The project coordinators are generally responsible for maintaining the procedural aspects of the project, and serve as the designated points-of-contact for procedural issues:
Lead Coordinator
Has overall responsibility for procedural and administrative matters within the project (one open position).
Assistant Coordinator
Assists the Lead Coordinator as needed (six open positions).
Duties
Some examples of coordinator work:
Ensure that project announcement and task lists are kept up-to-date.
Perform maintenance and housekeeping work on the project's internal pages, categories, and templates.
Manage the proposal and creation of new task forces.
Monitor and assist the article assessment process. (This will also likely involve verifying and closing A-Class nominations.)
Oversee the recruitment of new members, including the use of project notices and other advertising methods.
Lead in drafting project guidelines and oversee the implementation of project decisions on things like category schemes and template use.
And many, many other things that tend to come up at inopportune times!
Coordinators also generally assist project members with any questions or concerns.
Election process
The election will run for two weeks, starting at 00:00 (UTC) on August 12 and ending at 23:59 (UTC) on August 26.
Any member of the project may nominate themselves for a position by adding their statement in the "Nominees" section below by the start of the election. If a nominee does not wish to be considered for the position of Lead Coordinator, they should indicate this in their statement.
The election will be conducted using simple approval voting. Any member of the project may support as many of the nominees as they wish. The nominee with the highest number of endorsements will become the Lead Coordinator (provided he is willing to assume the post); the next six nominees will become Assistant Coordinators.
Both project members and interested outside parties are encouraged to ask questions of the nominees or make general comments.
Nominees
The election has now begun; please cast your votes for the candidates you support by August 26.
As assistant Coordinator I will persevere to handle proposals and frictions as they arise. Give my expertise and time when possible in assessment, maintenance and project decisions. I don’t expect to be a winner nor do I wholly believe I should be on this list (considering my oft time hectic availability), but "By George" I will act as competition to my lesser known Nominee counterparts.
As a coordinator I would work on clearing up the requested articles and recruiting members. I would act in your best interests. I would be open to your concerns. I will serve to the best of my ability. Geo. 20:09, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
The article requests need to be cleaned up. More articles need to be tagged and reviewed.recruitment is another direction. Any backlogs need to be cleaned up. Geo. 21:29, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
How many military articles you wrote/checked/reviewed/brought to FA? In other words, what have you already done for the project and its articles, and what do you plan to do? -- Grafikm(AutoGRAF)21:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I started the Women in the Military article. i plan to clear up article requests by recruiting members who are knowledgeable about the articles.
In the case you don't plan to contribute directly to the articles, what coordinator chores would you like to have (feels like a RFA question :) -- Grafikm(AutoGRAF)21:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
i will contribute to articles i know about.Geo. 21:29, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
The Interiot tool shows that you are on WP only since may and only made 477 edits and 27 articles edits. Do you think you're experienced enough to assume such a position? If you do, what do you think your strengths and weaknesses are? -- Grafikm(AutoGRAF)21:30, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am capable enough. I can multitask and organize.Geo. 21:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Hi, my name is Grafikm_fr (and Alex Lokshin in real life, although me and Kirill are unrelated as far as I know :)
I joined the MILHIST wiki project in March 2006. I'm the grandson of a professionnal soldier who drove his T-34 from Kursk to Germany, so naturally I'm interested in WWII and Eastern front battles :) Since then, I took two military articles to FA status from scratch and currently writing a third. My goal is actually to bring all major Eastern Front articles to FA status :P As of now, I have something like 8k edits under the belt in less than 6 months. I also assessed some of the articles (something like 1500 according to my estimates) and would like to keep it going (more on it later :) I tend to use AWB heavily for various janitorial work, such as deprecating of old project banners and more recently, for replacing of obsolete weapon infoboxes.
I also started a bot named grafikbot, which I plan to use for various janitorial works pertaining to the project. In particular, it now delivers the newsletter, sparing precious time, and was also used to send you the message telling you to sign up and to comment on this very page :)
While I think Kirill is the perfect lead coordinator for our project and I'm not going to dispute this position any time soon, I have quite a few ideas and directions to develop for the project as an assistant coordinator, such as automated article tagging, improved copyedits to help FAC process and the Assessment Drive. (if you want me to go further in detail, ask me)
Well, since you asked (and given that you've experienced this issue on FAC yourself): what are your ideas as regards copyediting (particularly in reference to getting copyediting to FACs that need it)? Kirill Lokshin18:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think copyediting review has to be integrated to our peer review process in one way or another. We have excellent contributors capable of producing top-notch articles, however copyediting remains a problem because it is usually quite hard to reread one's own work, which can seriously compromise a FA candidate article.
Consequently, I think a good way to proceed would be to maintain a list of people skilled in copyediting and willing to help other editors. I started a list of people who helped me for my 2 FACs and they just might be willing to cooperate :)
Sure, some problems with always get through. However, what I would like to avoid at all cost is the FAC of Vasilevsky, where the text started with big prose problems (blame me, sure, but heh, English is not my mother tongue so...) that should have been pointed out either during PR or another process.
Now, if we can commit more people (including copyeditors) to peer review, the question of a separate process might be moot and copyediting just be integrated into the PR. -- Grafikm(AutoGRAF)18:45, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your efforts with the Grafikbot and distributing the newsletter. If there's one thing I am totally bollocks at, it's bots and scripts. LordAmeth16:20, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I echo LordAmbeth's thanks for your effort on the bots and the newsletter. I think your work speaks for itself, and you would make a good assistant coordinator for this project. old windy bear18:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Compared to certain members I am relatively new to Wikipedia. I like contributing to what is the most powerful resource on the internet and I want to help influence WPMILHIST so that it keeps getting better. Continual rating and ranking of importance is a must for the project. As an Assistant Coordinator I would push (as I am now) for greater standardisation of infoboxes, especially in the Maritime section and for the expansion of articles which are currently only covered by overview articles and a major push on citations. I have a number of article creations planned, as well as a major beefing up of dreadnought articles. My knowledge of WWI and WWII is extensive and I have a working of knowledge of most other conflicts in history, as well as access to extensive resources. My record might not be long, but I trust that whichever way this goes I'll be given a fair shake. --Harlsbottom12:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments and questions
Support
I vote for myself as Assistant Coordinator. The Project needs people who knows their stuff, can express it and also maintain a broader perspective which I can provide with other Coordinators. --Harlsbottom00:51, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I have decided to throw my hat into the ring as a candidate for a position as an Assistant Coordinator. I have been a contributor on Wikipedia for about 10 months and have accumulated about 2700 edits, a large number of them on military history. Most of my contributions to the project have been in relation to Australia military history. I created the Military of Australia Portal and have helped tag many of the relevent articles for the Australia task force. I have been pleasantly suprised with the speed the project has grown this year and I would like to help the project grow even further. Hossen2710:35, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mmm, where to start? I have acted as the project's Lead Coordinator since February (and did some of the organizational work informally before then); I suppose that this means that I can be credited with—or blamed for!—a substantial portion of our current structure and administrative setup. Thus, I suspect that my candidacy here might prompt an examination of my past performance in this regard.
I do believe that I have always acted with the project's best interests in mind, and that I have been generally successful in cultivating the project's growth; hence, I would like to continue to do so in whatever role the project believes to be appropriate. I welcome any questions or comments that anyone may have. Kirill Lokshin20:21, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments and questions
I believe Kirill has done an excellent job, has considerable knowledge of military history, but more importantly, is able to work well with people. I strongly recommend we retain him as coordinator. I also stress that we need continuity. The program has begun to develop, this is not a time to change direction. Nor is it a time, frankly, to bring in someone with no proven record of either working on articles, or editing them once written. We need to retain Kirill, and give him competant assistants. old windy bear21:41, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What is thy bidding, my Master? I think Kirill have done a tremendous amount of work as the lead coordinator, and that he should remain lead coordinator. As oldwindybear pointed out, it is also a matter of continuity. -- Grafikm(AutoGRAF)22:51, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I will second what Graf has said, since he put it better than I did - I think Kirill has not only put a tremendous amount of work in, which needs to be acknowledged, but we do badly need continuity. old windy bear23:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill puts in so much time and effort to this project, he has truly helped make this project what it is. I do not envy him the position. As long as he continues to desire to take the time and do the work for all of us, I say we keep him lead. LordAmeth16:20, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Suffice it to say, Kirill IS this project. It simply would not exist in its current form nor run as well without him. He is pretty much damn well indispensable. To paraphase that great Yankee President; "I cannot spare this man, he writes!" I only wish I were not such a lazy, disgrunted AADD afflicted bastard so I could be more of a help to him.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine)23:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill's longevity is exactly the reason he should be replaced. Term limits exist in many areas of importance - perhaps that great Yankee President would even agree. There would be nothing stopping him from returning after someone else has a chance to serve. If his dedication is to the project, I don't see his input changing any based solely on what his title is in any event.Michael Dorosh16:59, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Without trying to be argumentative, first, term limits have been shown generally to have the exact opposite effect that was hoped for. You get less efficient government with the departure of the same old faces, because they take invaluable and irreplacable experience and expertise with them. The last thing we need is term limits. They contravene the very soul of democracy -and the only reason we have them for the Presidency is that the Republicans feared FDR could have been president for life. (Actually, he was!) Secondly, even though term limits are a poor idea, this is not a political arena, it is similiar to an academic post, with tenure. Tenure is awarded for outstanding performance, because every teaching tenet I know of maintains that with practice comes expertise. Not only has Kirill brought his heart and soul to this project, but we desperately need the continuity. If people believe the project has started well, it is due to Kirill and his selfless hard work. My only caveat to these elections is I honestly believe he needs more help. But to impose a failed political concept on this project is exactly what we do not need. (no offense Michael, I just honestly feel term limits are the antithisis of democracy, A, and B, continuity is precisely what we do need!) When we vote, we should reelect Kirill because he has done a great job, and will continue to do one, and we know what direction he is going, and most of us believe in that direction. old windy bear18:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly does the title confer upon Kirill that increases his ability to contribute to the project - and if that title were taken away, how would his ability be decreased? I guess I'm unclear on just what the title confers in general. I wouldn't have thought the title brings with it any identifiable benefit? Since all decisions are forged on consensus rather than dictate, isn't the title largely ceremonial, for lack of a better word? I certainly give it no weight in considering suggestions by Kirill - on the other hand, his predominance on the talk pages speaks volumes. If we start to assess the input of consensus-builders based on their titles rather than their contributions to wikipedia, we are in trouble. I think you are arguing the same thing without knowing it.Michael Dorosh18:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are a number of practical aspects to the title, actually. The most obvious of these has to do with the occurrence of text of the form "if you have any questions, please ask the project coordinators" on some pages; the coordinators do serve as the designated points of contact for a number of procedural areas. (Whether this can be considered a benefit—it tends to entail mostly repetetive questions from newcomers—is, of course, debatable.)
More generally, I would say that the position is informal rather than purely ceremonial. There is, I think, a certain "moral authority" aspect to formal titles; people are less likely to complain about intrusive housekeeping work being done if the person doing it is the "official housekeeper" or whatnot, for example. To what extent this is a issue of titles—rather than the sense that their holders have been elected, and hence enjoy, in some sense, the confidence of the project—is unclear; and, in any case, this is just my own observation, and should be taken with a grain of salt (or a mountain, if so desired). Kirill Lokshin04:02, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Michael Dorosh Hey Michael. I think Kirill's primary value lies in his ability to coordinate this project, and in being able to enlist others to work on it. For instance, a couple of months ago, there were problems with the article on the Mongol Invasion of Central Asia. Kirill contacted myself, among others, who are conversant with the era and subject matter, and enlisted us to correct the deficiencies. I think his predominance on the talk page speaks volumes also, but the volume I hear is that of a person with superior people skills, getting people to work together on various projects. I agree with you absolutely that one measure of performance on wikipedia is edit count - though quantity by itself is meaningless unless they are quality edits. The sheer volume of his edits on the talk pages to me specifically shows us that he has worked tirelessly to achieve consensus. Why is the title important for Kirill to retain? Because he has the ability, and more importantly, the willingness, to enlist other people and work towards consensus. By the way, I appreciate your discussion of this issue in a Wikipedia way, civilly, and on the issues. You are one of those editors who actually debates issues, and it is appreciated, even when, as here, we don't agree. I think Kirill has the leadership skills that we need at the helm here, I really do. Not for the title, but for his well documented willingness to go out and find people to assist, and then encouraging consensus. Not everyone, as you well know, is as polite as you are. old windy bear19:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, old windy bear, I was actually going to vote for you based on the page so far...you may have just talked me out of it! LOL. Thank you both for your replies, I do enjoy seeing things logically laid out, and think you both have just done a good job of that.Michael Dorosh04:18, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Michael Dorosh Hey Michael! I honestly believe we would be best served by continuity in the coordinator position, for the reasons laid out above. I hope to still get your vote for one of the assistant's positions, lol! Take care! old windy bear10:14, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As a relatively new and quiet member I believe that Kirill is unquestionably in charge of this project. For all the reasons stated above and more. Although there are some other brilliant editors here I think for the moment I for one would feel very happy if Kirill stays on as lead coordinator. Tristan benedict22:15, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't chimed in before because I thought this was a given, but I agree with Old Windy Bear. A change of the guard is only necessary when things are stagnating and "getting crusty", but we're going at a very good clip and Kirill is always introducing innovations that I'd hate to see that continuity lost. I know you think he would still be here, but he would no longer have the latitude and freedom to continue his organization efforts. A LOT goes on behind the scenes to keep this a smooth-running organization and I see no reason to change it just because "we should switch it up" for the sake of switching it up. plange23:14, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Mike! Hearing opposing POVs from a Loyal opposition is always a welcome sign of a healthy, democratic organization. So please, by all means if you wish to run for lead coord, do so. Make your case for term limiting Kirill and then let the members decide the matter. Suffice it to say I'm not convinced. Kirill's actions speak far louder than any arguements against him. He still has my endorsement and vote. But Good luck to you, Sir --R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine)02:12, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
One of the great things about Kirill, among many, is how he goes out of his way to help people. He still remains the most useful person that I know in Wikipedia. Whenever people need help, and as you can see from his talk page people seem to need a lot of help (hehe), he is always there. He is dedicated, consistent, and constructive, speaking both from personal experience and from what I've seen him accomplish with our wonderful project. There are others in Wikipedia who have these qualities, of course, but they appear to be more pronounced in Kirill. I'm not at all sure that I buy the continuity argument some are making. That seems like bogus to me. Kirill should remain Lead Coordinator because he is the most qualified, not because it would somehow ruin the organizational structure. If someone comes along who earns the trust of the community and who we think is more qualified, then we can and should elect that person, but that day hasn't come yet. I fully support Kirill.UberCryxic20:18, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill is the obvious choice for Lead Coordinator. He had done a remarkable job in organizing an expansive WikiProject. His vision for the project has kept it dynamic and growing. — ERcheck (talk) 00:39, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with pretty much everyone else here- Kirill is helpful, knowledgeable, and always there to lend a hand, and I fully support his nomination as Lead Co-Ordinator in every way. --Commander Zulu03:43, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Istrongly oppose this Timbuktuan showbiz-election. Kirill should just declare himself Lead Coordinator-For-An-Undetermined-Amount-of-Time and get it over with. :D PS. I won't be running. -- Миборовский23:06, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually we do have the choice to vote one candidate out, a bit like Big Brother. Kirill is a good choice as lead-coordinator, always present, helpful and straightforward. Wandalstouring23:36, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wandalstouring is right, we can vote anyone we want in or out. I won't dignify Миборовский 's comments with a response. This is a free election. Kirill has gotten the support he has because he has done a good job, period. If he had not, he would not be getting the votes. R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) was also right when he said anyone who wants to run, should, and then we will vote. old windy bear01:07, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Geez, voting hasn't even started! Lighten up! I think I'm right in saying that most people on this project wouldn't think twice about making Kirill the official project leader without any elections. -- Миборовский12:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but unless we want to make Kirill look like Wikipedias' very own (insert here your choice of Fulgencio Batista or Fidel Castro) let us pretend we don't know the winner of the elections just yet :) Andrés C.01:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comrades, it is imperative that we crush the freedom fighters before the start of the rainy season! And remember- a shiny new donkey for whoever brings me the head of Colonel Montoya! Err... I mean, we should indeed pretend we have no idea how these elections will turn out. Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to make a phone call to the nearest bookmaker ;-) --Commander Zulu06:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, hullo! I don't really want to repeat too much of what I said last elections for fear of boring you, so I'll keep it brief. I've been on Wikipedia for over two years now - I've contributed all over the place - music, comedy, TV, but the vast majority of my efforts have been directed towards military or history related articles. Creating articles from scratch, fulfilling requests and expanding stubs bring the most satisfaction for me, but I am always more than willing to muck in with the maintainence tasks - tagging, conversion (Gordon Bennett, remember the battleboxes?) and whatnot. I was elected an Assistant Coordinator in the February elections and I would like to think in that time I've worked in the best interests of this project. I've recently been forced into a hiatus of sorts by real life, with only enough time to add bit by bit to my pet project, the Military history of New Zealand, but now I'm pretty much back and ready to fight the good fight.
As for the project, my views haven't changed since last time;
"I think this Wikiproject epitomises what all others should be like and what all genres of the encyclopedia should have in place - a community of likeminded editors who can support, complement and complete the knowledge and contributions of others, while improving the field they cover in the encyclopedia. [...] I don't think it's unrealistic to imagine this project as one of the most prominent and effective ones around in say, a year's time."
We've grown hugely since February and the project as a whole has become a lot more solid (as well as larger), and we have a lot more in place for us to to make Wikipedia's coverage of military history the best it can be, and I would like again to help oversee that. And, if not, fine by me - I'll still keep editing regardless of title =)
Comments and questions
Thanks Loopy, don't forget some of us haven't been here since February so it's good to repeat yourself in this case ;-) plange22:48, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have found recently that I enjoy the community aspects, and organizational aspects, of Wikipedia more than the actual article writing. I still love contributing and writing articles as I always have, particularly since my personal field of interest seems to be one with not very many other editors/contributors. I am starting grad school in the fall, and I really do not know what to expect in terms of workload and prevalence of freetime, but I'd love to help out organizationally however I can. (Read: I do not think I have anywhere near the kind of freetime to be Lead Coordinator, but I'd like to Assist, if you'll have me.) I have already taken the initiative to create and organize many Japanese-history campaignboxes and categories, and while my ideas may not have always been popular, they are always backed up by a very rational and logical categorization concept, and a significant extent of experience with the field of history. LordAmeth00:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments and questions
It should be pointed out that LordAmeth is actually one of the oldest participants in the project; he was already taking part in the old WikiProject Battles when I first signed up. (He probably still remembers things like Category:Battles in Japan. What fun we had with that! ;-) Kirill Lokshin15:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, geez. You're making me feel old. I have been contributing since December of 2004, but I still always thought of myself as being a relative newbie. LordAmeth02:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
LordAmeth has been around wikipedia for a couple of years, and has amassed a volume of superior work, and shown a willingness to work with others. He possesses both things needed here, (in my opinion), people who have a proven record of good editing coupled with the ability to work with other people in an organizational framework. He has shown the ability to do both, and deserves one of these positions. old windy bear18:29, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to nominate Nobunaga24 as a coordinator because, from what I have seen, he's serious and committed to improving military history articles and his edits are very professional, NPOV, and have greatly added to the military history body of knowledge on Wikipedia. I believe he's a definite asset to the military history project and would be a valuable contributor in the role of coordinator for the project. Cla6800:12, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'll just repeat what I said directly to Nobunaga on his talk page: "When the elections were suggested your name immediately came to mind. You've been very patient with my questions in the past, and you've also proven to be extremely knowledgable and approachable. I would heartily endorse your nomination should you choose to run." He has struck me as the perfect fit for a coordinator-type position in his WPMH contributions as well as his ability to work with others (newbies like me especially). As for questions, what would be your first suggestion for improving the WikiProject? --ScreaminEagle06:19, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While writing and expanding articles is always important, I feel that of equal impotance is categorization, standardization, naming conventions (ALWAYS important when dealing with military history, when there is always at the very least 2 sides), and article inclusion in the project. I also think (and this sounds petty or wiki-gnomish) that redirects need to be worked on. I have run across tons of articles with red links, when in reality an article exists. Most common for this is military posts/bases, i.e.Maxwell AFB, Maxwell Air Force Base, Maxwell AFB, Alabama, etc. and military equipment/vehicles, (M-1, M1, M1A1, Abrams M-1, ad nauseum). This has also led to duplicate articles, most notoiously in my mind LZ X-ray, which I have seen in 3 different versions. Inclusion of articles in the project is also important because I think with the group of experienced individuals here, we can do a good job of policing articles for factual errors, consistency, etc., and general fixes as above. Categorization, while getting better for the US military history articles, is still, IMHO, woefully bad for many of the other military topics. Unfortunately, people outside the project sometimes start/edit categories that bear little relevance/importance, or are duplicate efforts (such as the Air National Guard generals category I saw). I'll maybe expand this section later - Just now getting my morning coffee, so this might be a bit incoherent ;-)--Nobunaga2422:31, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nobunaga24 You have an excellent point on presenting all sides to a conflict fairly. Recently I had the issue come up of one highly respected historian who disagrees with virtually all other respected historian's on the importance of a particular Battle, i. e. was it of macrohistorical importance or not. We need to develop some sort of standardized format for presenting majority/minority, victor/defeated, et al, historical views of a conflict, battle, et al. Sometimes, as you also pointed out, there are not just two viewpoints, but three or more, (WWII is an excellent example - not only is there the victor's opinion, but the victors don't agree on the relative role of the Soviet Union in the defeat of Nazi Germany)! You also have a good point on redundant articles, I recently commented on the article on Abdul Rahman Al Ghafiqi, which had a similiar (but smaller and not as informative) article on the same Muslim Commander under the name Abd al-Rahman al-Ghafiqi. We also need to deal with obviously incorrect information in articles - the article on the great Mongol (but ethnicly Chinese) Noyan Guo Kan cites information from an autobiography which is patently false. I have proposed eliminating that information, but it should not have been there in the first place, as it confuses the less knowledgable readers. Such items as standarizing names, eliminating redundant articles, standarizing formats for opposing historical viewpoints - these are all good issues which need to be dealt with in order to make our military history articles what they should be. Finally, I agree with you that for some reason, the articles on U.S. Military subjects are poor on many of the topics. (I have to admit, I tend to work on medieval military history more than modern American; I suppose Vietnam is still a sore subject for myself and most vets, 37 years after I went into the Army) In any event, you bring up excellent issues - We have the potential to present the best encyclopedic articles in the field of military history, not just on the net, but anywhere, but Kirill needs more help. One person, or seven, cannot do it. A large part of improving our articles will lay in getting more people involved. old windy bear23:34, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have been on wikipedia now for awhile. For those of you who have worked in the military history project, at least some of you know my work. I contributed heavily to the articles on the Carolingians, and a number of other projects, including rewriting the article on Flavius Aetius, and the Mongol invasions, (especially the Mongol Invasion of Central Asia, which I rewrote on request, and Mongol Tactics, and a number of other topics in military history). I believe we should retain Kirill as coordinator, and would like to be an assistant to assist him. I hope my work speaks for itself. I ran for assistant last time, and when I was not selected, worked as hard as I could wherever I was needed. Again, I hope my work speaks for itself. I believe we cannot elect a coordinator without a proven track record, which Kirill has, and assistants without a track record. For those interested, I have two degrees in history, but I echo Essjay in that degrees are not the definitive measure of either mastery of a field, or the ability to apply knowledge. I have that ability, and more importantly, the ability to ask for help, and work with others. No person can undertake this alone. old windy bear21:41, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments and questions
Having worked with old windy bear on 4 or 5 articles over the last few months I think he's got the qualities that you want in a project coordinator: he's a workhorse whose dedication and commitment to WP are obvious, and he knows his subject matter inside out. I think he'd be a great choice for this team. Ewulp02:34, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
From what I've seen and experienced myself, Old windy bear is an excellent contributor with a great amount of historical knowledge. If you want a patient, steady, and dedicated wikipedian on your team: choose Old windy bear. Rex19:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Windybear's been around, and has done great work. It's important to have people here who not only do the administrative and organizational stuff, but who are truly passionate, devoted, and knowledgable in the study of history and the writing of articles. LordAmeth16:20, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support
I vote for myself as an assistant coordinator. If elected, I will do my best to aid Kirill and assist every editor who works so hard to make this what it should become - the best encyclopedic source of military history available. If not elected, I will continue to work as hard as I can assisting Kirill and anyone else I can help. old windy bear00:18, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You may not be a native english speaker, but your work speaks for you in any language. You are thorough, knowledgable, and a pleasure to work with. I have had the honor of working with you on several articles, and it was a genuine pleasure. You are reasonable, willing to discuss issues, extremely knowledgable, and considering english is a second language, an impressive writer. old windy bear20:11, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I support Wandalstouring for assistant, and think it essential that we keep a multilingual group of project leaders, which will tend to help lower inherent bias in American, Australian, and British empire related articles. BusterD00:24, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
