original Barnstar
In offering your kindness, hard work and good humor while being instrumental to Emily Dickinson's promotion to FA, you have proven yourself an indispensable asset to Wikipedia. You deserve more than a rusty barnstar, but nonetheless I offer you this modest gift of appreciation. María (habla conmigo) 03:02, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations on the FA!

The Barnstar of High Culture
Thank you for your eloquent and well-researched contributions to Emily Dickinson, for:

A precious, mouldering pleasure 't is
To meet an antique book,
In just the dress his century wore;
A privilege, I think,
His venerable hand to take,
And warming in our own,
A passage back, or two, to make
To times when he was young.
His quaint opinions to inspect,
His knowledge to unfold
On what concerns our mutual mind
The literature of old...

Awadewit | talk 02:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

And Jackie moves up the list!

Congrats on the promotion of Miss Emily. As I just posted to Maria, it was a treat to review an article that didn't still need heaps of copyediting at FAC; thanks for making my job easier! Maralia (talk) 04:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


No I hadn't, that made me laugh for about 10 mins!!! Where did you find that gem? I try and avoid youtube because it still hurts to see this... Woody (talk) 12:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Halfway back

Roger, I'm still knee-deep in my dissertation and haven't removed my Wikibreak tag. But I'm more active than I was during the post-holiday season. If there's any way I can help out (copy editing, etc.), don't hesitate to let me know. Thanks, again, for your feedback on Jimmy McAleer. Cheers, -- twelsht (talk) 18:26, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! It's good to be back. By the way, I'm amenable to history articles of any kind. If you know of a specific piece that would benefit from my brand of copy editing, just let me know. I'm partial to biographies, but don't let this preference restrict your choices. Sadly, there's no great mystery behind my username. If the meaning of "T" were a secret, it would be a damned prosaic one. It stands for "Tom." The final "T" has no significance at all, beyond the fact that it enabled me to construct a username that hadn't been taken a thousand times over. (I also liked the symmetry of "Twelsht," of course.) I may be away from the computer for a couple days because of an unexpected development. After Monday, however, I'll be in a position to respond to any requests. Cheers, -- twelsht (talk) 05:03, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


Yup, I have access to JSTOR Arts & Sciences I and II. I can make a copy of all that is available in my library concerning Rimbaud and send it to you, if that would be helpful. The Floridian rainy season has seemingly just begun so unfortunately I'm stuck at home today. I'm looking forward to getting started! María (habla conmigo) 16:34, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

World War I categories

Roger, I just came across Category:Military history of Canada during World War I, which triggered something in the back of my mind - didn't we deprecate those categories last year in favor of Canada and World War I, etc? Thoughts on best approach, etc. welcome. Carom (talk) 03:13, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we did and Category:Canada and World War I - the correct one - still exists. They should all really just be in Category:Canada and World War I so we should empty the Military history of Canada one I think. --ROGER DAVIES talk 05:31, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Ah, good - I see you've taken care of that. As it's empty, I've tagged it for speedy deletion (although, as an administrator, you could probably just delete it yourself). Thanks! Carom (talk) 16:29, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


The East Timor article you reviewed has already been sent to GA Reassessment, since Gnangarra believes the discussion of foreign powers' support for Indonesia is POV. Any advice? Care to comment? (I've also tried to find a solution on usertalk.) Thanks in advance. – Scartol • Tok 14:15, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Difficult. I saw no POV but I'm not an expert on this. The tack to take is that stating facts isn't POV per se. I'd start by asking what balancing material needs to be incorporated to redress the perceived bias. --ROGER DAVIES talk 14:53, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I've made some changes to alleviate the concerns raised. Thanks for your feedback. – Scartol • Tok 15:25, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Having had a chance to look at the landscape as it were, the best way forward is probably:
  • Heavily cut the entire International involvement section. Perhaps best to hive off to a separate hatnoted article. (This responds to both Nick Dowling and TomStar81's comments in A-Class review and addresses some of Gnangarra's concerns.)
  • Then change the section header International involvement to International dimension. Gnangarra's has suggested "response" which i think is an excellent idea.
  • Rename US involvement and Australian involvement to XXX response
  • The Other governments to Responses of other governments.
  • Have one or two paragraphs of the heavily cut stuff under each.
  • Try to identify areas where specific reporting of the Indonesian position is needed. Majoreditor will probably help you here. Ask Gnangarra again to identify specific concerns.
  • Add that material, addressing those concerns.
  • Give the copy a further copy-edit to neutralise further the text.
All the best, --ROGER DAVIES talk 15:17, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I really appreciate your help on this. It's been very jarring for me to have worked so hard to stay NPOV (you should have seen the article I wanted to write!) and still get attacked. Watching my work get chopped up and whittled away has been really frustrating.
That said, I will definitely follow the plan of action you've outlined here. I feel very strongly that this subject deserves an FA article, and I'm aware that I may need help staying NPOV. I feel (and I believe the literature affirms) that the US and Australian role goes beyond a "response", but I will put my personal feelings aside for the sake of process. (Like I haven't done that on Wikipedia before, heh. Just a little frustrating because it feels like I do that sort of giving all the time and don't feel like I get to take much.)
Sorry to ramble on your talk page. Thanks again for your guidance and support. Cheers. – Scartol • Tok 02:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I've made the first set of changes recommended above. I wonder if you'd care to comment on the question of the lead image? Thanks again and again for your guidance; I know you could easily step back and stay out of all of this, and I appreciate your involvement. – Scartol • Tok 18:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
First, I must stress that you do not have my support. Any observations I have made have been made impartially. Second, it would have been better to have declared your interest in East Timor before you asked me to asssess this article: I would certainly have declined. Third, I do not ever wish to get entangled in content disputes. --ROGER DAVIES talk 08:37, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Oof. I never meant to imply that you were supporting me, but rather suggestions for an impartial procedure and providing third perspective. I apologize if I appeared to withhold relevant information before the review. And I certainly appreciate your desire not to get involved in content disputes; I feel the same way. I suppose it's best to leave it there for now. Cheers. – Scartol • Tok 12:43, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Request for admin help

Could you remove the extraneous "the" from the first sentence of the teaser for the TFA for Wikipedia:Today's featured article/February 27, 2008? Thanks! Awadewit | talk 09:47, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Done! --ROGER DAVIES talk 10:04, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! Awadewit | talk 17:36, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
One other thing - would you mind terribly doing a BE check on Sir Gawain and the Green Knight? I tried, but I know I always miss things. Thanks! Awadewit | talk 17:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
No problems. Tomorrow morning suit you? :) --ROGER DAVIES talk 00:27, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Time is irrelevant in my universe. :) I see only endless piles of student drafts. Awadewit | talk 00:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


As it seems that you are set to be elected the new lead coordinator I would (humbly) suggest putting togather a few sentences for the upcoming news letter, like a "Hi, I;m the new guy, I taking over for the old guy; no major changes though, same project, same mission, just new leadship" kind of thing. It may help calm the nerves of our members who may or may not still be shaken at Kirill's depature, and would help make a clean break between then and now. Just a thought :) TomStar81 (Talk) 22:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

A good thought, Tom, and if things continue in the direction as they are presently heading, I shall certainly follow your advice :) --ROGER DAVIES talk 00:27, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Category:The Great Powers, 1900-1914, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. – Cgingold (talk) 04:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Your recent deletion of Nithyasree Mahadevan

Do you actually bother looking at the edits that have been made to the article before deleting? This article was NOT copied from the URL. I myself created this article from scratch using the sources cited, and the URL has directly copied this article (word-for-word) from Wikipedia. I am willing to take this to the courts if necessary in showing that the website has violated Wikipedia's copyright over this content. However, you have NO basis for deleting this article based on the word of an editor who continually fails to assume bad faith against articles that I have contributed to. An ANI has already been listed against this editor for inciviliy and failure to assume good faith. Please undo this deletion. Thanks! FA/GA reviewer, and main member of the WikiProject India Assessment Team - Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

P.S. would appreciate it if you indicate on my talk page when you have replied here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ncmvocalist (talkcontribs) 15:12, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey Roger, I have had a look into it and it would seem that this website is an fork/mirror of wikipedia as of this diff (admin only). That diff is from December 2006, the website says copyright 2007 so it would seem the Wikipedia version came first. Would you mind if I restore the content? Woody (talk) 15:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Hey Roger, I have restored the content now. Feel free to drop me a line if you have any questions. Hope all is well! Regards. Woody (talk) 15:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) :Hi: I'm sorry if I annoyed you by deleting the article. I did look at the article's edit history and noticed that despite the length of time it's been around the article is completely unsourced, which is consistent with copy-vio. I went to the site and saw that the site has been around since 2005 so that was another factor. Anyhow, it's all been sorted now and Woody has undeleted it. I do suggest you add some sources though. All the best, --ROGER DAVIES talk 16:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

It's ok now, and thanks for your understanding and advice. The editor who placed the tag is still on the rampage, now starting to have a go at images having failed with his attempts at deleting articles that I created. Anyway, I will find more sources for Nithyasree Mahadevan asap. Cheers again - Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Milhist copy editing

Hi Roger, I didn't feel as though I could contribute much to the conversation you initiated on the milhist page. I would, however, be willing to volunteer my services as a copy editor for milhist articles. Cheers, -- twelsht (talk) 16:41, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Tom. Appreciated :) --ROGER DAVIES talk 18:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

MILHIST coordinator election

It's my profound pleasure to inform you that you are now the new Lead Coordinator of the Military history WikiProject. Congratulations!

I won't bore you with any technical details—no doubt you know them as well as I do, by this point—but I will point out a bit of advice that I've written which may be of some use to you, if you haven't seen it already. Aside from that, I'll leave matters in your capable hands; I have no doubts that you'll make a great leader.

If there's anything at all I can help you with, please don't hesitate to ask. Again, congratulations, and good luck! Kirill 00:01, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


Lead Coordinator of the Military history Wikiproject,
February 2008 — August 2008
Limited edition election gift. Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 04:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Congrats on your election as Lead Coordinator of the Military history Wikiproject. In honor of your achievement, I present you with these stars. I wish you luck in the coming term. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:40, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations, Roger Davies! This is very well deserved, and I expect to see great things from you! (no pressure! :-P) Nishkid64 (talk) 03:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Well done Roger and thanks again on the Tag and Assess work, which was a great success. Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 04:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I wish you another six months of happy military mopping, more good times reading articles at WP:MHR and success with your own article writing. And hopefully another big period of growth for WP:MILHIST. Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 04:04, 29 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by YellowAssessmentMonkey (talkcontribs)
Thank you very much ) --ROGER DAVIES talk 13:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I just wanted to add my congratulations on your elevation, which I read about in the Signpost. Even if it's not my cup of tea, I think they're wonderfully lucky to have you as their Coordinator, and I wish you every success and happiness. :) Perhaps someday I'll stretch myself to write about one topic in military history and bring it to FA. Maybe Mules in the military? ;) Willow (talk) 10:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Willow. I was thinking about that when you gracefully declined the copy-editing suggestion :) There are plenty of pacifist-friendly articles within Milhist. As you say, the role of animals, or medical staff (there was an amazing field hospital set up by a bunch of North Americans and paid for entirely by public subscription during the Spanish Civil war, for example) might merit further pacifist exploration. --ROGER DAVIES talk 13:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Congrats on your election to lead coordinator, Roger. I know you will do us proud. Kyriakos (talk) 12:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Very much appreciated, mate. I have every confidence in you, in your own special quiet way, too :) --ROGER DAVIES talk 13:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Congratuiations from me as well. Remember to always have fun whilst doing what you should! --Ouro (blah blah) 14:03, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, and people like you help keep it that way :) --ROGER DAVIES talk 18:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations! and best of luck for your future lead coordinator role! --SMS Talk 14:46, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Shukria dost! --ROGER DAVIES talk 18:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Congrats Roger. Been quite a good couple of months for you hasn't it? Lots of beautiful backlogs to deal with! Good luck with everything. Woody (talk) 16:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but it can't last :) With all the plaudits pouring, I need one of those blokes that used to stand on the chariot behind the Roman general during triumphs, whispering in his ear :)
Anyhow, Woody, it's great have you aboard! --ROGER DAVIES talk 18:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Signpost article on MILHIST elections

Can you check this article out, and let me know if there are any inaccuracies? It'll run in Monday's issue. Ral315 (talk) 06:10, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Awesome; I was looking for the number, but couldn't find it. Let me know if you find anything else. Ral315 (talk) 06:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Better? Ral315 (talk) 09:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


I hope the castle is not a reflection on how you feel about the elected position ;o). I know you will have a time to settle in and get to grips with the various parts and processes of the project. When you get around to it, I'd be interested in finding out what you though about the re-categorisation attempt that was made a few weeks ago. Cheers--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♣ 13:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Bagh, cynic! I was thinking of K's plight in Das Schloß actually, but couldn't find a sufficiently brooding picture of Prague Castle.
Yes, categories needs attending to but it'll be a few weeks, I expect, before I can get round to it. --ROGER DAVIES talk 14:04, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your support

Roger Davies/Archive 2008: I wish to thank you for your support in my unsuccessful bid at becoming an Assistant Coordinator for the Military history WikiProject. Rest assured that I will still be around, probably even more than before, and I have the utmost confidence in the abilities of the current and new coordinators. I might also mention that I am already planning on running again in August. As always, if you need anything, just get in touch. -MBK004 21:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you and congratulations

Thank you for the barnstar and congratulations on election to chief coordinator. I look forward to the next six months. Cla68 (talk) 21:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot and congratulations Roger. I missed it. I trust you will lead the project toward further achievements. Good luck. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 03:47, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Ditto. Being elected Kirill's successor is a challenge that would daunt many but you're endowned with all the qualities needed. Be warned: I'll probably still expect direct benevolence when an article of mine yearns for a thorough copyediting ;-). Congratulations, Roger. SoLando (Talk) 07:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


Hey! There isn't any chance of you wanted to adopt me is there? It's just that i would love some help from someone as experienced and as versatile as you. Gaia Octavia Agrippa (talk) 17:30, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd love to but I really don't have the time right now, I'm afraid. --ROGER DAVIES talk 06:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Centuries and millennia

Is this more the kind of commentary commentary you were looking for regarding your proposal?

Oh, and congratulations on your MILHIST election! I know you'll do a fine job. Askari Mark (Talk) 23:38, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. Nightmare, huh? I haven't yet decided what to do at MoS: I'll clear some of my backlog first :) --ROGER DAVIES talk 06:34, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: A personal thank you

Thanks again! :-) Kirill 05:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of The Romance Of Helen Trent

An article that you have been involved in editing, The Romance Of Helen Trent, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Romance Of Helen Trent. Thank you.

declining a speedy tag with no notice to the tagger is rude. Corvus cornixtalk 05:56, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry if you think it's rude but I have never sent notices to taggers and I know no admin that does. For the record, I declined this because it clearly has content and context, and CSD notability doesn't apply to products. It's not really spam either. AfD or {{PROD}} (see WP:PROD for info) is the best route for albums. --ROGER DAVIES talk 06:21, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Good grief

First admin, then Emily, and now Lead. What in Hades are you going to come up with for me to congratulate you for next week?!

The Logistics idea is excellent. Really, though, it's as if you peeked inside my brain and compiled a list of compelling distractions expressly designed to prevent me from ever writing any damn articles. Devious! Maralia (talk) 16:02, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Logistics department instructions

You might want to consider whether it'd be better to use transcluded instructions (as in the review department) versus on-page instructions; the former is a bit more complex to set up, but reduces the chance that people will overwrite them by accident. :-) Kirill 18:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Request for review of William King (Royal Navy)

Hello -

Please be so kind as to review my article on William (Bill) King, the oldest surviving submarine commander of the Second World War, solo circumnavigator, and author. I am hoping to get a good rating and eventually to have the article qualified as a Featured Article.

Thank you! DocDee (talk) 07:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the quick response, detailed review, and pointers for future steps that you gave. I appreciate your efforts. DocDee (talk) 17:29, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

My God, it's empty! Okay, why not? Give me a couple of days to warm up and we can get cracking, have a lot of university work to sort out first, so may be slower at working for a little while. Regards, SGGH speak! 08:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Article Review

Hello! I want you to review the article Frontier Force Regiment(if you are free!) in short, so any improvements needed could be made. Thanks! --SMS Talk 09:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

No problem! Thanks! --SMS Talk 15:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks a lot! for reviewing it that much comprehensively, it wasn't long as I know how much busy you are and how many other request for peer review you denied. I have looked at it and going to start working on the article again based on this review. Again Thanks! --SMS Talk 05:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Interview of sorts

Do you have time to be a guinea pig now that you are an admin? I am planning on writing a paper for Wikimania 2008 on "online collaborative writing" and I was wondering if I could "interview" you over email about your experiences writing on Wikipedia. I'm trying to collect as many perspectives as possible and I was thinking that your experience on the military history project in particular would be helpful. I would really appreciate it! Awadewit | talk 01:43, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


I would love another shot at adminship! The only reason I haven't taken another crack at adminship is because I would rather be nominated by a second or third party since self somination (to me) undermines the whole effort. As to when I run: a month or so is fine by me, I've waited seven monthes since my last rfa(s) so waiting a little long won't kill me ;-) Thanks for the offer. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

True, but you do have to condier my answer to the "what will do with adminship" question as part of the reason that was such a telling objection: if I had been a little less specific on that point I think the odds would have been a little more favorable for me. At a minimum I need to refamilarize my self with the adminship pages (what adminship is not and all the others), and as you pointed out it wouldn't hurt to hang out at afd and csd for a while. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Milhist newsletter

Got anything to add to the February newsletter? or are we good to go? Woody (talk) 18:39, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I have :) Obviously something on the elections and then something on the logistics dept. Making that work is going to take quite a bit of exposure. Give me a day or two :) --ROGER DAVIES talk 18:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Sure thing, thought you would have something which is why I asked! Woody (talk) 20:10, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Couldn't see any typos so updated the outreach page and left a note at Cbrown's talkpage. Should be out soon. Regards Woody (talk) 12:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


Roger, congratulations on your election as the lead coordinator of the Military History Project. Cam (complaints) 19:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Three things

Yes, I'm up for running the scripts; they only take a day or so to run, so it's not a big deal. The only issue I can see is the workshop matter; I'm assuming that we'll need to make changes in order to reduce the number of false positives, and, depending on how complex those are, I'm not sure that it'll be feasible to have everything ready by the end of the month. How firm of a deadline do you expect that to be?

As far as B-Class worklists go: I assume you mean something like the drive, with lists of articles broken up into small pages? That should be quite easy to generate, since it's basically just taking the existing category and splitting it up into multiple files.

(For ease of generation, it helps if any needed instructions are transcludable, as they were in the first drive; that way, I can insert them into the lists I generate without needing to know what they actually are.)

Cheers! Kirill 20:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that'd be doable. How exactly do you want the B-Class worklists laid out? Kirill 14:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Hmm. Technically speaking, Stub- and Start-Class articles also have "incomplete checklists". Given your estimate of the size, I'm guessing that you only want those articles that are actually B-Class at the moment to show up in this initial run? Kirill 04:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, please. About 4000 articles is relatively easy to do and shouldn't interfere with T&A08 in April. Perhaps we can re-visit stubs and start later in the year. --ROGER DAVIES talk 05:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)