text:
User talk:Jerzy/Top Arc LoPbN

This page contains my Topical Archive re List of people by name
 * In /Top Arc LoPbN - 14 kB
 * First transfer (9K?, 2004 Jul 16)
 * 2003 Dec 17 material
 * 2004 Mar 19 material
 * Second transfer, inserted chron'ly within the first (2K, 2004 Oct 18)
 * 2004 Jan 22 material
 * Third transfer, following first two for now

List of people - Response from Paul (User Rfc1394)
This is in response to your message on my user page user talk:rfc1394. (I don't know what the command sequence is to put a username and timestamp on a page yet.) I posted this to talk:jerzy in an attempt to send you mail. I I also realize I think this should be at user talk:Jerzy so it will notify you of my response, so I'll put it there so you'll get mail.

In adding the extra letters, it was my thought that either the original block table should be fully populated, or if it was not, that the pages it links to be properly indexed even if no entries were present. Seeing 'red' on the missing items (pun intentional) items made me consider that this was inadequate. Either a block of entries should be connected together - the way the letter X is - or they should be empty but properly cross-indexed.

If there are no entries for a particular page, the answer is to cross-link to one of the other letters before it that does exist, have it add the empty letters, and link back to that page so that there are no nonexistent links.

Once a two-letter gets 'big enough' to have some entries, then it can be split off into either its own page or its own plus whatever follows it. The question on how big is 'big enough' is arbitrary, but I'd say if an entry has at least 1/2 a page, say ten items or more (unless the items before it have less than ten each) then it's probably time to split it. Also if the page gets above 20 entries then definitely split it (subject to the provision that there be some entries in the letters before it.)

Paul - Rfc1394 - Wed, Dec 17, 2003 13:07 EST / 18:07 UTC(GMT) Update 13:12 EST

(note to someone adding another item, be sure to push the 'Your heading' and 4 - line below yours so the next person coming along will know where to put their remarks. The system will automatically split that part from yours.)

[The above 'graph also left by Paul on the original talk page]

[Discussion with Angela & Bmills]
Hi, I'm sorry but your explanation of the issues with the list of people article isn't really clear. What exactly is it you need me to do? Angela. 01:38, Jan 22, 2004 (UTC)

 * It appears you might be making some conflicting moves with Hemanshu. May I recommend that you discuss this with him. Hopefully this might give you a better idea of what is going on and what he had planned to do with the page. Angela. 01:48, Jan 22, 2004 (UTC)

The history on List of people by name: Mas-Maz goes back to January 15th. Perhaps you are having cache problems? The history I can see looks like:

* (cur) (last). . M 14:23, Jan 21, 2004. . Hemanshu * (cur) (last). . M 14:11, Jan 21, 2004. . Hemanshu * (cur) (last). . 14:10, Jan 21, 2004. . Hemanshu * (cur) (last). . 14:06, Jan 21, 2004. . Hemanshu * (cur) (last). . 13:57, Jan 21, 2004. . Hemanshu * (cur) (last). . 06:36, Jan 21, 2004. . Jerzy (touch up Cardinal Mazarin) * (cur) (last). . 06:21, Jan 21, 2004. . Jerzy (alph in Mays) * (cur) (last). . 06:19, Jan 21, 2004. . Jerzy (break out Maximilians ,Maximuses) * (cur) (last). . 06:07, Jan 21, 2004. . Jerzy (Mary Matalin: activist ->consultant; break out Matthew and Matthews; headings w/in Mat) * (cur) (last). . 05:57, Jan 21, 2004. . Jerzy (break out mason, move **Mason, Wide Mouth, singing group to talk) * (cur) (last). . 09:04, Jan 20, 2004. . Jerzy (add *Mazzetta, Rose Marie, (born 1923), actor as "Baby Rose Marie" (age 3 to 11 or 15) and as "Rose Marie", still performing as of 2003) * (cur) (last). . 17:09, Jan 15, 2004. . Jerzy (new page, from "... by name: Ma" plus 3rd index row)

Is that different to what you see? Tim Starling has also replied to you on the Village pump. I wouldn't report it as a server fault just yet. Angela. 01:55, Jan 22, 2004 (UTC)

If someone moves A to B and then someone else moves B to A, the first move isn't shown, but assuming they moved it using thr "move this page" link, not by cut and paste, the history should be back at A and there will be only a redirect at B, with no history. Angela. 02:36, Jan 22, 2004 (UTC)

Hi, I take it your problem is fixed? Sorry to be late, but I just got here now. Bmills 09:17, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)

[Discussion with Nunh-huh]
[Moved to User talk:Jerzy/Top Arc LoPbN Jerzy(t) 04:23, 2004 Jul 16 (UTC); originated on User talk:Jerzy 01:28, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC) thru 08:48, 2004 Mar 19 (UTC)]

Awesome table of people. I was going to try and think of names for the "red" links but I realized I didn't know where they would go. Would "*Kmetko, Steve, (born 1953), entertainment reporter" go on a new "Km" page, or get stuck at the top of the "Kn" page? -- Nunh-huh 01:28, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * I'm pleased by your interest, even tho IMO the list is far from what it should be & yr praise is thus excessive! The short answer to your question is "a new page should be created for it", and if Kmetko is not a hypothetical, i'll do it  w/in 24 hours, or help you understand what's involved in doing it, if your interest is that strong.

 * Here are a few longer answers:
 * In perhaps a month there should be no red links.
 * There are already plenty of ready-for-names pages w/o names, and having names for them is of no consequence in itself. (You may not have noticed that there are pages with titles like List of people by name: Bar (and while you're at it, glance at List of people by name: Bam), and even if i weren't pretty sure there aren't any Zz... names out there waiting to get on the list, i can assure you the list will never have every page and link populated with at least one name, unless the implementation is radically changed.)
 * There's a place to stash them briefly at Talk:List of people by name; the only reason i've never put anything listed there onto the list is that i put the example and the three real entries there myself, so it wasn't clear anyone thot they were priorities. (Nhat Hanh does have an entry on List of people by name: Th.)
 * One possibililty, in this case as you note, is putting it at the top but if you're interested i could explain a number of implications that make that a bad solution. (Which is why i'm committed to getting rid of the red links soon, now that i've experimented with ideas & thot some things thru in the last months.)
 * You could follow the red link & just put the name on that blank page, but at present there's not a good mechanism for anyone to note that it's been done and that they should follow up.
 * You could follow the red link and set up a new page that looks like the existing ones, but making sure that it was properly linked in both directions with almost everything else is a much bigger deal that most people who try it realize.
 * Most people on the list should also be on several other lists at Lists of people (NTBCW List of people by name), in any case. So far, "i don't do windows", in the sense that i see my plate as full with the one big list (only one other user is currently as active on it as i), and for now i don't want the distraction of getting familiar with the other lists and what problems they might have, beyond incompleteness.
 * IMO, not everyone on the list has to be eligible for an article on WP, but on the other hand not everyone belongs on the list. (Probably you know this, but forgive me for asserting what is not entirely obvious.) I don't pretend to know about Kmetko; yes and no are both very plausible answers to the question. (IMO being an example of the possibility of names with a given letter combination doesn't make someone significant enough for a List of people by name entry, tho i admit an argument could be made for that view.)
 * Let me know what your preference is; most people don't want to become experts on this facility, but you'd be welcome if you do!
 * --Jerzy(t) 03:05, 2004 Mar 19 (UTC)

 * I've given it a shot: Kmetko is a real person, not hypothetical (I was so proud to think of a "KM"!) so I've made a KM page. Let me know if I've done it wrong :). Probably it would be good to see if this system catches on or if the much-bandied-about categorization scheme comes to fruition: there's sadly probably little chance of me become expert in either, though :( - Nunh-huh 03:28, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I look forward to categories enhancing this tree; they are not what i had in mind when i spoke of a radical departure, partly bcz i think there still needs to be a manual mode of editing this list, even if people get added immediately here when whatever associates them with the people category gets saved. As i've discussed on its talk page, i also think there should be a list that has only people who have bio articles, in addition to a list that should include some people we are sure should not have more mention in WP than an entry within the tree.

I applaud yr spirit in tackling the page, and a guess you know i'll check your work! If you screwed it up, i'll applaud you for editing boldly; if you didn't, i'll "stand in awre of you" (as Baccala told Junior). [smile] --Jerzy(t) 05:02, 2004 Mar 19 (UTC)

Good, thorough work, editing boldly and coming out very well. I hope i'm not being overbearing by expanding on the summary comments:
 * 1 new practice i'm introducing: the commented-out NoToc operator at the top of page where it's hard to miss, is there for two reasons, 1, so when a page gets big enough to have a long ToC, no one has to struggle to remember the syntax to shut off the auto-ToC in favor of a hand built tree of indexes, & 2, so it's easy to find when an editor wants to turn the ToC back on temporarily as an aid to checking and organizing those indexes. (Not applicable to this page, since it will never get that big.)
 * 1 quibble abt technique: replacing the self-link with text is unnecessary, since the server now does that for you; it's now undesirable (tho formerly nearly mandatory) bcz it's an opportunity to screw up the "lateral index" instead of copying it unchanged from a sister page.
 * 1 almost certainly inconsequential error: == Km == is redundant and clutter, since that's how everything on this page will start. == Kme == isn't mandatory with a first entry, but it suggests, to those who add to the page, that they add their own headings, and makes it less likely that the page will already have mis-alphabetizing errors by the time someone says "this page could use some headings"
 * but the pipe would be a gotcha (if you hadn't got it right earlier!): and for the benefit of someone else who reads this, we alphabetize names based on surname-given-name order, but the link goes to the title and the titles are in normal order; that is GN-SN in English, even if his name were a Hungarian one
 * watch my talk for more, in case: i said that, assuming you were unlikely to have consulted What links here to verify that all the entries (other than the incidental link from one of my pages) were there; and assuming you were unlucky enough to have chosen a troubled row of the "master table" on List of people by name, where there could be relics of previous edits that would interfere if had someone else had previously tried to do something ill-considered, or made a slip of the keyboard on another page of the row.

Bottom line, i think on reflection that i owe you an apology for trying to discourage you (most of the problems i've caused or seen probably had to do with subdividing existing pages), and my congratulations for not letting yourself be bullied. --Jerzy(t) 07:07, 2004 Mar 19 (UTC)

 * Hmmm. If that's bullying, you need bullying practice! The link thing is a bit embarassing (a bad cut/paste job from rendered rather than source text). Listings maintained by people are almost inevitably going to be better than those done automatically, but we'll knw when we see it! - Nunh-huh 07:22, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Yup, on reflection it occurred to me exactly how you achieved the match in wording without duplicating the link proprerly. I've done it too.

There's some kind of expression about "quantity being a kind of quality", and on the basis of no facts other than once adding "West Wing" cast members' names to the list, i have the impression that we people have been anything but thorough at transfering names from article (and i suspect also bio-article titles) to the various lists of people. On the other hand, entry for entry, there's nothing like human attention, and especially lots of eyeballs looking over what the algorithms have blindly dumped. BTW, when i said above
 * As i've discussed on its talk page, i also think there should be a list that has only people who have bio articles, in addition to a list that should include some people we are sure should not have more mention in WP than an entry within the tree.

i think i was recalling someing i said on a user talk page, so no one should wade thru Talk:List of people by name looking for it. (Hmm. As if my having said that made such a search likely. [blush]) I'll hunt it down for the article talk, just in case i said something brilliant. --Jerzy(t) 08:48, 2004 Mar 19 (UTC)

[Discussions with Paul (User Rfc1394) & Nunh-huh

 * Paul (User Rfc1394), 2003 Dec 17

and
 * User:Nunh-huh, 2004 Mar 19

moved to User talk:Jerzy/Top Arc LoPbN Jerzy(t) 04:24, 2004 Jul 16 (UTC)]

LoPbN Admin Move
Good morning. I've moved List of people by name: Bo-Bq to List of people by name: Bo as you requested. I'll leave you to sort out redirects. Angela. 06:43, May 5, 2004 (UTC)

Too big
I'm sorry. I guess that I was trying to do a lot of things, and didn't really think this one through. You were right to revert that edit. [[User:Mike Storm|Mike Storm (Talk) ]] 21:54, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hemanshu Reversion
[For both sides of the "dialogue" w/ him, see User talk:Hemanshu.] tk] Please explain what the purpose of your revert was. --Hemanshu 19:39, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[The dialogue w/ Ardonik is reassembled from the following and User talk:Ardonik/Summer 2004, immediately following the next 3 'graphs.] Jerzy, Hemanshu's on #wikipedia right now. He's evidently willing to engage in discussion, so I'd unlist him from WP:VIP and take it to one of your talk pages. --Ardonik.talk 17:03, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)
 * Hi, Jerzy. I received your message and replied on my talk page.  If you need help setting up IRC, let me know; otherwise, User talk:Hemanshu is the place to be.  --Ardonik.talk 17:19, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)
 * I received your second message and replied on my talk page. Can you please talk to him again?  Pretty please?  --Ardonik.talk 17:38, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)

Full Dialogue w/ Ardonik
Jerzy, Hemanshu's on #wikipedia right now. He's evidently willing to engage in discussion, so I'd unlist him from WP:VIP and take it to one of your talk pages. --Ardonik.talk 17:03, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)

 * And he doesn't know where to find me?

 * I'm not set up for IRC, which is what i think you referred to.

 * --Jerzy(t) 17:15, 2004 Sep 19 (UTC)

Hi, Jerzy. I received your message and replied on my talk page. If you need help setting up IRC, let me know; otherwise, User talk:Hemanshu is the place to be. --Ardonik.talk 17:19, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)

Well, I can help you set up IRC if you'd like. It's really simple: download Gaim. But you can also just leave a message on his talk page. I'm glad that you're both here, anyway; once he responds, I think you should de-list him from WP:VIP. --Ardonik.talk 17:18, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)

 * You seem to think you're mediating or something; that there's something i should initiate right now. I've been there (User talk:Hemanshu), done that, and no T-shirt.  If they finally have something civil to say to me, i may be able to reply civilly in a week or so, but my being on IRC with them is the last thing WP needs right now. --Jerzy(t) 17:31, 2004 Sep 19 (UTC)

Jerzy, I strongly recommend that you talk it over with Hemanshu. I don't want to be thrust into the middle of an edit war. He seems genuinely willing to communicate and express his concerns to you (anbd the rest of us) at #wikipedia, and he's also waiting for a message from you on his talk page or WP:VIP. I've been exhorting him to talk, and I'm going to exhort that you talk to him also. Refusing to communicate is what gets us into edit wars to begin with, and they do nothing to further this encyclopedia. --Ardonik.talk 17:36, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)

I received your second message and replied on my talk page. Can you please talk to him again? Pretty please? --Ardonik.talk 17:38, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)

 * He has an unanswered msg on this talk page. (Well, a verbally unanswered one.)

 * If you'll look at the contribs and histories you'll see that i'm avoiding an edit war by lying down like a rug (tho i won't lie by act or silence about the situation), which is my style in conflicts. I responded at length to his only msg, IMO (as i said in it) more kindly than he deserves. He has not responded to the explanation that he asked for.  IMO, every indication -- and notably the fact that you are here begging the one who has sought discussion with him, for nearly a year, to get things rolling -- is that we are not going to interact fruitfully, and that i would end up inflaming the situation by trying to discuss at a point where i think i've said everything helpful that i could say.

 * The sub-headings are worthwhile, but not worth fighting for. And they can be put back when he gets banned or goes away mad over something else; i'm good at using diffs for that sort of thing, if it doesn't seem just as efficient to recreate them from scratch.  If the usefulness of LoPbN hasn't ended first, as the Cat system takes over. In the meantime, i have a backlog of splitting of pages of LoPbN to do, and if he wants to talk at some point, i'll be less likely to lash out then for not having struggled to get him to talk.

 * Believe me, the key to this is that one side understands this isn't worth an edit war.
 * --Jerzy(t) 18:11, 2004 Sep 19 (UTC)

 * This is to thank you for your kind and valuable, and public-spirited intervention, even if i may have seemed pretty ungrateful, or perhaps sarastic (not to say sArdonik [wink]), at the time. My state of mind has improved much faster than my pessimistic prediction, and i've just posted at User talk:Hemanshu.

 * I consider your removal at WP:VIP a wise approach, especially as the contested edits had reached a natural end point and ceased, 1.5 hrs since, so that clearly no V was IP.

 * Thanks again for what i think was needed, which promises calm and hope of objective improvement. Please regard this as an expression of satisfaction, without any request either to stay with it or to call it done, as i am quite happy to rely on your fine judgment as to that. [smile]
 * --Jerzy(t) 15:43, 2004 Sep 20 (UTC)

Gee, thanks. What I did really wasn't that special. :-) --Ardonik.talk* 16:06, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)

 * Hmm. We seldom mention the banality of goodness in so many words.... --Jerzy(t) 17:27, 2004 Sep 20 (UTC)

Explaining my edits
Hello. I was surprised to see that my edits were being considered as vandalism by you. I am sorry that I did not read your long comment on my talk page. Here's the thinking behind my edits: (1) Where possible, avoid dividing page into sections. Why? Because too many sections make the page large, very unreadable and difficult to navigate. So if that is the rule, why have sections at all? Well, the reason is because large lists are difficult to read, maintain or edit. so obviously I have a criteria for what list is large. I didn't want to mention it as it's laughable in a way but it's also a good rule of thumb. A list that exceeds 1 page is large enough to divide into sections. 1 page: I think that's about 25 lines. since this is a bit arbitrary, I shouldn't expect everyone to follow this rule. Even I don't always follow it. if a list just exceeds a page by a few lines, I don't divide it. I do make changes when I see sections divided into very small subsections and merge them. I don't really see what the problem is and how this is vandalism. perhaps, we could individually discuss where the section should be divided into subsections. but I don't think that there should be a subsection for every 4 names. It's clear that the frequency of divided and undivided sections will vary depending on whether the section is long enough to divide. I don't see this as a problem. I think it's a good thing that we can divide the list as it grows.

While we are at it, I also wish to say that some of the small lists should be merged, empty lists should be deleted... if there is concern about the ability to create them when needed, we could have red links.

I admire your dedication to the list. I really like some of the edits you have made. And my intention is not to vandalise the list. I do not think my edits were arbitrary. --Hemanshu 18:11, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

LoPbN
tk Hey Jerzy. About the list, I realized that such lists are the indices of Wikipedia and as such are invaluable. They give you a much better feel than a search. I looked at the list in question and saw how much work you had done on it. I just voted for whatever you thought best. The list of songs by name actually came up on VfD. The main objection seemed to be that it was too massive an undertaking, not that it wasn't useful. I wonder what they think about Wikipedia? Anyway, I liked the idea because it's a deeper linking than most of the other lists since the songs will usually be in the article about the album or band. I resolved to add songs from any Discographies that I add. I specifically designed the sig to annoy people like you :>. I'm glad to see how effective it was. Anyway, just for you, I made it readable. The Steve

title: User talk:Jerzy/Top Arc LoPbN


text:
Beiyang Army

The Beiyang Army, named after the Beiyang region, was a large, Western-style Imperial Chinese Army established by the Qing dynasty government in the late 19th century. It was the centerpiece of a general reconstruction of Qing China's military system. The Beiyang Army played a major role in Chinese politics for at least three decades and arguably right up to 1949. It made the Xinhai Revolution of 1911 possible, and, by dividing into warlord factions known as the Beiyang Clique, ushered in a period of regional division.

The Beiyang Army had its origins in the Newly Created Army established in late 1895 under Yuan Shikai's command, which rapidly expanded after 1901 with new recruits and by incorporating other forces. By 1906 it had six divisions and was the most advanced army under the command of the Qing dynasty.

Origins under Li Hongzhang (to 1900)
The beginning of the Beiyang Army could be traced back to Li Hongzhang's Huai Army, which was raised to quell the Taiping Rebellion. Unlike the traditional Green Standard or Banner forces of the Qing, the Huai Army was largely a militia army based on personal, rather than institutional, loyalties. The Huai Army was at first equipped with a mixture of traditional and modern weapons. Its creator, Li Hongzhang, used the customs and tax revenues of the five provinces under his control in the 1880s and 1890s to modernize segments of the Huai Army, and to build a modern navy (the Beiyang Fleet).

It is around this time that the term "Beiyang Army" began to be used to refer to the military forces under his control. The term, meaning literally "Northern Ocean", refers to the customs and excise revenues collected in the Beiyang region (the northern coastal provinces of Zhili, Shandong and Liaoning, surrounding the imperial capital of Peking), which were used first to fund the Beiyang Fleet and later the Beiyang Army. However, funding was usually irregular and training by no means systematic. By the early 1890s, these modernized units established by Li Hongzhang that were known as the Beiyang Army were the best military forces that the Qing dynasty could field. Their first action was the First Sino-Japanese War (1894–1895), which was fought almost entirely by the Beiyang Army, unsupported by the forces of other provinces. But Japan's German-styled conscript army, led by academy trained professional officers, handily defeated the Beiyang Army. The Qing government sued for peace after six months of uninterrupted Japanese victories.

Yuan Shikai's ascendancy (1901–1908)
Li Hongzhang died in 1901 and was replaced by Yuan Shikai, who took on Li's appointment as Viceroy of Zhili and as Minister of Beiyang (北洋通商大臣). Yuan had been given command of the brigade-sized New Created Army in 1895, which had 7,000 soldiers at the time and would expand to 20,000 by 1902. By the autumn of 1905 the Beiyang Army consisted of six divisions of 10,000 men each. It was organized into infantry, artillery, cavalry, and auxiliary troops, as well as maintenance and engineering. A seventh division was established in 1907 at Jiangsu. The Army's training instructors were mostly Japanese and Germans.

Yuan Shikai oversaw the reform of Qing military institutions after 1901 as the government tried to create a national army. He founded the Baoding Military Academy, which allowed him to expand the Beiyang Army, along with several other military schools and officer training academies. With the creation of the Commission for Army Reorganisation in December 1903, the Beiyang Army became the model on which the military forces of other provinces should be standardized. Although some units were based in the three northeastern provinces in Manchuria, the main base of the Beiyang Army was at Baoding, near Tianjin. In the early 1900s, a department for military administration was also created for the Beiyang divisions to manage logistics, which was divided into several branches. It was the opinion of foreign observers that the Beiyang Army was the largest, best equipped and best trained military force in China at the time.

The Beiyang Army under Qing control (1909–1910)
The Empress Dowager Cixi died on 15 November 1908 and named the three-year-old Puyi as the new emperor. The new regent and father of Puyi, Prince Chun (醇親王), had Yuan Shikai dismissed the next year. Yuan bided his time in retirement, carefully maintaining his network of personal contacts in the Beiyang Army. At the time of the 1911 Revolution, command of the Beiyang Army was supposedly in the hands of the Qing minister Yinchang. In reality, Yuan Shikai still had the ability to manipulate it due to the loyalties of its officers to him personally. Four divisions were located in Zhili, the 3rd Division being in northeast China and the 5th Division in Shandong. Almost all the officers were ethnically Chinese, many of whom were returned students from Japan. Armament was not standardized, but was better in that respect than either before or later. Most of the infantry were armed with either the standard 1896 Japanese Type 30 rifle or the Mauser 7.9 mm.

The 1911 Revolution
The events of the revolution demonstrated that the Beiyang Army, which formed the core of the 36-division New Army, was absolutely the dominant military force within China. Controlling the fragmented loyalties of its formations was the key to political power in post–1911 China. The insurrection that actually set off the 1911 Revolution took place in Wuchang on 10 October. Four days later, the Qing court organized the New Armies in the north, and particularly the Beiyang Army, into three forces: the First Army, which would be sent to fight at Wuchang under the command of Army Minister Yinchang, the Second Army, which would act as a reserve force and would be sent to the front as needed, under the command of Feng Guozhang, and the Third Army, which would defend the capital, under Zaitao. The First and Second armies consisted of about 25,000 men each, or two divisions. The First included elements from the second, fourth, sixth divisions of the Beiyang army, which were the Qing government's crack troops, trained by Yuan Shikai.

Their order of battle in October 1911 was as follows:
 * 1st Army (Yinchang, later Yuan Shikai)
 * 4th Division (Wu Fengling, later Chen Guangyuan)
 * 7th Brigade (Chen Guangyuan)
 * 8th Brigade (Wang Yujia)
 * 3rd Brigade (Wang Zhanyuan) – of the 2nd Division
 * 11th Brigade (Li Chun) – of the 6th Division
 * 2nd Army (Feng Guozhang)
 * 5th Division (Zhang Yongcheng)
 * 5th Brigade (Lu Yongxiang) – of the 3rd Division
 * 39th Brigade (Wu Zhenxiang) – of the 20th Division, which was formed in January 1910
 * 2nd Mixed Brigade (Wang Ruxian, later Lan Tianwei) – formed from 2nd and 4th Divisions
 * 3rd Army (Zaitao)
 * 1st Division
 * Capital Guards (Zaifeng, Prince Chun) – Manchu bannermen trained by Yuan Shikai, under the prince-regent's direct command

The Second Army was never formed as a functional military unit as a result of mutiny, and thus never was sent to the front to assist the First Army. The formations were abolished in early December 1911.

On 12 October Yinchang was ordered to take two Beiyang Army divisions (the First Army) down the Beijing-Hankou Railway to suppress the uprising at Wuchang. He attacked the revolutionary army commanded by Huang Xing on 27 October. Covered by their own field artillery and the guns of the imperial fleet, the Beiyang infantry attacked with a cloud of skirmishers followed by a line of close-order company fronts. These textbook tactics were soon to be discredited in the intense fighting of the First World War, but against an undisciplined revolutionary force with no machine guns, they worked perfectly.

On that same day Yuan Shikai was ordered to take command of the forces at Wuchang. He refused, instead securing high commands for his two most trusted associates, Feng Guozhang and Duan Qirui. Fighting continued in Hubei for another month as Yuan negotiated with the dynasty and the revolutionaries using the Beiyang Army as a weapon of coercion. The end result was that he was elected provisional President of the Republic of China.

Beiyang clique in power (1911–1915)

During the period 1911–1915, Yuan Shikai remained the only man who could hold the Beiyang Army together. He and his followers strongly resisted any attempt by the Kuomintang (KMT) to insert outsiders into their chain of command. They negotiated a loan of £25 million sterling from a five-power banking consortium to support the Beiyang Army, despite an uproar from the KMT. In 1913 Yuan Shikai appointed four of his loyal lieutenants as military governors in southern provinces: Duan Qirui in Anhui, Feng Guozhang in Jiangsu, Li Shun in Jiangxi and Tang Xiangming in Hunan. The unified Beiyang military clique now attained its maximum extent of territorial control. It exercised firm control over North China and the Yangtze River provinces. Throughout 1914 it supported Yuan in making revisions to the constitution to give himself treaty- and war-making powers as well as substantial emergency powers (the three commanders were nicknamed by the newspapers of the time as angel, tiger and dog. Angel was Duan Qirui, tiger Wang Shizhen and dog Feng Guozhang).

In December 1915 Yuan Shikai declared himself Emperor. This was opposed by almost all the generals and officers of the Beiyang Army, from Duan Qirui and Feng Guozhang on down. More importantly, many outlying provinces such as Yunnan openly opposed him. Yuan was forced to back down from his imperial designs. Both Duan and Feng refused to support him in power any further, and in the end the only prominent Beiyang general to remain loyal was the irrepressible Zhang Xun. Yuan died soon afterward. After his death the Beiyang Army split into cliques led by Yuan's principal protégés. Duan Qirui's Anhui clique and the Zhili clique, founded by Feng Guozhang but led after Feng's death by Cao Kun and Wu Peifu, were the principal Beiyang cliques. Disunited, the power of the Beiyang Army was challenged by provincial armies such as Yan Xishan's forces in Shanxi and Zhang Zuolin's Fengtian clique.

Fragmentation of the Beiyang army (1916–1918)
Pressure from the Beiyang commanders prevented any political figure of the left taking power in the government of the Republic of China. For almost a decade after Yuan's death, the agenda of the leading Beiyang warlords was to reunify China by first reuniting the Beiyang Army and then conquering the lesser provincial armies.

For a period from mid-1916, the ultraconservative Beiyang Gen. Zhang Xun managed to maintain the unity of the army via collegial contacts and negotiation. As Yuan Shikai had done, the Beiyang generals used their military power to intimidate the parliament into passing legislation they wanted. Following a dispute with President Li Yuanhong over a loan from Japan in early 1917, Duan Qirui declared independence from the government along with most of the other Beiyang generals. Zhang Xun then occupied Beijing with his army, and on 1 July shocked the Chinese political world by proclaiming the restoration of the Qing dynasty. All the other generals condemned this and the restoration soon collapsed. The elimination of Zhang Xun soon afterwards destroyed the balance of power between the rival factions of Feng and Duan/Wan and inaugurated a decade of warlordism.

Feng Guozhang went to Beijing to assume the presidency after securing the appointment of his protégé as military commander in Jiangxi, Hubei and Jiangsu. These three provinces became the power bases of the Zhili military clique. Duan Qirui resumed his position as prime minister; his Anhui (sometimes called Anfu) clique dominated the Beijing area. Using Japanese funding to build up his so-called "War Participation Army", Duan continued to struggle with Feng Guozhang.

Feng was eventually eliminated from political life in 1918, when Xu Shichang, the Beiyang elder statesman, became president. His deputy Cao Kun replaced him as leader of the Zhili clique. At the end of World War I, Duan dominated Chinese representation at the Treaty of Versailles and used the Shanghai peace conference in 1919 to bring pressure on the non-Beiyang militarists supporting Sun Yat-sen's government in Guangzhou. He continued to receive Japanese funding for his army (renamed "National Defence Army"), for which he was willing to grant Japan legal succession to the German rights in Shandong (see May Fourth Movement).

High warlordism (1919–1925)
Before May–June 1919, some combination of fighting and negotiation among the major Beiyang leaders was expected to lead to military unification, which in turn would permit the restoration of the constitutional political processes that Yuan Shikai had disrupted. By 1919 the three major northern military cliques had cemented, two of them – Anhui and Zhili – directly from the Beiyang Army and the third, Fengtian under Gen. Zhang Zuolin, from an amalgamation of Beiyang and local troops. They and their imitators on a smaller scale were willing to get money and arms from any source in order to survive, and the weaker factions would combine against the stronger.

The history of the major warlord wars down to 1925 recount the failure of any of the military commanders in China to centralise political and military power to any degree. In a situation resembling the period of the Five Dynasties and Ten Kingdoms, most of South China remained beyond Beiyang control, to become the incubator for both the KMT and Chinese Communist Party movements.

Northern Expedition
The Kuomintang established the National Revolutionary Army with the help of the Soviet Union and Chinese Communist Party. Chiang Kai-shek then launched the Northern Expedition in 1926 in an attempt to bring the warlords under his control. Some warlords of the Beiyang Army, including Wu Peifu and Sun Chuanfang, were defeated by Chiang's forces, and the National Revolutionary Army gradually became dominant in China. The warlord era would be officially ended by 1928, when most of the warlords were either defeated or allied with the Kuomintang, although it was often in name only. The Chinese Civil War that had resulted from a fallout between Chiang and the Communists was already underway by this time. In 1930 the Central Plains War began after some of the warlords allied with the Kuomintang became disenchanted and attempted to overthrow Chiang. They weren't successful, but lack of cooperation and rivalry continued to plague China through much of the years following, eventually leading to the demise of Chiang's regime in the Chinese Civil War in 1949.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Beiyang Army


text:
Johann Hermann Schein

Johann Hermann Schein (20 January 1586 – 19 November 1630) was a German composer of the early Baroque era. He was Thomaskantor in Leipzig from 1615 to 1630. He was one of the first to import the early Italian stylistic innovations into German music, and was one of the most polished composers of the period.

Biography
Schein was born in Grünhain. On the death of his father, Schein moved to Dresden where he joined the choir of the Elector of Saxony as a boy soprano. In addition to singing in the choir, he received a thorough musical training with Rogier Michael, the Kapellmeister, who recognized his extraordinary talent. From 1603 to 1607 he studied at Pforta, and from 1608 to 1612 attended the University of Leipzig, where he studied law in addition to liberal arts. Upon graduating, he was employed briefly by Gottfried von Wolffersdorff as the house music director and tutor to his children; later he became Kapellmeister at Weimar, and shortly thereafter became Thomaskantor, music director in Leipzig, especially cantor at the Thomasschule zu Leipzig and conducting the Thomanerchor, a post which he held for the rest of his life.

Unlike his friend Heinrich Schütz, he was afflicted with poor health, and was not to live a happy or long life. His wife died in childbirth; four of his five children died in infancy; he died in Leipzig at age 44, having suffered from tuberculosis, gout, scurvy, and a kidney disorder.

Style
Schein was one of the first to absorb the innovations of the Italian Baroque—monody, the concertato style, figured bass—and use them effectively in a German Lutheran context. While Schütz made more than one trip to Italy, Schein apparently spent his entire life in Germany, making his grasp of the Italianate style all the more remarkable. His early concertato music seems to have been modeled on Lodovico Grossi da Viadana's Cento concerti ecclesiastici, which were available in an edition prepared in Germany.

Unlike Schütz, who concentrated mainly on sacred music (although it must be borne in mind that at least two operas composed by him, among other secular works, have been lost), Schein wrote sacred and secular music in approximately equal quantities, and almost all of it was vocal. In his secular vocal music he wrote all of his own texts. Throughout his life he published alternating collections of sacred and secular music, in accordance with an intention he stated early on — in the preface to the Banchetto musicale — to publish alternately music for use in worship and social gatherings. The contrast between the two kinds of music can be quite extreme. While some of his sacred music uses the most sophisticated techniques of the Italian madrigal for a devotional purpose, such as the motet Wie lieblich sind deine Wohnungen setting verses from Psalm 84, several of his secular collections include such things as drinking songs of a surprising simplicity and humor. Some of his works attain an expressive intensity matched in Germany only by those of Schütz, for example the spectacular Fontana d'Israel or Israel's Brünnlein (1623), in which Schein declared his intent to exhaust the possibilities of German word-painting "in the style of the Italian madrigal."

Possibly his most famous collection was his only collection of instrumental music, the Banchetto musicale (Musical banquet) (1617) which contains twenty separate variation suites; they are among the earliest, and most perfect, representatives of the form. Most likely they were composed as dinner music for the courts of Weissenfels and Weimar, and were intended to be performed on viols. They consist of dances: a pavan-galliard (a normal early Baroque pair), a courante, and then an allemande-tripla. Each suite in the Banchetto is unified by mode as well as by theme.

Sacred vocal

 * Cymbalum Sionium (1615)
 * Opella nova, geistlicher Concerten (1618)
 * Fontana d'Israel, Israelis Brünnlein (1623)
 * Opella nova, ander Theil, geistlicher Concerten (1626)
 * Cantional oder Gesangbuch Augspurgischer Confession (1627, 1645)

Secular vocal

 * Venus Kräntzlein (1609)
 * Musica boscareccia (1621, and several portions published later)
 * Diletti pastorali, Hirten Lust (1624)
 * Studenten-Schmauss (1626)
 * So da, mein liebes Brüderlein (1626)

Instrumental

 * Banchetto musicale (1617)

title: Johann Hermann Schein


text:
Narrative ballet

A narrative ballet, also known as classical ballet or story ballet is a form of ballet that has a plot and characters. It is typically a production with full sets and costumes. It was an invention of the eighteenth century.

Most romantic and classical ballets of the 19th century were narrative ballets. Among the most well known are Swan Lake, The Sleeping Beauty, and Cinderella. For these and other classic narrative ballets it is common for ballet directors to create their own choreography, while maintaining the plot and music used by the original 19th-century choreographer. Kenneth MacMillan and Frederick Ashton were neoclassical ballet choreographers that created original narrative ballets in the 20th century.

Plots frequently revolve around intense love, expression, fantasy, and tragedy. The most popular classic ballets are based on fairytales and magical myths.

For example, in Swan Lake, the main character Odette is put under a spell by an evil sorcerer that makes her a swan until she turns human at midnight. The spell can only be broken by true love from a man who has not promised his heart to another. She meets a prince and they both fall in love. In the end, the prince was tricked by the evil sorcerer to propose to his daughter. Destined to be a swan forever, Odette plunges herself into the lake from despair. The prince followers her until the river and they are united for eternity in death. When performing a story ballet, it not only essential that dancers have good technique but that they have the ability to act. This is because in ballet there are no spoken words. It is the responsibility of the dancer to be able to use their movements and facial expressions to the communicate with the audience, or else the plot isn't properly conveyed. The ability to tell a story and how emotion without words is known as "classical mime", which plays an important role in ballet.

Narrative ballets are essential to a ballet company's repertoire, because they tend to generate the highest sales and bring families with children to see the ballet. People enjoy watching an art form where they are transformed into a different world. It's entertaining and exciting. Many newer narrative ballets are adapted from familiar stories or literature because they are recognizable to audiences.

Notable narrative ballets
Narrative ballets are essential to a ballet company's repertoire, because they tend to generate the highest sales and bring families with children to see the ballet. People enjoy watching an art form where they are transformed into a different world. It's entertaining and exciting. Many newer narrative ballets are adapted from familiar stories or literature because they are recognizable to audiences. As mentioned above Swan Lake is one of the most famous examples of narrative ballet, other famous narrative ballets include: Giselle, The Nutcracker, Romeo and Juliet, and L'histoire de Manon. The story of Giselle is a romantic tale of innocent love and betrayal; of philandering Count Albrecht and a trusting peasant maid, Giselle. Although she has a weak heart, Giselle loves to dance. The Nutcracker is the story of how a young girl named Clara falls in love with a Nutcracker that magically comes to life and defeats an army of evil rats to save her life. Clara and the nutcracker then travel to the land of the sweets where Clara is introduced to the Sugar Plum Fairy and her Cavalier, and beautiful Arabian Princesses, Russian Cossacks, French ballet dancers and even exotic flowers, who all dance in her honor. The ballet Romeo and Juliet follows the same story as the famous Shakespearean play it is based on, the only difference between the two being the medium used is dance rather than acting. Lastly, the ballet L'histoire de Manon follows the love story of Manon and Grieux and their search for love and fortune.

Other forms of ballet
While narrative ballet is easily the most well-known and appreciated form of ballet, there are many others that are important as well. There are considered to be four main styles of ballet: Classical, Neoclassical, Contemporary, and Romantic. Neoclassical ballet evolved from classical ballet, distinguishing itself for typically being abstract. The music of choice tends to be neoclassical as well, from musicians such as Roussel and Stravinsky. Contemporary ballet takes inspiration from classical ballet elements and adding modern techniques of jazz and other dance forms, and focuses more on athleticism and bigger and swifter tempos. Finally the last style of ballet is Romantic, which is very similar to Classical ballet in the fact that drama, emotion, and a strong storytelling are key components of the style. The main difference between the two styles lies within the costuming. The longer bell-shaped skirts of Romantic ballets are a far cry from the short, stiff, platter-style tutus worn in Classical pieces.

Creating narrative ballets in the 21st century
Christopher Wheeldon, composer of The Winter's Tale, states that in today's age, "Design and the use of technology are important tools in storytelling... such as the well integrated use of projection in his ballet 'Alice' and 'Winter's tale'". While we love the classics such as Swan Lake, The Sleeping Beauty, and Cinderella, modern ballets should reflect the modern days changing technology. While classic ballets are interesting to the audience because of its unique plot and characters, it's a good idea to make minor tweak to the original work to hold the audiences' attention. This could mean adding a new character or making changes to a character's costume. However, any changes need to still reflect the original storyline. For example, costumes need to be appealing and reflect a character's personality. The lighting and staging needs to complement the storyline to keep it engaging.

Notable narrative ballets

 * Swan Lake
 * Giselle
 * The Nutcracker
 * Romeo and Juliet
 * L'histoire de Manon
 * Cinderella
 * Sleeping Beauty

title: Narrative ballet


text:
User talk:Hephaestos/Archive20040715

Thanks for the nice comment. I served on the Wood for three years and it just didn't seem fair that the other ships had entries and she didn't. Wikipedia is an interesting community. It took me a week of reading to figure out the "right" way of doing things, but I think it was worth the extra time. I'm looking forward to participating in the community. We'll see how it works out. Thanks again. :-) Ocon 05:17, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for the barnstar. It was nice to see an edit to my user page that wasn't vandalism or a revert. :) Angela.

Heph, I responded to your comment on my talk page via email a week or two ago. Hope you got it. UninvitedCompany 14:57, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

 * I did, thank you, it was encouraging. :) - Hephaestos|§ 15:33, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

WP:RFROAA
(cross-posted to several user talk: pages)

I noticed that you participated in the discussion regarding reorganization of this page. I have written a proposal for a new format and would like any comments, criticisms, or feedback you may have to offer. Thanks, —No-One Jones 14:27, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

natural justice
i didn't realise it was a contentious topic, i thought it was accepted legal principle. am i missing something? cheers Erich 04:37, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

It is, but I don't think our article does it justice yet, so I'm uncomfortable linking to it. - Hephaestos|§ 04:42, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

 * Do you fancy taking a crack at it? I think the principle might have something to say to the debate we're having. Thanks, Mark Richards 18:01, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome! Quodlibetarian

Thank you
Thanks for blocking Lir. It's appreciated. :) Neutrality 05:24, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Troll watch
I award you this barnstar:

for continuing work at keeping Wikipedia troll free. Rick'''K 07:33, Jul 3, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks so much for nominating one of my images for featured pictures - I was really pleased to see it there. I've been hoping that one of my photos would be seen as good enough :) Thanks again -- sannse (talk) 21:32, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Removing my votes
Please don't remove votes people have made merely because they forgot to sign them. anthony (see warning)

You removed Jmabel's of 22:12, Jul 3, 2004 (UTC). Secretlondon 23:40, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Requests for Comment
I have been subjected to a Requests for Comment at. I just wanted to let you know in the interest of full disclosure because you were involved in the matter. Best regards, --H. C HENEY 04:38, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Vandalising user pages
Heph, I don't think people should vandalise your user page, and I don't think you should vandalise others'. I know you want this user banned, and that they annoy you, but until the policy and community support that, stop baiting them. You're looking for conflict that isn't there. If you respond, then you've been trolled. Rise above it. ;)Mark Richards 02:26, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Bull. The contents of that user page consist of vandalism. They need to be removed. - Hephaestos|§ 02:45, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * No, Heph, you are obviously trolling. You are blanking a user page of a user who has not been banned, because it annoys you, probably to get a bite, so that they will blank your user page and so on. Grow up. Think through what possible good can come of this. Mark Richards 02:53, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * I am blanking a diatribe that basically says "Wikipedia sucks". Why do you have a problem with this? Do you think "trolls are the answer"? If so why are you here? - Hephaestos|§ 03:10, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I don't have to agree with it to think that people should be allowed to say it. It is a bizarre analysis of the situation that I don't agree with, but that doesn't mean I should vandalise it. It is not vandalism in itself, just an odd rant. Your actions can have no good outcome. Stop feeding trolls. Mark Richards 15:42, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * Allowing trolls to continue posting graffiti on this site is feeding them. The best way to cut them off from "food" is to block them from editing. - Hephaestos|§ 16:55, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I'd point out that your logic is flawed, but there is a more serious problem with your facts. You are not blocking them from editing. You are vandalising their userpage, presumably to cause conflict, which is trolling. Stop it. Mark Richards 17:32, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I'm vandalising nothing, I am removing vandalism. If you think what's on that user page is not a bad-faith addition made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of the encyclopedia, you probably need to read it again until it sinks in. I'd also thank you to lose the delusion that you can order me around. - Hephaestos|§ 18:51, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * Heaven forfend anyone should try to get you to stop throwing your weight around, no matter how much trouble you cause. Think about the effects of what you are doing, and the likely results. You are behaving like a troll, and I think you should seriously examine your motivations. Mark Richards 18:58, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * Oh please. If you're serious, start an RFC to have my admin privileges removed. I'd start one on you if I thought it would do any good, in my opinion you are far and away the worst administrator we currently have, you've used your privilege and position for nothing but dragging down the quality of Wikipedia ever since you got them. - Hephaestos|§ 20:47, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Ah yes, classic Heph trolling. Avoid the question, respond with abuse. Mark Richards 20:51, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Heph is mean and bossy sometimes. One time on IRC he flamed me until I left. :*( Sam [Spade] 19:07, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Is this somehow relevant to anything on Wikipedia? - Hephaestos|§ 20:47, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * Yes, your aggressive bully-boy tactics are not appreciated. Mark Richards 20:51, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Mark,

While I do not wish to take sides in this conflict in particular, I would like to point out that Hephaestos is a longstanding contributor whose commitment to the project and its goals is beyond question. While some consider him insufficiently tolerant of users whose contribution is yet to become clear to us, he often at the same time acts while a silent majority remains, well, silent. I would encourage you to consider your words carefully as you share your concerns regarding Hephaestos.

UninvitedCompany 01:45, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

(anon troll rant deleted by Erich 08:11, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC) see archive if you realy want to)

 * Do you rant like that in a classroom as well? - Hephaestos|§ 02:48, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * I appreciate your call to civility UC, thanks. Mark Richards 17:22, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

edit conflict, censorship of incitement?
Between 02:55 and 08:13, 6 Jul 2004 User:Hephaestos and User:Mark Richards reverted a user page at least 5 times in an edit war. I hope both of you are profoundly embarrased. You are both supposed to be leading by example and I am appalled. (i have posted this on both user pages)Erich 06:30, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) Are you planning on repeating this sort of behaviour?
 * 2) What steps are you planning to take to avoid future outbreaks?

 * 1. I don't make a habit of edit wars; I think my last one was sometime in 2002. So no, not unless extenuating circumstances (such as here) present themselves.
 * 2. None. I was removing vandalism. Richards was putting the vandalism back. You can make your own judgment on that; however I knew full well that I was risking a three-day ban, and if I get one well I deserved it didn't I? I think it would be nice if the community were to make an example of both of us in this situation, but frankly I don't think they have the guts. - Hephaestos|§ 13:32, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Someone should recognize publicly that too few editors and admins defend us from the few bozos here for fights and psychodrama. Don't let it get you down. The reverts were a peccadillo given the provocation you were removing. Thanks. Alteripse 22:30, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hephaestos, you shouldn’t misinterpret an unwillingness to act as a lack of 'guts'. Swift action over the Internet doesn't really have much to do with courage now does it? Given you track record though, I'd have thought a warning would be more appropriate than time-out at this stage. If you two start up again though I’ll be baying for blood myself. As for "I was removing vandalism. Richards was putting the vandalism back", well that's just bull. You two were edit waring. Plain and simple. Did you look at this proposal? (note that it includes an increasingly short leash for reincarnations) and is in addition to existing vandalism policies (although your definition of vandalism is not in accord with mine. your comments/edits would be genuinely welcome. (you too Alteripse!) best wishes Erich 22:51, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

My definition of vandalism, FWIW, is here. - Hephaestos|§ 02:13, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

"Trolls say controversial or unpleasant things (often on discussion pages or in their user space) in order to attract predictable responses or flames. See internet troll. Please don't feed the trolls." - I'm interested in whether you really think someone saying controversial or unpleasant things (since you can't know their intentions) is vandalism. Mark Richards 02:23, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Evidently you're skimming again. "Vandalism is bad-faith addition, deletion, or change to content, made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of the encyclopedia." - Hephaestos|§ 02:27, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * No, I read that, but since you can't know the intention of the writer, the only thing you have to go on is the content, and we're back to it being 'controversial' or 'unpleasant'. Mark Richards 02:32, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * I find it bizarre that anybody could take the diatribe on that page as having been made in "good faith". - Hephaestos|§ 02:58, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Interesting, but let's get back to the point, which was, since you can't know the intention of the writer, the only thing you have to go on is the content, and we're back to it being 'controversial' or 'unpleasant'. Mark Richards 02:59, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

You're overlooking the "attempt to compromise the integrity of the encyclopedia" part. - Hephaestos|§ 03:05, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I don't think so, since I can't know the intent of the writer. But let's get back to the point, which was, since you can't know the intention of the writer, the only thing you have to go on is the content, and we're back to it being 'controversial' or 'unpleasant'. Mark Richards 03:08, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I suppose you think he did it "accidentally". Again, bizarre. Please explain to me how someone could write that as a good-faith contribution to the encyclopedia. - Hephaestos|§ 03:20, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

why dont you two conduct a quick poll of some sort to see if users should be allowed to have content critical to wikipedia and wikipedia admins on their user and talk pages? You could both formulate a 150 word statement of your prososed positions, with links to relevent policies and examples. You could draft your statements in view of each other and ammend your own statements until you were both satisfied you had articulated your points and responded to counter arguement. By mutual agreemnet you could raise the 150 words, but I think that should be enough. How about it? Erich 03:40, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with content critical of Wikipedia; '''I have a problem with bald-faced incitement to try to destroy Wikipedia. I don't have a problem with content critical of individual Wikipedia admins, but I do have a problem with content critical of the group of Wikipeida admins as a whole, or critical of the idea of having admins at all, as opposed to total anarchy.''' So I guess I can't draft a statement to that effect. - Hephaestos|§ 03:57, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

sure, well I don't mean to put words in your mouth. Why not explain that? I'm only suggesting 150 words, not a doctoral thesis Erich 05:18, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * Well, I'm not going to get backed into defending the content, since I don't agree with it. Where we part company is whether people should be allowed to be critical of the concept of having admins. I think they should be. It's healthy to air a range of opinions, even bizzare and off the wall ones. I don't think that having that range of opinions posted is a threat. Mark Richards 17:14, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * Heavens Mark, who was asking you to defend the content? I have taken the extreme liberty of highlighting what, to me, seems the summary of your own expression of your positions. Perhaps that could be a starting point for a 150 word? (Hephaestos, I am aware this is your talk page, so feel free to tell me to bugger off). Guys this is an important issue that all society wrestle with. Why don't we work together to get a robust comunity consensus on it? Erich 03:10, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

two observations
While once again I neither entirely agree nor entirely disagree with either Mark or Heph, I offer these observations.

First, material such as that which Heph cut from User:The Trolls of Navarone is best understood in context. Context, in this case, includes this:

 * About 90% of the text in question has been taken verbatim from previous diatribes placed on the meta by User:24.
 * Related material (generally, material flatly critical of Wikipedia governance and administration) has been widely posted on Wikipedia, the meta, the mailing list, and various other wikis such as Meatball, Consumerium, Ferment, and probably more, over the course of the last two years. (also, #wikipedia, the Webby awards, etc --Martin)
 * Any sort of freedom of expression argument is patently false because this viewpoint has been put forth widely.
 * Such material is critical of foundation issues, such as NPOV, the presence of administrators, and Jimbo's ultimate authority. Discussion of such issues is unhelpful, because they are defining matters for the project that cannot be changed.
 * Experience has shown that people who post such material, anonymously or as socks, are uninterested in actual discussion of the points raised.
 * The repeated posting of this material by anons and sock puppets, as is the case here, might lead casual readers, particularly Wikipedians new to the project, that these views are more widely held than they actually are. There are at most a handful of signed-in contributors to Wikipedia with any sort of positive track record who subscribe to this POV.
 * Such repeated posting is therefore both disingenuous and harmful to the project.
 * The repeated posting of it, over the last two years, anonymously and via socks, by a handful of malcontents, in a wide variety of inappropriate forums, has become extremely tiresome to longstanding contributors.

Second, it is not unusual for newcomers to the project, who are unfamilar with the context, to take Mark's point of view. I myself held such a point of view when I was new to the project. Over time, I find that I agree more and more with Heph's point of view. I can think of several other Wikipedians who have made similar transitions.

Respectfully, UninvitedCompany 04:29, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

ah the dulcet tones of reason and experience! well if that rubbish is just a cut and paste of material already posted somewhere else on wikipedia, then why not replace that rubbish with a link to it? While it is tempting to name the page childish rantings of a borderline personality against Wikipedia, perhaps Unedited writings against Wikipedia not in accord with community consensus might be more expeditious, and there it can stay? if this started to look like a google bomb campaign then the link needn't be made live (ie have the text of the URL but not an actual hyperlink) Erich 05:04, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * I'm surprised by how insecure this kind of thing seems to make people. I don't think we should be afraid of questioning of basic assumptions, even if they seem fringe and lunatic to us. Mark Richards 16:50, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Erich - interestingly, that's precisely what MeatballWiki has been doing for some time - consolidating the material on a single page. Not because we love Wikipedia (we don't), but because the author was uninterested in BarnRaising, so it just got in the way. This worked well enough there, certainly. Perhaps we can import that solution, and move everything to Case of a Wikipedia troll? Heph, Mark, would this be satisfactory?

I feel that Wikipedia is not a soapbox, and user pages are not provided for the purpose of soapboxing. So I have no problem with people removing rants, whether they be against Wikipedia, America, or the price of eggs, and in articles, user pages, talk pages. Whether it is worth getting in a revert war over them, is another question - but I guess this has become a matter of principle now. Martin 20:41, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * Well, if it were a completely irrelevant rant, then maybe, but a rant about the organisation of Wikipedia, or ideas for reorganising it surely could go on the userpages. Some users have essay subpages - this might be a better place for it I suppose. I think the principle that opinions about Wikipedia should be allowed to be voiced, as long as they are not personal attacks, or truly offensive (I mean in the range of tubgirl!). We should not be afraid of criticism or ideas. Mark Richards 21:05, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Opinions about Wikipedia are allowed to be voiced. The "troll heirarchy" has been posted all over the place - one is not afraid of it so much as bored. The world view that claims that trolls are good, that there is no such thing as virtual community, and so forth can be expressed once, and only once. Scattering it about a hundred different places is just spam. Just as we feel free to delete spam from corporations, so we should feel free spam from a persistent individual with an idiosyncratic world view. Fortunately, as Wikipedia-related ranting is on-topic on meta, so we can compromise by centralising such ranting in a single place on meta. Martin 23:18, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * dumb question number 2: is there currently a once? Erich 07:24, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * still curious about if there is a once... Erich 08:22, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * Bored? So don't read it, that's the thing, you don't have to. It's not a fight you have to pick at all. If we removed everything from anyone's userpage that was posted anywhere else we'd be in major trouble. The thing is, that there is no threat at all to letting people voice their opinions on their userpages. Deciding what opinions can and can't be voiced there is a potential threat. Mark Richards 00:00, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Martin, in re your idea, please feel free to copy anything from the talk page here over to meta or wherever you think it might get more readers and thereby maybe do some good.

I'll voice my opinion on the subject once more and then I'm done. Since about April, there have been legions (to borrow a term) of accounts made by people who are not here to work on the encyclopedia, to improve it, or to benefit it in any way. They are here simply to attempt to make it less a valuable resource and to harass those people who are honestly trying to make good contributions. Moreover it is clear, in virtually every case, that this is what they are doing. This is clearly against policy against vandalism, and it needs to be dealt with much more firmly and quickly than it has been thus far, or else this site is just going to become a graffiti board.

So far these people have been taking a mile; we do not need to give them even an inch. - Hephaestos|§ 00:26, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * go on Heph, do me a favour and have a look at Dealing with disruptive or antisocial editors. I think the main strength of it is to allow rapid definition (by the sysops) of which users need to be quickly shown the door. Erich 07:24, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * That's its main strength, and a good one. However 24 hours is a slap on the wrist, they'll just come back tomrrow.  No provision on how to achieve agreement among three admins either, where the discussion should take place etc. And frankly, I don't think some of these people rate warning when it's obvious what they're doing. - Hephaestos|§ 02:52, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * ah well, that is where the the escalating penalties come in... and the penalties for presumed reincarnations. By the fourth offence, they don't get a warning and they get a 96 block on each single step out of line (they have to offend once or we don't know they are there!). The benefit is that by the fourth attempt, there is a clearly documented litany of misdemeanors, plus numerous warnings. Even bleeding hearts like me and Mark, are going to complain if people are clearly losers. Then it's just a case of taking all the collected evidence to the AC for and the AC should be able to rule pretty smartly if the rolling 96blocks are considered inadequate.
 * I agree the mechanism for admins to discuss is not clearly spelt out. I guess it would be on a related talk page. (?) Ultimately it is the URLs to the diffs that say what needs to be said. (both the counterproductive edits and clearly productive edits). Each sysop can scan the evidence (diffs) for themselves pretty quickly to draw their own conclusion. So I guess I was thinking it wouldn't need much chat. do you think it is something you think you may be able to support? best wishes Erich 03:12, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your support of my administrator nomination on RfA. I sincerely appreciate your support. Best wikiwishes, Neutrality 05:04, Jul 9, 2004 (UTC)

To clarify Heph, I was thinking of moving the stuff from user:The Trolls of Navarone (and so forth) to meta, for example, if you we can't get agreement from Mark on simply deleting it. Martin 11:47, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * I think it's already there, isn't it? - Hephaestos|§ 16:37, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * Some is there, and some of it may have been deleted. Please don't use the meta as a garbage disposal.  I and several others are trying to clean up some of the discussions there, a process that requires considerable effort, and it doesn't help matters when pages are re-added.  UninvitedCompany 01:29, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It's not that I want to see this stuff preserved per se, simply that I don't think the precedent of admins being alowed to blank user pages and then protect them simply because they bore or annoy them is a good one. Mark Richards 00:53, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * Lir's page bores and annoys me, you don't see me blanking it. You don't read, do you? - Hephaestos|§ 01:46, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * err.. Heph, don't you think "You don't read, do you?" is a bit uncalled for? I gotta tell you, looking in from the periphery it seems a bit harsh. Although Mark could add 'disagree with' to 'bore or annoy'. Erich 06:53, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * I realised after I wrote this that really Hephs concern is that this content is encouraging other users to 'troll'. So I guess we should discuss the merits of 'is it OK to remove material from Wikipedia that encourages other users to disrupt it'... mmm sounds like a good topic for a poll? what do others think? is this the crux of the issue? Erich 22:11, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * No I don't think it's harsh. If he really thinks boredom and annoyance or even "disagree with" are the reasons I was blanking that exhortation to wreck the site, he obviously did not read the passages you yourself boldfaced. - Hephaestos|§ 15:36, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

'Bored' was a direct quote from someone who agreed with your opinion - appologies for the appearance that it was attributed to you. I thought that it did annoy you, appologies, still, replace those words with 'dissagree with' and my point still stands. The thought that users should be allowed to blank opinion on other's userpages simply because you don't like it is a horrific one. It is not an 'exhortation to wreck the site', it is a fairly incoherent rant about abusive sysop power, and and ill thought out proposal for an alternative. I read it, it is somewhat annoying, most is boring, none of it is so offensive it needs to be deleted. Get over it, turning yourself into the caracature of tyranical abusive sysops doesn't help. Mark Richards 16:28, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * Mark, the page in question is not the user page of a contributor, it is material that has been placed in the User: space under a user ID that has made no meaningful contributions. Therefore, the same protections do not exist.  And I think we've all made it clear there is more involved than the page serving to "bore and annoy."  Please see my contribution, above, regarding the context of the deleted material.  UninvitedCompany 18:39, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hi UC - I could reply to your points in detail, but it would lead to a discussion of the relative merits or not of the material, something that I don't really want to get into, except to say that it is a critique of some aspects of Wikipedia. I think it is legitimate for a user to post criticisms and suggested remedies, regardless of whether you or I agree with them. Btw the user has made some valid contributions. I don't see anything in any of what is written that justifies its removal, other than that it annoys us. It is clearly not a threat to the integrity of the encyclopedia, this is just another fight that is being unnecessarily picked. What kind of precident do you think is being set? There are many user pages that I find annoying. For example, I find that Heph's rejection of the principle that we should assume good faith on his user page undermines one of the central principles that the community is built on counterproductive. Should I blank his userpage? Of course not, I get over it, and I don't look for unnecessary fights. Mark Richards 19:22, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * see the above proposal for a poll topic. (Now Mark, for what its worth, this time I think you are being a bit unfair with the 'I don't look for unnecessary fights') Erich 22:11, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * ) Well, it comes down to a matter of opinion again - clearly, if I thought it was unnecessary, I wouldn't do it! Trolls are not a big problem right now, they never have been. Troll-baiting is however. Mark Richards 22:46, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

This is laughable. If the place weren't infested with trolls, what would there be to "bait"? (Not that they seem to require any "baiting".) - Hephaestos|§ 02:44, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

strewth. you two are behaving like kids! I'm starting to form the opinion that you'd rather try to score minor points of each other than move towards something constructive. Here are some suggestions:
 * 1) Firstly, can you emphasise the things that you agree on rather than the points of disagreement? When you read a post rather than scanning it for minor points that you can criticise the author for, look for things you can agree on and try to clarify the scope of your agreemnts.
 * 2) Secondly, if you do disagree with something important, can you try to explain why?
 * 3) Thirdly, can you put some effort into articulating the issues that you disagree with?
 * 4) Fourthly, well there is no forthly... I'll just give up. Erich 08:20, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * Thanks for your perseverance Erich! I think that H and I probably both agree that we are tryign to create an environment that fosters creativity and positive contributions to the 'pedia. The major point of disagreement seems to be on what, if any, threats to this there are. I've not been able to find any evidence, either in the list of missing Wikipedians or anywhere else that there are any cases of serious damage to the 'pedia, or anyone leaving because of 'trolling' (of course, no one seems to be able to agree on what that even is). Heph obviously feels that 'trolls' are a real threat, but I see over-zealous admins and the threat of small groups of admins acting without accountability as much more of a threat. Missing Wikipedians lists several people who say that this is the reason that they left. I feel that we need to evolve a better way of dealing with unproductive editors, but increasing the ability of people to ban others is not going to help. If anything, it will make it worse.
 * At the heart of it I think this is the issue between Heph and I, it is a very different vision a) of what the problem is, and b) of the kind of solution we would want, both practically and philosophically.
 * Is that fair Heph? Mark Richards 16:52, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Mark, Missing Wikipedians is not complete. Relatively few people have self-listed there, though many of those who have cite the "Wikipedia administrators" as one of their reasons. Most of the people who cited such reasons were in actual fact frustrated with the community, and only ran afoul of administrators after flouting community norms. In general, such frustration most often afflicts those who make ill-considered edits (usually with POV problems) and find themselves in edit wars to defend them; administrators become a target when they try to mediate or protect affected pages.

Many if not most of the people listed at Missing Wikipedians were listed by their closer colleagues in the wake of their departure. Such listings rarely cite any reason. Among those who self-list, the most respected and most prolific contributors are those who are least likely to cite any reason at all for leaving, since they have the maturity to realize both that there is never any single reason and that it is ineffective to attempt to serve as a change agent while leaving.

User:Zoe left the project for over a year as a result of exactly the same sort of badgering that you are presently subjecting User:Hephaestos to. I noted that User:MyRedDice scaled back his participation considerably after a particularly brutal series of personal attacks by a troublemaker (this long before the arbitration committee existed). User:JHK left due to an overall deterioration in the level of discourse, though the immediate cause was due to embarassment over some poorly handled content that was offensive to some. Many others who remain have scaled back their involvement, notably User:Jwrosenzweig and User:172, due to frustrations with troublemakers.

I am reluctant to name names like this and hope those listed will forgive me. I do it because you, Mark, seem unwilling to accept any assertions without this kind of detail.

Stick around the project for a while, and maybe when a troll posts a discriminatory slur on one of your friends' talk pages, you'll see the light. The hurt is real and affects a substantial share of the most valuable contributors.

UninvitedCompany 18:08, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * Hi UC, I'm not for a moment trying to dismiss the damage caused by discriminatory slurs or personal attacks, but it seems that this sort of thing, along with other vandalism and personal attacks, is covered under existing policy. There is no need for more powers to deal with this since these users can already be banned for their behaviour. I brought up the Missing Wikipedians since it was listed on one of the 'Troll polls' that seem to be proliferating right now. Mark Richards 18:16, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * I'm confused. Do you support some method for administrators to ban people for discriminatory slurs and personal attacks without utilizing arbitration?  At present there is no such mechanism.

I certainly support taking action against users who make personal attacks, whether by arbitration or individual action. I do not see this as 'trolling'. Do we disagree on terminology, or is this an area where we are in heated agreement? ;) Mark Richards 19:13, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * Also, Mark, upon rereading Missing Wikipedians, I find your assertion regarding its contents even more puzzling, as nearly all those listed there were administrators themselves at the time of their departure (if memory serves), and I cannot figure out who you were referring to in your assertion that "Missing Wikipedians lists several people who say that [small groups of admins acting without accountability] is the reason that they left." There is one who mentions the mailing list, another User:RK, who was not an administrator, and some obtuse references to "egotistical users."  UninvitedCompany 18:27, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Well, I raised it simply because it is listed as evidence that users had been 'driven off by trolls'. Perhaps I drew to strong a conclusion from it. My point was simply that it is certainly not unambiguous evidence of a rising tide of damagin 'trolling'. Mark Richards 19:13, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

title: User talk:Hephaestos/Archive20040715