User talk:Mike Searson/archive12

WP Firearms in the Signpost

"WikiProject Report" would like to focus on WikiProject Firearms for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Other editors will also have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 21:40, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's a scary looking picture man...

...especially when I'm asking to merge one of your pages.

Would you mind if I merged natalensis int the sabae species article? It was already a little akward how we had our species article also covering one of the subspecies (rather than a mother article with two daughter articles). Since then I've been integrated some donated content from ARKive and adding photos and such. And that treated the subspecies together. See hyar. Also natalensis has sat for last 2 years. Think I can do something pretty decent with the species article by putting all the content together.

Thumbs up or down? (It's a big wiki and I don't mind editing elsewhere...don't want to mess up someone's baby.)

TCO (reviews needed) 02:32, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:UNDUE regarding Mini-14

Mike,

  • The Mini-14 was "the most important piece of evidence" found when convicting Robert Hansen - a notable American serial killer, and therefore probably warrants inclusion into the article.
  • The recent attacks in Norway are certainly notable not only for just the gravity and magnitude of the attacks, but the fact that they are going to, if not already, reshaping gun laws in that nation. The Mini-14 itself has already been banned for hunting. The gun of choice was especially notable as per this source (translated to english for our purposes).

Cheers,

-Deathsythe (talk) 14:49, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sources for Mini-14

My pleasure. :) --MaeseLeon (talk) 00:02, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, probably Socialdemocratic would define better the current government of Norway (center-left). In an European context, "Socialist Democrats" is often used to define parties more to the left than Socialdemocrats. Just to help. :) --MaeseLeon (talk) 00:11, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Swedish is not my speciality, I'm afraid, but after reviewing the translation and checking the original I'd say that your interpretation is fairly correct. --MaeseLeon (talk) 13:05, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ambassador Program: assessment drive

Even though it's been quiet on-wiki, the Wikipedia Ambassador Program has been busy over the last few months getting ready for the next term. We're heading toward over 80 classes in the US, across all disciplines. You'll see courses start popping up here, and this time we want to match one or more Online Ambassadors to each class based on interest or expertise in the subject matter. If you see a class that you're interested, please contact the professor and/or me; the sooner the Ambassadors and professors get in communication, the better things go. Look for more in the coming weeks about next term.

In the meantime, with a little help I've identified all the articles students did significant work on in the last term. Many of the articles have never been assessed, or have ratings that are out of date from before the students improved them. Please help assess them! Pick a class, or just a few articles, and give them a rating (and add a relevant WikiProject banner if there isn't one), and then update the list of articles.

Once we have updated assessments for all these articles, we can get a better idea of how quality varied from course to course, and which approaches to running Wikipedia assignments and managing courses are most effective.

--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 17:27, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cremony article

I have noted that you very often undo edits of your material, and replace the posts written by other contributors with your original one, in effect censoring any additions or revisions contributed by others and consigning them into a waste basket. I see that you police the article on John C. Cremony very carefully, and edit out changes other contributors have made. I wonder if there is any way that you would allow my information, additions, and I believe corrections, to stand. or whether you will immediately delete everything I add and reinsert your previous version? If you find some of my comments inaccurate or inappropriate, but agree that some have value, I understand the protocol to encourage inclusion of the valid and appropriate additions into your next revision, rather than just censoring the new one and re-inserting the old. That is what I myself did: I left apart half of your article intact.

I cannot believe that any disinterested reader would agree that Cremony was a friend or admirer of the Apaches. My post had a quote from him damning the Apaches as almost the lowest form of animal life, and advocating that they be utterly defeated in battle and totally removed from their homeland. This policy very often led to the virtual destruction of the groups it was imposed on. I could easily quote many similar statements about the evil qualities that Cremony ascribed to the innate and ineradicable nature of the Apaches. I believe the statement in your version of the article, claiming that he was an admirer or friend of the Apaches, as simply wrong, and that it should be therefore deleted. Will you allow my view to be presented, or will you simply delete the entire article I write, and substitute the previous one which you seem to have mostly written? Any quotes or summarizes of his position can be accessed by Google Books, and does not therefore count as "Original Research" in the sense in which Wikipedia discourages it.

The title page of the book I have in my hand gives its publication date of 1868, not the one given in the version of the article I corrected. In 1868 is the correct year, that should be in the article, even if I am the one who put it there. If the book was actually published a year after the book itself gives as its publication date, the person with the expertise to explain this should do so.

Editing an article for Wikipedia is a new experience for me, and I have learned that some of what I wrote diverged from the required style. I would like to do another revision, dropping out those passages that seem inappropriate and perhaps adding more direct quotations and providing more detail to bolster other points.

Would this pass muster with you, or do you insist that the article remain essentially as you have written it, including the [palpably false] opinion that Cremony liked and befriended the Apaches? There is no sense in my wasting effort on this article, if you think the one now on Wikipedia is too sacred to tamper with.

LosAngeles08 LosAngeles08 (talk) 08:35, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Help?

Don't know if you would be able to help or not but there is an article, Harlingen High School, that seems to been ruined. The last good version I saw was 05:05, 24 November 2010 I believe. I am not sure on how to revert the article all the way that far. Any suggestions? Senorelroboto (talk) 04:08, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, thank you. Went to recent changes and your name was near the top so I figured you were still online and it looked like you had some experience. Thanks again. Senorelroboto (talk) 12:09, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Corapi ref

No worries. It happens. There's a bot which usually fixes them quickly, but it was probably busy elsewhere.   Will Beback  talk  22:02, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mike Searson. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.— Hooah! Go Army! 22:14, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXV, July 2011

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. BrownBot (talk) 22:39, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

speedy

As reviewing administrator, I have removed the speedy deletion tag from Joseph G. McDonald. In order to pass CSD A7, it is not necessary that the person be actually notable; any good faith indication of importance is sufficient, and saying the person is the editor of a magazine is an unmistakable indication of possible importance. The speedy deletion criteria are interpreted narrowly, in order to remove the unmistakable utter junk, of which there is a great deal--I've deleted over 12,00 of them myself as an admin.Anything else goes to Prof or AfD, depending on whether you think it is likely to be contested. And remember to check first for sources--it is quite possible that someone like him may have become additionally notable since that article was written several years ago.

In any case, when you nominate for deletion , it is always required that you say so explicitly in the edit summary, so we over-worked admins , and anyone else interested, can easily find that edit. DGG ( talk ) 15:39, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Viet Cong sniper/interrogator "Apache"

Thank you for the notable reference that you added — and for your rewrite about Viet Cong interrogator/sniper "Apache", in the Carlos Hathcock article.

On a seperate note, I am trying to find out if "Apache" is notable enough for an article, at the discussion here, [1].

I am not trying to be rude, but I am curious if you have ever published any critiscism of factual inaccuracies in the book "Marine Sniper"? The only reason I used the book as a reference, was that it had several hits on the first few pages of google, when I googled "apache" + "sniper".--Ønography (talk) 14:43, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kind reply and information about other books that mention her — "both of Sasser's books which mention Hathcock, Chandler's book, and both of Henderson's books".--Ønography (talk) 17:17, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Apache (Viet Cong soldier) has been created as a stub. I did not put your name at [2] — please feel free to put your name where I used your quote. Thank you.--Ønography (talk) 19:11, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Format of the article

I only have the book "Marine Sniper" and online references at my disposal. With that in mind, what section of the article do you suggest I might consider working on. (I am already drafting text that paraphrases "get her hands on a young boy and make him sing real loud to the troops on the hill.I haven’t heard it yet, but I figure it’s only a matter of time before we get our first serenade". The article does not yet reflect that "the sounds of torture in progress" could be heard by soldiers within the US firebase. )

(And if I may ask, what section titles might you expect to see.) Respectfully, --My public account (talk) 09:05, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

Is the following infobox, an improval?

Apache
Nickname(s)Apache
DiedNovember 13, 1966 (aged "around 30" according to estimation)[citation needed]
Hill 55, Vietnam
AllegianceNorth Vietnam
Years of service1963–1966
Battles / warsVietnam War

--Ønography (talk) 11:08, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Author Charles W. Henderson's notability

May I ask you regarding a quote on wikipedia, "Charles W. Henderson, an author of several books about Carlos Hathcock"?

Do you have any recommendations of a third-party wikipedian that is knowledgeable about the notability of authors "in the same category" as Henderson. (The reason I am asking for a "third-party" is that I would prefer input (first) from someone who has little or no knowledge about "Apache".)

The authorship might belong in more than one category. Of the top of my head I can only compare him to Leon Uris for their detailed description of "soldier life" in the USMC. Respectfully, --My public account (talk) 07:23, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pierre Teilhard de Chardin‎

Why are you restoring trash from a banned sock? William M. Connolley (talk) 07:02, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Online Ambassadors: Time to join pods

Hello! If you're planning to be an active Online Ambassador for the upcoming academic term, now is the time to join one or more pods. (A pod consists of the instructor, the Campus Ambassadors, and the Online Ambassadors for single class.) The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) explains the expectations for being part of a pod as an Online Ambassador. (The MOU for pods in Canada is essentially the same.) In short, the role of Online Ambassadors this term consists of:

  • Working closely with the instructor and Campus Ambassadors, providing advice and perspective as an experienced Wikipedian
  • Helping students who ask for it (or helping them to find the help they need)
  • Watching out for the class as a whole
  • Helping students to get community feedback on their work

This replaces the 1-on-1 mentoring role for Online Ambassadors that we had in previous terms; rather than being responsible for individual students (some of whom don't want or help or are unresponsive), Online Ambassadors will be there to help whichever students in their class(es) ask for help.

You can browse the upcoming courses here: United States; Canada. More are being added as new pods become active and create their course pages.

Once you've found a class that you want to work with—especially if you some interest or expertise in the topic area—you should sign the MOU listing for that class and get in touch with the instructor. We're hoping to have at least two Online Ambassadors per pod, and more for the larger classes.

If you're up for supporting any kind of class and would like me to assign you to a pod in need of more Online Ambassadors, just let me know.

--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 16:34, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PS: There are still a lot of student articles from the last term that haven't been rated. Please rate a few and update the list!

Michael Moore article in Project Firearms???

Hi, I am writing to you as you seem to be the project coordinator. I am genuinely seeking explanation as for why Moore merits inclusion in that project as opposed to, say, Michael Bay or Quentin Tarantino... Hearfourmewesique (talk) 01:53, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

August 2011

Please do not add or change content without verifying it by citing reliable sources. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you.--John (talk) 21:41, 24 August 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Please leave better edit summaries to avoid confusion. --John (talk) 21:43, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

EE DRV

I am in half a mind to ask at ANI for a speedy close. On the other hand a "full" DRV might put the matter to rest without any further drama. What do you think? Agathoclea (talk) 15:08, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alleged schism

You will probably be interested in this. Esoglou (talk) 20:57, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Meh, thanks for the headsup, though.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 20:57, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Ecs.jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Ecs.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

  • I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a {{helpme}} template, along with your question, beneath this message.
  • I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
  • If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
  • To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
  • If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.


Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:41, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your DYK nom for Buster Warenski

Hi Mike, I took a look at your DYK nom at Template:Did you know nominations/Buster Warenski and it's too short. Could you expand the article and then leave notification at the nomination page? Thanks. Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:29, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ernest Emerson (2nd nomination)

Are all those people showing up at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ernest Emerson (2nd nomination) friends of yours? If so you might want to read wp:CANVASS why this is considered disruptive and can get you blocked. Yoenit (talk) 19:46, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded to your comment on my talkpage. Yoenit (talk) 07:39, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]


You are falsely suspected of sockpuppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mike Searson. Thank you. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:46, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Buster Warenski

Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:04, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LXVI, August 2011

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 18:22, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seperate article about the aftermath and killing of Vietnamese sniper "Cobra"

If I remember correctly, there is a first hand account on youtube about the Killing of "Cobra" (a Vietnamese sniper).

Is the aftermath of the killing and/or the shot notable for an article of its own? (I think a seperate article is warranted.)

Have you ever published anything about any of the re-enactments that anteceded "an episode of the Mythbyster TV-show" (if I may ask)?

Which re-enactment (after the date that Mythbyster showed their original episode)is the most notable in your opinion?

Do you have any favorite notable link to any non-U.S. soldier's professional opinion? (With a "non-U.S. outlook", then maybe there will be no sociologists publishing in 2011, about the killing never having happened and that it is only a fantasy or mass psychosis by a click within one of the U.S. branches of service.)

Do you have any favorite notable link to any non-U.S. non-soldier's professional opinion (perhaps a ballistics expert)?

Thank you.--Ranti2 (talk) 07:10, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]