Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/August 2007

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

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

From Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators:

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

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

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

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

• The election will run for two weeks, starting at 00:00 (UTC) on August 15 and ending at 23:59 (UTC) on August 28.

• Any member of the project may nominate themselves for a position by adding their statement in the "Candidates" section below by the start of the election. The following boilerplate can be used:

=== Name ===

{{user|Name}}
: Statement goes here...

==== Comments and questions for Name ====

*

==== Votes in support of Name ====

#

• The election will be conducted using simple approval voting. Any member of the project may support as many of the candidates as they wish. The candidate with the highest number of endorsements will become the Lead Coordinator (provided he or she is willing to assume the post); the next eight candidates will become Assistant Coordinators.

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

Carom (talk · contribs)

I've been involved with the project for about a year now, and have served as an assistant coordinator for the last six months. During my time as coordinator, I've been involved in most of the guideline discussions within the project, most recently those involving category conventions and navigational templates. I'm also usually active in the project A-Class review process, and occasionally in peer reviews. And lastly, I help to maintain the deletion sorting list for military-related articles. In the rest of my wiki-life, I maintain the World War I portal, and work on articles relating to that subject matter (including a recently promoted featured article.

In the future, I'd like to take up an idea recently proposed on the main talk page, relating to providing some form of on-wiki support for editors experiencing wikipedia-related stress. Initially proposed (I believe) by Wandalstouring, and developed a little by Kirill Lokshin, I'd like to inistute some form of (relatively informal) methods to provide some limited assistance and support to editors, primarily to avoid burnout, but also to steer away from more formal (and often acrimonious) procedures available elsewhere.

Response to question by MKnight9989: Well, the idea originally presented was to develop a space within the project that would allow editors who were experiencing some kind of stress to leave a message to that effect. Other members of the project would be able to respond and provide advice or guidance. The purpose would not necessarily be to attempt to resolve disputes, but more to try and prevent escalation of nascent conflicts. Additionally, it would allow editors a forum to talk about problems they are encountering while using wikipedia without entering into formal dispute resolution. I think this might be a workable approach, although it would certainly require some tweaking, and it would absolutely require a handful of editors to commit to watch the page and comment on any activity there.

• What are some methods you would employ in an effort to prevent editor burnout? --MKnight9989 14:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Answered above, in case anyone missed it. Carom 21:47, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. Support for re-election. MrPrada 00:20, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Support TomStar81 (Talk) 01:43, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Support Skunkmaster 05:15, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. Support. Kyriakos 07:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. Support. --Eurocopter tigre 08:26, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 09:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7. Support wbfergus 10:08, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
8. Support Woodym555 12:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
9. Support Wikimachine 13:58, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
10. Support Swatjester 15:13, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
11. Support Tirronan 16:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
12. Support. Cla68 21:30, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
13. Support theoctopusking 23:57, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
14. Support ¿SFGiДnts! ^{¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review!} 00:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
15. Support -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 01:13, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
16. Support --noclador 10:39, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
17. Support LordAmeth 15:06, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
18. Support Angelbo ^{Talk / Contribs} 16:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
19. Support Askari Mark (Talk) 17:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
20. Support Captain panda 22:04, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
21. Support Dreamy ^\*/_!$! 01:20, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
22. Support Euryalus 01:53, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
23. Support Deniz^T_C 05:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
24. Support Harlsbottom 11:20, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
25. Support JKBrooks85 14:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
26. Support Cam 18:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
27. Support--Aldux 23:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
28. Support Grant | Talk 05:27, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
29. Support --ROGER ^TALK 16:09, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
30. Support Jll 10:17, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
31. Support --Patar knight 21:46, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
32. Support - NDCompuGeek 02:47, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
33. Support --MoRsE 08:39, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
34. Support--MKnight9989 It'd be great if you could help prevent editor burnout.
35. Support-- Raoulduke47 18:55, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
36. Support Nice work! Impressive! Meldshal42 22:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
37. Support--Jhfireboy Talk 14:12, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
38. Support And hoping he does get to answering that question as it seems like a good one and I'd like to know the answer. --ScreaminEagle 17:12, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
39. Support Pen of bushido 18:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
40. Support--Dominik92 06:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cla68 (talk · contribs)

I've been helping out with the MILHIST project and several of its subprojects and editing military history articles for about a year and a half now (more details on my userpage). Thanks to Kirill, previous and current assistant coordinators, and the rest of the project members, MILHIST is one of the most successful WikiProjects. I believe that an assistant coordinator for MILHIST should take a lead role in participating in peer reviews and A-class reviews, answering questions or concerns on the MILHIST project and sub-project talk pages, and generally helping out with the administration and organization of the project's articles and information pages. Continuing to foster a mutually supportive and congenial community atmosphere in the project would, in my opinion, encourage even greater participation by our project members and hopefully attract more editors.

1. Support. Carom 00:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Support TomStar81 (Talk) 01:44, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Support. Kyriakos 07:47, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. Support --Nick Dowling 09:09, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 09:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. Support wbfergus 10:11, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7. Support Woodym555 12:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
8. Support Wikimachine 13:59, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
9. Support Tirronan 16:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
10. Support ¿SFGiДnts! ^{¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review!} 00:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
11. Support -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 01:13, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
12. Support --Eurocopter tigre 09:12, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
13. Support LordAmeth 15:06, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
14. Support Angelbo ^{Talk / Contribs} 16:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
15. Support - Auror 21:15, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
16. Support Deniz^T_C 05:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
17. Support JKBrooks85 14:15, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
18. Support Grant | Talk 05:27, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
19. Support--Aldux 11:58, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
20. Support --ROGER ^TALK 16:10, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
21. Support Jll 10:17, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
22. SupportAminz 01:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
23. Support You seem ready to me! Meldshal42 22:07, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
24. Support --ScreaminEagle 17:13, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dreamafter (talk · contribs)

I have only been part of Wikipedia for just over four monthes, and I have created articles that have been requested, like Ludwig Gehre, Legion Belge, and 17 Wing. I have revamped Anzio War Cemetery and Military parade. I have added constructive criticism and comments to Royal Military Police, AQM-37 Jayhawk, Ludwig Gehre,

Schutzstaffel, Battle of Midway, 130 K 90-60, 10th SS Panzer Division Frundsberg, and Cargo Helicopter. There are three images, that I have uploaded that are fully directed at this WikiProject, and eight images that are not fully directed with this WikiProject, the images are, Image:Anzio-War-Cemetery.jpg, Image:RCAC Private.png, Image:Flight Corporal RCACS.png, Image:Nichola Goddard.png, Image:Level2RCACS.png, Image:Level1RCACS.png, Image:Level3RCACS.png, Image:Pipe major.jpg, Image:Level4RCACS.png, Image:Level5RCACS.png, and Image:Ludwig Gehre head-shot.jpg. And I have reviewed some articles. I would like to be an assistant coordinator, so that I can have a say in some of the more higher up choices that go on inside this WikiProject. I have some experience in this field, because, I am the Head Lead Coordinator of WikiProject Artemis Fowl. I have been away for a while, and I am just getting back in the groove of things, I still know what I am doing, and I believe, that people will still want my input, and that I want to help out with more than just one WikiProject, so, if you wish for me to be a new Asst. Coord., than I am glad. I have created many an article for this WikiProject and continue to edit for it, mostly in WWII articles.Dreamy ^\*/_!$! 01:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Out of curisity, do you believe that your position as Lead Coordinator of WikiProject Artemis Fowl will effect you ability to be an assistant coordinator on this wikiproject? And do you feel that you will be able to balance both of these tasks equally? TomStar81 (Talk) 19:59, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for bringing that up, I have recently chosen to step down from that position, allowing me to give my full attention to this WikiProject. Dreamy ^\*/_!$! 19:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. Support -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 01:13, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Support --Eurocopter tigre 09:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Support TomStar81 (Talk) 01:11, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. Support Elfalem 04:08, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. Support You seem ready for the job! Meldshal42 22:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eurocopter tigre (talk · contribs)

I am a relatively new wikipedian (I joined Wikipedia on 1st March 2007) and an active member of Military History project since April 2007. 95% of my contributions to Wikipedia are made on MILHIST related articles, especially on the modern military ones (see my Userpage for complete details regarding my contributions). I also created over 40 Milhist articles, some of them representing Romanian Armed Forces' major units and air bases, as well as Russian Air Force's Air Armies (perhaps the most important article created by me is Russian Naval Aviation). I was often involved in A-class review processes and helped promote few MILHIST project articles to GA status. Currently, I am actively participating in the tagging and assessement drive of the project. As an assistant coordinator of the MILHIST project, I would focus especially on Peer and A-class reviews, and I will most likely continue my work on tagging and assessement. However if I will become an assistant coordinator or not, I would be proud to further serve the project as an effective editor.

1. Support I checked your edits & they're really good & helpful. I'm wondering why you didn't get any votes yet. Wikimachine 14:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Support I think whats driving people away from you is your honesty with regards to the amount of time you have been with the project; however, I concur with Wikimachine's assessment of your contributions, and support your AC effort. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:02, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Support. Kyriakos 21:37, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. Support theoctopusking 23:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. Support -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 01:13, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. Support --noclador 10:39, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7. Support Very active member who spends a lot of time improving things "behind the scenes". Askari Mark (Talk) 17:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
8. Support wbfergus 18:48, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
9. Support Politics rule 19:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
10. Support Because of your helpful edits concerning Russian Aircraft Antimatter---talk--- 20:40, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
11. Support. Cla68 21:45, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
12. Support Dreamy ^\*/_!$! 01:21, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
13. Support - Euryalus 01:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
14. Support Deniz^T_C 05:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
15. Support Yeah you really pushed the Romanian Land Forces article to become what it is now. Dapiks 19:25, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
16. Support - Wiki-gnome whose work is really good quality! - NDCompuGeek 20:28, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
17. Support Angelbo ^{Talk / Contribs} 21:30, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
18. Support Jll 10:17, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
19. Support --Patar knight 16:24, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
20. Support JKBrooks85 18:59, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
21. Support --MoRsE 08:39, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
22. Support -- You look like a promising coordinator! Meldshal42 22:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
23. Support I think you'll be able to provide some balance and strategy between English/Western articles and non-Western articles. RichyBoy 10:46, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
24. Support Just don't burn out on us, eh? --ScreaminEagle 17:17, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FayssalF (talk · contribs)

I have been an WPMILHIST coordinator since Feb. 07. I've participated in the creation of the African and the Ottoman MilHist task forces. I have also been behind the creation of the African and Ottoman MilHist-related portals. I've also helped writing the [Military] article w/ Roger Davies almost from scratch. In parallel, i've tried to mediate in a couple of military-related topics both as a coordinator and as an administrator. I've been successful in some but not in others.

That being said, i am one of the contributors (if not the only one) who think that this WikiProject needs more than 9 coordinators due to its importance and its increasing scope/spectrum. In other words, i'd keep trying to help this project even if i'd not be able to remain a coordinator. So please only vote for me if you believe that there are no more than 8 valuable coordinators. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 22:31, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. Support for re-election. MrPrada 00:21, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Support. Carom 00:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Support Politics rule 01:08, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. Support Skunkmaster 05:10, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. Support. Kyriakos 07:47, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 09:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7. Support Wikimachine 14:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
8. Support Swatjester 15:19, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
9. Support Tirronan 16:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
10. Support. Cla68 21:30, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
11. Support theoctopusking 23:58, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
12. Support ¿SFGiДnts! ^{¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review!} 00:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
13. Support But I disagree with this: "So please only vote for me if you believe that there are no more than 8 valuable coordinators."Proabivouac 09:09, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
14. Support Chinese3126 12:55, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
15. Support LordAmeth 15:05, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
16. Support Angelbo ^{Talk / Contribs} 16:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
17. Support A valuable contributor working in under-represented areas, yet serves where needed broadly "along the front". Askari Mark (Talk) 17:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
18. Support wbfergus 18:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
19. Support but you are a valuable coordinator! Antimatter---talk--- 20:41, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
20. support TomStar81 (Talk) 01:11, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
21. Support Deniz^T_C 05:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
22. Support JKBrooks85 14:16, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
23. Support--Aldux 23:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
24. Support Arnoutf 09:28, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
25. Support - Euryalus 12:06, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
26. Support --ROGER ^TALK 16:10, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
27. 'Support-Flubeca^Talk 16:18, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
28. Support --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie} 17:50, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
29. Support---Vojvodaen 18:49, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
30. Support Jll 10:17, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
31. Support Lysandros 12:16, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
32. SupportAminz 01:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
33. Support --MoRsE 08:39, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
34. Support -- Raoulduke47 18:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
35. Support -- Keep up the good work! Meldshal42 22:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
36. Support --ScreaminEagle 17:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kirill Lokshin (talk · contribs)

I've acted as the project's Lead Coordinator from February 2006, and, as such, I expect that most people will already have formed an opinion—favorable or not—regarding my approach to the position; I hope to be permitted another opportunity to serve the project, in whatever capacity the members may wish. My intention is to try and further improve the functioning of the project by continuing and further enhancing the programs that are already successful, such as the various reviews and contests, while also branching out to adopt additional initiatives that may take us in some new directions; for the most part, though, I expect that business will continue as usual. Whether that happens to be a good way of operating is, of course, something best decided by people other than myself; I am admittedly a bit too enmeshed in keeping things running at times to be able to see if they're really working out the way they should.

I think you are a productive member with articulate communicative skills, but nonetheless, I still have some concerns, and these are as followed:

• I got the impression that you are a bit biased when it comes to military history, favouring Western history over Eastern European history, for example. This, and the fact that you are heavily involved with the Wiki version 0.5 and 1.0, makes me believe that your choice of what is good enough to be included, and what is not, is biased. I don't want to give any concrete examples, but I disagree with some of your decissions. What would you like to comment on this?

• As far as my personal interests are concerned, your impression is basically correct; I've made no secret of the fact that my own area of specializiation focuses primarily on Western Europe. I'm not entirely certain how this relates to the 0.5/1.0 issue, though. Version 0.5 followed an admittedly confused selection strategy at first (which is to say that those of us who attempted to review articles really had no common understanding of what was to be included and what wasn't); the practical outcome was that existing FAs were included in bulk, but essentially nothing else was. This obviously created a rather unbalanced selection, but that was due to the imbalance in FAs rather than any additional factors imposed by the selection process itself. I've had very little involvement in the selection aspects of any post-0.5 work, so I can't really comment on what may or may not be taking place there. Kirill 20:58, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Your "little involvement" involved this decission of yours. And I wasn't refering to personal preferences on military subjects, but selective bias. --Thus Spake Anittas 06:26, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, I was well aware of which article you were referring to. As I said, the initial stages of the 0.5 selection process "followed an admittedly confused selection strategy... existing FAs were included in bulk, but essentially nothing else was". It's unfortunate that your article didn't make it in, and I suppose you can hang that on my neck if you need someone in particular to blame; but I would argue that the real problem was a lack of good selection criteria in 0.5 at that point, not any malicious intent my part. Kirill 13:06, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• How has Eastern Europe military articles benefited from your term as Coordinator? What will you do, if relected as Coordinator, for the interest of that project? Thanks for your time. --Thus Spake Anittas 20:22, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm rather hesitant to take personal credit for any positive things that have occurred here; the overwhelming majority of the work has been done by the editors working directly on the articles, not by those involved in the central coordination of things within the project. We've made certain moves to getting better coverage of Eastern Europe in general (particularly with the creation of several task forces that cover different areas there), but the limiting factors remain largely beyond our direct control. Eastern European articles typically have a smaller number of editors working on them to begin with; and the unfortunate tendency of such articles to get swallowed up in arguments among editors from different backgrounds tends to cause high rates of burnout and low numbers of articles making it up to FA level. This isn't to say such work is impossible; we've had a number of editors, including Piotrus, Grafikm, Halibutt, and others produce FAs on Eastern European topics; but there unfortunately don't seem to be as many newer editors coming in to replace the ones that become less active in this area.
• (We are, incidentally, planning some initiatives to try and reduce the rate of editor burnout due to stress; but whether this will have any practical effects in any particular area isn't necessarily something predictable.) Kirill 20:58, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not to defend Kirill's contributions here but i believe that it is more a matter of interests than a situation of bias. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 13:56, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a coordinator, I believe that one should actively support all projects within the field; and if a project, such as Eastern Europe Military History, seems a bit weak, then a evaluation should be made about its prospects, followed by a plan on how to improve it. I have seen no such thing and no such proposal, from the current Board of Coordinators--which--if my memory serves me right, gained my vote two times. --Thus Spake Anittas 16:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say, it doesn't sound like Anittas. Why are you attacking on only Eastern Europe? Why not Africa, Asia or the military history of the America's? And what about time frames? Kirill states that he works on 15-18th century military history primarily, since I do most my work on World War II, should I hold that against him?

To me, personally, it sounds like you have an interest towards Eastern Europe and are somewhat upset that Kirill (who specializes in Western Europe) doesn't share it. As I'm sure you'll agree, it takes a lot of time and effort to get significant knowledge and insight into a particular segment of military history, to hold what that person specializes in against them is unreasonable.

If you want to make a stronger argument, what can you point out that Kirill, personal edits asides, has done in favor of Western military history? Is there a policy which places emphasis on it? Special incentives for people who work on WE related articles?

Frankly, I don't care what a coordinator specializes in; that's the reason for the task forces. Oberiko 12:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. Support -- You are the man. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:09, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Support for re-election. MrPrada 00:21, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Support. Carom 00:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. Support Politics rule 00:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. Support till you don't stand.K14 03:46, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. Support Skunkmaster 05:08, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7. Support What would we do if you weren't here? Buckshot06 07:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
   • Thats easy: we would all be running around in circles demanding to know who's drivin' this flat umbrella :) TomStar81 (Talk) 09:30, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
8. Support. Kyriakos 07:46, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
9. Support. --Eurocopter tigre 08:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
10. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 09:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
11. There's no one else to vote for. --Thus Spake Anittas 09:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
12. Support wbfergus 10:15, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
13. Support Woodym555 12:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
14. Support Tristan benedict 12:49, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
15. Support Wikimachine 14:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
16. Pizzaria Uno Support Swatjester 15:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
17. Support Tirronan 16:37, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
18. Support for lead coordinator. Cla68 21:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
19. Support theoctopusking 23:55, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
20. Support ¿SFGiДnts! ^{¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review!} 00:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
21. Support -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 01:13, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
22. SupportProabivouac 09:09, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
23. SupportAshLin 10:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
24. Support --noclador 10:39, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
25. Support LordAmeth 15:02, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
26. Support Angelbo ^{Talk / Contribs} 16:32, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
27. Support Askari Mark (Talk) 17:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
28. Support keep running and i'll keep voting for you. Antimatter---talk--- 20:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
29. Support Auror 21:17, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
30. Support Captain panda 22:03, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
31. Support Dreamy ^\*/_!$! 01:22, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
32. Support - Euryalus 01:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
33. Support T Rex | talk 02:38, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
34. Support Deniz^T_C 05:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
35. Support Harlsbottom 11:19, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
36. Support JKBrooks85 14:20, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
37. Support Hotfeba 16:48, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
38. Definate Support Cam 18:17, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
39. Support Carl Logan 20:36, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
40. Support--Aldux 23:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
41. Support Grant | Talk 05:27, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
42. SupportArnoutf 09:28, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
43. Support --ROGER ^TALK 16:11, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
44. Support -Flubeca^Talk 16:15, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
45. Support --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie} 17:50, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
46. Support -- NDCompuGeek 20:22, 19 August 2007 (UTC) — Let's keep the General in charge! General, what's your orders, sir?[reply]
47. Support -Darth Gladius 00:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
48. Support Jll 10:17, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
49. Support Lysandros 12:16, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
50. Support ed4linda Doc Rock 14:57, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
51. Support Onnaghar ^{tl | co} 17:40, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
52. Support keep the good work up!!! --Patar knight 22:15, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
53. Support Aminz 01:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
54. Support --MoRsE 08:39, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
55. Support Nickhk 01:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
56. SupportMisterBee1966 13:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
57. Support -- Why change perfectly good horses in midstream? RM Gillespie 15:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
58. Support -- Raoulduke47 18:53, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
59. Support I support because this Project is doing well! Meldshal42 22:04, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
60. Support SGGH ^speak! 01:44, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
61. Support RichyBoy 10:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
62. Support TeunSpaans 20:03, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
63. Support john1951
64. Support Ethers ^[talk]
65. Support Duh. --ScreaminEagle 17:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
66. Support Oberiko 12:57, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kyriakos (talk · contribs)

I have been a member of WPMILHIST since Feb' 06. Since then I have contributed to quite a few articles most on Hellenistic Greece but also in other areas. I was elected as assistant coordinator in Feb' 2007. I am the creator and maintainer of Portal:Military of Greece. On the project I help by reviewing A-class candidates, assessing articles and helping Kirill as much as possible. One of my aims to help build up this project and make it the best in Wikipedia. Thanks for spenidig our time to read this. Kyriakos 06:11, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. Support for re-election. MrPrada 00:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Support. Carom 00:26, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Support Politics rule 01:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. Support TomStar81 (Talk) 01:55, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. Support --Eurocopter tigre 08:29, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 09:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7. Support Woodym555 12:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
8. Support Tristan benedict 12:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
9. Support Wikimachine 14:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
10. Support Swatjester 15:15, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
11. Support. Cla68 21:32, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
12. Support ¿SFGiДnts! ^{¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review!} 00:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
13. Support -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 01:13, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
14. Support LordAmeth 15:02, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
15. Support Angelbo ^{Talk / Contribs} 16:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
16. Support Askari Mark (Talk) 17:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
17. Support - Auror 21:17, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
18. Support - Euryalus 01:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
19. Support Deniz^T_C 05:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
20. Supporter--Aldux 23:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
21. Support --ROGER ^TALK 16:11, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
22. Support Jll 10:26, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
23. Support Aminz 01:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
24. Support --MoRsE 08:39, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
25. Support Keep it up! Meldshal42 22:13, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LordAmeth (talk · contribs)

I have been a member of the project since its inception in 2005 as a merger of the Battles and War WikiProjects, and have served as Asst Coordinator for roughly a year now. I have contributed extensively to topics of pre-modern and early modern Japan, to combatting American-centric or Eurocentric systemic bias, and to various procedural tasks such as tagging and assessment. I am particularly fond of my admin and asst project coordinator status for the visibility it provides me, and in turn, the opportunities to help others, answering questions about Wikipedia or Project format and style standards and policies, and about details on Japanese history. I look forward to continuing to work with you all, whether as asst coordinator, or a regular contributor to the project.

• Your answer won't affect my vote either way, but I thought I'd ask this question after reading your comments above, regarding American-centric bias. How would you handle the dispute on the Korean War talk page regarding the usage or not of invluding the Chinese estimates of American casualties in the infobox? Most of the discussions on this are archived under Talk:Korean War/Chinese Casualty Discussion, but one user usually keeps bringing up discussions on the main talk page anyway. I think all but one person has laid the issue to rest, but this one individual keeps trying to bring it up over and over again. Since lately he has been claiming an America-centric bias on Wikipedia, and this is one of the isssue you claim to work on, your comments would be welcome. Thank you. wbfergus 15:31, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be a fairly common issue, as some users place far more trust in Chinese Communist statistics and reports than is perhaps warranted - it's an unfortunate situation, but it's been resolved in this situation the same way it has been in many other cases. Ksyrie has caused similar debates and problems on a number of other pages, but thankfully he remains very much in the minority. I have to say, I really don't know what more can be done than what has been done - provide numerous verifiable sources, and debunk as persuasively as possible the unreliable Chinese sources.

NPOV does not mean any kind of obligation to make use of inaccurate accounts, but rather a goal of representing events in a non-biased way - there are unfortunately many who I believe misunderstand this. The Korean War article appears, on the whole, to be largely NPOV, treating this as the Korean conflict it is, and not in the way one might expect to see it related in a textbook of American history. That being the case, I don't think that accusations of American bias really hold water. I must admit I know next to nothing about the Korean War, nor about this issue in particular, but I would certainly trust the American numbers (which are surely backed up by other sources, such as Japanese, South Korean, British, etc) more than the politically-motivated and skewed versions put forward by the Communists. ... So, in short, I'm not sure what I can suggest in terms of "handling" such a situation - dissenters such as Ksyrie have the right to talk, to make discussion, and we can't stop them no matter how many times they insist on bringing up the same topics over again. When edits become disruptive, and facts cited from reliable and verifiable sources are removed in favor of Communist propaganda, we can take administrative action to combat vandalism... But, at least I've given you my position on the issue. Thanks for bringing such a thing to my attention. LordAmeth 19:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • • Thank you for your well thought out opinion on the matter. It fits with what others and myself have been thinking, but you expressed yourself more eloquently than we. wbfergus 11:05, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: Why do you feel that Wikipedia is a place for biases to be combated? Given reliability of sources, and verifiability, and NPOV, why should there be any need for "combating american-centric bias?" Especially since it is much less prevalent in military history due to the limited number of articles and battles that fall under american scope. (i.e. must be post 1776, must involve the US military, or some other aspect of the us military). I've noted the military history arena to be one of the least biased areas of wikipedia, with the notable exceptions of things like Armenia vs. Turkey vs. Azerbaijan, or the Middle east vs. Israel, etc. But none of those are American biases. So where are you getting this concept of american bias from? ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 14:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. Good question. I apologise for not explaining myself better to begin with. You are right to say that there are more significantly biased fields, and that American bias very rarely is the type of bias we see in Chinese/Korean/Japanese, Israeli/Arab, or Turkish/Armenian debates. When I talk about American bias, I am referring more to American-centric attitudes, namely the approach and writing style by which events are related primarily or solely within the context of American history. Combatting American bias means representing the Korean War, Vietnam War, and Pacific theatre of WWII as the Asian events which they are, relating their significance within the contexts of Korean, Vietnamese, and Japanese/Asian/Pacific history respectively, and not solely for their significance in American history. My comments on the Featured article review for Attack on Pearl Harbor may help to illuminate my attitude on this matter. All told, my issues in these matters do not relate to "bias" per se, in the sense of racism or prejudice, but rather with Western ethnocentrism. LordAmeth 15:43, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, that significantly alters my opinion. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 15:30, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An example of what LordAmeth was referring to is Battle of Abu Ghraib (see also its talk page and its related AfD). But well, you are right when saying that the military history arena to be one of the least biased areas of wikipedia. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 22:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. Support for re-election. MrPrada 00:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Support. Carom 00:26, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Support TomStar81 (Talk) 01:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. Support Skunkmaster 05:07, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. Support. Kyriakos 07:49, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 09:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7. Support wbfergus 10:17, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
8. Support Woodym555 12:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
9. Support Tristan benedict 12:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
10. Support Wikimachine 14:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
11. Support Man of Bravery!! 16:18, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
12. Support Tirronan 17:08, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
13. Support. Cla68 21:32, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
14. Support ¿SFGiДnts! ^{¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review!} 00:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
15. Support -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 01:13, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
16. Support AshLin 10:04, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
17. Support Angelbo ^{Talk / Contribs} 16:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
18. Support Askari Mark (Talk) 17:27, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
19. Support Captain panda 22:03, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
20. Support - Euryalus 02:01, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
21. Support Deniz^T_C 05:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
22. Support Harlsbottom 11:20, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
23. Support JKBrooks85 14:21, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
24. Support--Aldux 23:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
25. Support Grant | Talk 05:27, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
26. Support Arnoutf 09:32, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
27. Support ♠TomasBat 16:08, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
28. Support --ROGER ^TALK 16:12, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
29. Support ..K14 00:28, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
30. Support --Eurocopter tigre 14:27, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
31. Support Jll 10:17, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
32. Support ed4linda Doc Rock 14:58, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
33. Support --MoRsE 08:39, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
34. Support -- Raoulduke47 18:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
35. Support --ScreaminEagle 17:21, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
36. Support Oberiko 13:16, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad adil (talk · contribs)

I have been on wikipedia for about a year i have mainly contributed in muslim conquest of 7th century under Rashidun Caliphs, and in writing the biographies like that of Khalid ibn Walid, Abu Ubaidah ibn al-Jarrah, Abu Bakr, Uthman ibn Affan and Abdullah ibn Aamir. The following articles are writen by me: [1]. My favorite article among those that i have writen is of Battle of Yarmouk. I am able to contribute with an intermediate level of English.

• What can you contribute as a coordinator? Any ideas or are you a reliable person that could handle the administration? Wandalstouring 09:22, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well frankly speaking i really dont know what to do as a coordinator or as an administrator ! but yes i can handle it once i am briefed on it, one thing i can do for sure, and it is that i can contribute a lot because of my natural interest and understanding of military history. Mohammad Adil 22:40, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Really, you could have informed yourself. Here's the handbook. Greetings Wandalstouring 06:34, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for that, i have read it its easy to control.Mohammad Adil 21:31, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • You seem to misunderstand something: coordinators are for the whole military history project, not only for specific task forces of this project. Wandalstouring 12:25, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yes, it does partially seem that you misinterpret the exact responsiblities of this job. I'll support you, but try to learn what you'll be doing as a coordinator. Thanks, Meldshal42 12:31, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. Support -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 01:13, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Support --Eurocopter tigre 09:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Support Aminz 01:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. Support Meldshal42 12:31, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Politics rule (talk · contribs)

I have been in Wikipedia for about 7 months, and while most of my edits have been towards Politics, I am very interested in Military History. Of the edits I have done concerning Military History, World War Two has been my main focus. My I have also done significant cleanup on articles about battles of World War 2. I am also in the process of doing massive cleanup and editing of World War 2, World War 1, Korea, Vietnam, 1st Gulf War, and the current War on Terroism. My contributions aslo include the U.S Navy, and the Airforce of the United States. I also contribute to Military leaders of today, and the Past. The other thing I'm active in is removing Images that have "been deleted" out of Military pages. I joined the Wikiproject Military history on one of the first days of my starting of Wikipedia. I intend that if I'm elected as Assistant Coordinator, I would work hard on helping out with the major backlogs, that affect a large amount of Military articles.

Checking your recent edits, was interested to see you respelt tonnes as tons, thinking it was a spelling error, rather than a metric measurement. How can we be sure that you won't make other mistakes of this type? Buckshot06 13:13, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I did make a mistake in my judgement of thinking that tonnes was mispelled. I should have known that if it was concerning the Italians, it would have known that it would be different that tons. If elected as Assisstant Coordinator, not only will I watch out for errors like that, but before I revert it, I will look the word up, to insure accuracy of the page. I have also reverted my edit back to tonnes. Politics rule 18:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. Support As long as he's willing, why not? Picking on candidates for simple spelling mistakes is unfair. We Wikipedians should feel fortunate that we have 1 more editor who's willing to volunteer for these responsibilities. Wikimachine 14:04, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Support theoctopusking 23:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Support --Eurocopter tigre 09:15, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. Support Deniz^T_C 05:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Davies (talk · contribs)

I would like to contribute to the project as an assistant coordinator. I have been active in reorganising some of the WWI and WW2 categories, as well as helping with articles on the Spanish Civil War (mostly biographies) and First World War (mostly battles, including one featured article). I have added considerably to American Battle Monuments Commission and German War Graves Commission coverage. One of the areas I see as useful is liaising with other WikiProjects so that subject overlaps are handled more consistently. Similarly, regular reviews of the category system are helpful so that it constantly reflects best practise. My background is writing/journalism and I believe that military history, with its potential for controversy and division, needs always to be reported from an scrupulously neutral point of view, attributed to reliable sources. As these coincide with key Wikipedia policies, I would like to concentrate on this within the article review system. I am very interested in templates and would like to contribute here too. Finally, I like to be busy and find some of the routine work horse type jobs of the kind that an assitant coordinator is expected to undertake surprisingly satisfying as they make a change from real life pressures. I shall be touring from 1 August until 2 September but will make a point of logging as often as I can to reply to any questions.

1. Support for election. MrPrada 00:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Support. Carom 00:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Support wbfergus 10:21, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. Support Woodym555 12:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. Support Wikimachine 14:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. Support Swatjester 15:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7. Support ¿SFGiДnts! ^{¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review!} 00:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
8. Support -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 01:13, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
9. Support LordAmeth 15:01, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
10. Support Tristan benedict 15:02, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
11. Support Deniz^T_C 05:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
12. Support. Kyriakos 02:08, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
13. Support Jll 10:17, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
14. Support RichyBoy 10:51, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
15. Support --ScreaminEagle 17:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TheFEARgod (talk · contribs)

as I edited MilHist articles since I came to wikipedia and became a member last year It would be interesting to take this task. Really I don't know what to write here see my user page :) I hope some of the editors already know me.

• Thanks for your extensive work on current conflicts, particularly in the Middle East. This is an important aspect of the milhist field which needs attention. (1) Can I ask you to please provide an example of a Middle East related article you created or contributed to extensively, which you are particularly proud of, and which shows a particularly neutral POV? (2) The Middle East is likely the most controversial area in the world today, and anti-American and anti-Israeli sentiment runs rampant as does anti-Arab/anti-Muslim bias. Do you have any particular comment on this matter? How do you seek to promote and enforce a neutral point of view? Thanks. LordAmeth 14:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1) hmm something like 1982–2000 South Lebanon conflict, 2007 Lebanon conflict with timeline, Battle of Gaza (2007) or Terrorist attacks of the Iraq War with many of the attacks created by me. As I only in those articles learned to add correctly refs and the just follow a timeline or only reported fighting are added, I think they are NPOV. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 14:05, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2) Including ALL the allegations, conspiracies and accusations made by each side in an article. Only that way will show the reader a complete overview of a situation happening inside a territory and human mind. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 14:05, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your answers. On topics such as these, a cool-headed, unbiased attitude and approach is especially essential. I hope you can serve as an example, and perhaps a leader, in ensuring NPOV on such topics. LordAmeth 04:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• On your personal page (to which you refer in your motivation) you display a user box stating: "This user knows that Kosovo and Metohija is a part of Serbia". Do you think a strong statement like this will cause you to be biased in Balkan articles? If yes, why do you think this is not a problem, if not, please explain why not. Arnoutf 09:37, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. That's my POV depending on 50% percent on my feelings and 50% percent in my real belief in legality. Yes, there was a huuuge bias by my side when I came here (how strange I never made a 3RR), but with learning wiki's NPOV and CITE I began cooling down myself. Today, I don't make an addition to a disputed article without a citation (reliable), so I think there should be no problem. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 14:20, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. Support for election. MrPrada 00:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Support Skunkmaster 05:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Support Wikimachine 14:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. Support --Eurocopter tigre 20:03, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. Support Deniz^T_C 18:52, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. Support --Vonones 20:44, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7. Support LordAmeth 04:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TomStar81 (talk · contribs)

Despite being spellogically challenged, I would also like to contribute to the project as an assistant cooridinator. I have been a member of the project for some time now; my contributions are mostly focusing on our battleship pages (namely the Iowa class battleships). I am responsible for two project wide changes; the "preceded by" and "succeded by" tabs on the ship class tables were original inserted into the U.S. battleship class pages by me to make finding the preceding and succeding ship classes easier, thus eliminating the need to search the encyclopdia to find out for sure. These have since been adopted into the general ship class tables here on Wikipedia. I was also the one who first suggested that our Wikichevron w/oak leaves be awarded by the project coordinators, leading to the adoption of our two-tiered award system (although I will note that others helped the idea by adding to it as the discussions progressed). With the school year nearly upon me already I know that my hardcore contributing time will be cut down somewhat, but that won't stop me from checking the project happenings whenever I get the chance, nor will it prevent me from contributing to the project as needed. Lastly, as someone whose always looking for a new challenge I wouldn't mind getting more involved with the routine leg work that coordinators are expected to handle. I will be out of town from August 20 to August 23, but will try to keep up with this as time progresses.

1. Support for election. MrPrada 00:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Support. Carom 00:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Support Politics rule 01:07, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. Support. Kyriakos 07:49, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 09:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. Support wbfergus 10:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7. Support Wikimachine 14:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
8. Support Swatjester 15:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
9. Support Tirronan 17:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
10. Support. Cla68 21:33, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
11. Support ¿SFGiДnts! ^{¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review!} 00:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
12. Support -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 01:13, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
13. Support LordAmeth 14:59, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
14. Support Askari Mark (Talk) 17:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
15. Support Antimatter---talk--- 20:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
16. Support Dreamy ^\*/_!$! 01:23, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
17. Support - Euryalus 01:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
18. Support Deniz^T_C 05:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
19. Support—Zan _orath 07:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
20. Support JKBrooks85 14:23, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
21. Support--Aldux 23:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
22. Support --ROGER ^TALK 16:12, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
23. Support-Flubeca^Talk 16:19, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
24. Support Jll 10:17, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
25. Support --MoRsE 08:39, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Woodym555 (talk · contribs)

I have been on Wikipedia for over a year but it is only in the last four months that i have been editing mercilessly. It started after I noticed that Andrew Cunningham, 1st Viscount Cunningham of Hyndhope was only a stub. I took on the challenge of improving this article and it is now an FAC. I aim to take on articles and then improve them up to A or FA Class as i have done with Victoria Cross and Cunningham. I currently have 2 FACs, 1 FLC, 1 FPC, and a FT nomination in the works to try and maintain that aim of improving articles. (If nothing else this proves i can multitask). I would say that my current ratio of work is 75% Milhist and 25% WP:FOOTY. My work for the football project revolves around the AVFC articles which i am trying to improve (Aston Villa F.C. now FA.) My fondness for grunt work can be seen by my continued involement in the tagging and assessment drive. Many of you will have seen me helping out in the Review department; be that Peer Review, or A-Class Review. I try to pass on my experience of improving articles and the FAC criteria onto the editors of the articles up for review. If elected as Assistant Coordinator, I would help out with all of the backlogs in Review and Assessment, much like i am trying to do at the moment. Thanks for your time.

1. Support. Carom 00:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Support Skunkmaster 05:13, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Support Good work on the dull assessment drive. Buckshot06 07:43, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. Support wbfergus 10:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. Support Tristan benedict 12:57, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. Support Wikimachine 14:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7. Support Swatjester 15:17, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
8. Support -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 01:13, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
9. Support. Cla68 21:43, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
10. Support AshLin 08:16, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
11. Support Deniz^T_C 16:33, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
12. Support Jll 10:17, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
13. Support --Eurocopter tigre 18:21, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
14. Support Wandalstouring 14:48, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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