I replied to your reply to my initial comment. Before we do anything with the idea we need Raul654's blessing and SandyGeorgia's cooperation, otherwise this idea is going to sink before its even launched. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:37, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
I replied to your reply to my reply to reply to my initial comment. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:58, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Forgot to tell you that I did leave messages for Raul and Sandy, and both are willing to let our group go forward with the FAC should we choose to do so. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:41, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
I ... ah ... may have been stalking you and saw those. I also Maralia's comment on the talk page of Connecticut. What do you think? —Ed 17(Talk / Contribs) 23:45, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Its you call as the ringleader for this particular circus act (one of those perks in being the guy in charge is that you get stuck with all the hard decisions :) If Maralia says that she'd wait a week I'd listen to her, she's got a good eye for FAC and knows what she's talking about. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:30, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Alright, then we will wait a week/however much we need to finish it. :) —Ed 17(Talk / Contribs) 00:38, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
I saw your hidden note concerning the court martial. I left a message of the talk page of OberRanks (talk·contribs), formally Husnock (talk·contribs), a USN 0-4 with access to personnel records. With a little luck, he may be able to help us find an RS or two so we can cite that section. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:55, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
I am also trying the Reference Desk. Who knows - maybe someone will strike gold! Thanks Tom, —Ed 17(Talk / Contribs) 01:04, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Out of curiosity, would you be willing to write a WWI section for the article? I can help with it, but I'm sick of writing entire paras :D :P 01:10, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
I'll look into it, but I am just about set to head out for dinner, so it may have to wait for a little while. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
No problem! Thanks Tom! —Ed 17(Talk / Contribs) 01:23, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
One other little thing I forgot to mention: Texas vs. The Nation was played at the Sun Bowl this evening, so the traffic may keep me out of the house longer than planned. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
In recognition of your contribution in improving Military history articles through A-Class and Peer Reviews, during the fourth quarter of 2008, please accept this Content Review Medal. -MBK004 04:07, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Hey, thanks for greeting me, I appreciate it a lot. CFountain (talk) 11:54, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Thank you also for helping on the UK storm of 2009 article. I know how to write different articles but am still quite clumsy in writing weather articles. Chergles (talk) 17:21, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
I didn't do that much - just a minor c/e and MoS clean-up! :) —Ed 17(Talk / Contribs) 17:57, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I wasn't sure I liked that, either, but "to join" implies that all of the other 15 ships were already there, and I didn't know whether that was the case. Do you? --Milkbreath (talk) 22:05, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I believe that she was first lol... "She [Connecticut] arrived at Hampton Roads the next day. One by one, her sisters assembled with her until sixteen battleships had gathered at the roads." —Albertson (2007), p. 38 —Ed 17(Talk / Contribs) 02:28, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Ah. I took a stab at it. Change it if you want. (I'm from the refdesks where you asked for help. I tried to come up with a journal article about the court martial, but nothing so far and it doesn't look good. If we had time we could get the transcript from the National Archives, but we don't. I'll keep looking, but I'm not sanguine.) --Milkbreath (talk) 03:08, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
That looks good! Thanks :)
Don't worry yourself too much about the court martial thing...something will turn up. :) Thanks a bunch! —Ed 17(Talk / Contribs) 03:14, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
(e/c)Quick note - good fixes there, Milkbreath! Better than mine - some of those sentences were pretty baffling. :) —LaPianista(T•C) 03:16, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Right back atcha, Pianista. Many heads are better than one. ("On" is right, by the way.) I hope The ed17 doesn't mind us standing in his kitchen talking like this. --Milkbreath (talk) 03:22, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Oops. Sorry. :D And he doesn't mind - we hold regular parties on his talk page every day. ;) —LaPianista(T•C) 03:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
And while we're at it, what's your opinion of this, Milkbreath? —LaPianista(T•C) 03:26, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
I fixed that already, with the summary "'Into' is right, think 'into/onto the Gulf of Mexico.'" --Milkbreath (talk) 03:49, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Hahaha no, don't worry 'bout it Milkbreath. This sorta stuff happens alllll the time. :D —Ed 17(Talk / Contribs) 03:31, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm set up to automatically watch pages I edit. --Milkbreath (talk) 03:49, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Oh really? That would be cool, except that I edit too many pages for that to be useful. —Ed 17(Talk / Contribs) 03:51, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 20:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 22:11, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
The Brennus laid down in 1884 (or 1882?), and the Brennus laid down in 1889 (or 1887?) and completed for trials in 1894 were different ships, though the 1889 Brennus used material from the first Brennus.
The Charles Martel laid down in 1883, and the Charles Martel laid down in 1891 and completed in 1896 were different ships.
Contemporary English language sources are are clear that they were different. However Rama says that "British sources... are very liable to be as riddled with errors".
He prefers two sources:
Dictionnaire des bâtiments de la flotte de guerre française, by Jean-Michel Roche. This is a self-published book. The website of Net-Marinehas some pages on this book, and a link to how to order it from the author.
Cent ans de cuirassés français, by Éric Gille. This book can be purchased off French Amazon.
I bought the second of these books. This says that the Brennus commenced building in 1887, and launched on 17 October 1891, and that the Charles Martel commenced building on 1 August 1891 and was launched in August 1893.
For some of these numbers quoted in Cent ans de cuirassés français, Conways gives different dates.
I have not read Dictionnaire des bâtiments de la flotte de guerre française. Given its wide scope, I think we need to accept that is may contain mistakes. Let's face it, most books contain at least one mistake.
You will have seen that I have posted some material from sources in the article on the second Brennus, that makes it clear what the relation between the first and second Brennus was.
Unlike the canclled battleships started during or after the First World War, and the cancelled battleships of the 1940s, the Charles Martel class battleships laid down in the early 1880s are relatively obscure, and some of the data on when they were started are slightly contradictory. The various issues of the contemporary Brassey's Naval Annual are the most useful source I have found for them. These are very clear that they were different ships from the later ships of the same name.--Toddy1 (talk) 19:20, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Alright, new plan. I'll leave those pages alone until you guys find the right answer (late 1800's French battleships are not my specialty :) However, I will go out and say that Conway's is pretty much the authoritative source (IMO), and my 1906–1921 copy lists them like so on p. 191 (under the heading "Fleet Strength 1906", and the columns are, respectively, "Launched", "Disp (metric full-load)" and "Fate"):
Brennus class
BRENNUS 17.10.91 11,190t Stricken 1919, BU 1922
Charles Martel class
CHARLES MARTEL 20.8.93 11,693t Stricken 1922, BU
Hope that helps some... —Ed 17(Talk / Contribs) 20:02, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Hey Ed. I haven't been on for a while. It's snowing here! About 5 or 6 inches! Last time it snowed this much was in 1991, I'm told. How are you? Oliver Fury, Esq.message • contributions 20:11, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
I noticed. :P
And no way, 5–6 inches?!? We have about two–three feet here (depending on the spot you pick to check - the snow is blowing around all of the time because of the high winds), so :P You poor, poor British...(:D)—Ed 17(Talk / Contribs) 20:17, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Yeah but you live near some mountains or something don't you?!! As I said, it's a rare thing over here, so I get excited. Don't ruin it for me! Oliver Fury, Esq.message • contributions 20:29, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Arg, snow. Must you Northerners taunt a Texan so? At home, with a cold. To bed in a little while, or else I won't make it to an important pianista lesson tomorrow. >.> —LaPianista(T•C) 18:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Oh, I'm sorry for you... :( I hate colds... —Ed 17(Talk / Contribs) 18:11, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Ya, well...
anyways. ;) —LaPianista(T•C) 20:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi Ed. I've been trying to help with the USS Connecticut (BB-18) article. How are these sources:
www.navy.mil
www.globalsecurity.org
Are they acceptable for this? There seems to be a lot of info on these pages, but I haven't added them since I wasn't sure. I only did some small additions. Chamaltalk 13:54, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Both are alright - they are RS'. Anything with .gov or .mil is an RS, I think, and John Pike, the dude who made Global Security, has been featured on CNN a lot. Thanks a bunch Chamal! —Ed 17(Talk / Contribs) 14:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Nice. I'm off now. Will get working on it tomorrow. It's a holiday here. Chamaltalk 14:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Alright, thanks a bunch again (and again, and again, ad infintium). You have a holiday? Lucky... ;) Hope that you enjoy it! —Ed 17(Talk / Contribs) 14:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Dude, it's ad infinitum. If you're going to use Latin on a page watched by a gnome, especially seeing as she's in a crabby mood todaythis weekthis month all the time, get it right. —LaPianista(T•C) 00:53, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't know any Latin - I've only heard that phrase spoken aloud before! :) —Ed 17(Talk / Contribs) 01:29, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
On a different note, sorry about the delay in c/e-ing Connecticut. :) Even once I've run the entire article through, I still think I'll have to run it over several times to get it just right. —LaPianista(T•C) 01:48, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Omg, don't worry about it! I'm not even finished expanding it lol - one last section to go :) —Ed 17(Talk / Contribs) 02:18, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
(out) I do the same thing all the time. Sorry I haven't been around to help much with the article, I've been unexpectedly busy with class and whatnot. That and some jerk broke into my truck while I was in the store today and stole my radio. I've had the worst luck with my truck in Columbus...it's ridiculous. Anyways, I should have some time tomorrow to help out with Connecticut. Parsecboy (talk) 04:31, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I'll be busy with class and work tomorrow for almost all of the day...and prolly Thursday too.
Sorry to hear about your truck...and your luck sure dies sound ridiculous. That sucks :(
It's alright - I was hoping that you would get to it when I was done writing it, and I'm one para away from finishing! —Ed 17(Talk / Contribs) 04:43, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Got you message. I think they be alright, but at this point all I can think about is History 3367 (History of the Roman Empire), and the exhaustion from having read 156 pages in four hours isn't helping. I'll take another look tomorrow when I can think without starting my thoughts with "Hail Caesar, Emperor of Rome" :) TomStar81 (Talk) 05:53, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
That class actually sounds rather fun...but 156 pages in 4 hours certainly does not. :\ —Ed 17(Talk / Contribs) 14:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
@ Ed's earlier comment: Great! I was feeling a little guilty there. Did I just say what I said? :O I think my evil reputation is being compromised... —LaPianista(T•C) 16:46, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Are you sure that you are over that cold? :P —Ed 17(Talk / Contribs) 17:55, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
*red as a tomato* Just stop it. Now, before I cut your ear off and stick it in my next Valentine card to ship it to yo mamma's howze. Don't you have a life somewhere besides pointing out other people's mistakes? You'd think typos like that are common enough - why nitpick at every single one of them all the time? Who, me? *hides* —LaPianista(T•C) 21:01, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Anger here. Who else nitpicks? Hmmm? Look around, focuses on Pianista in the shadows You, you there, come here - you stink of guilt. :D —Ed 17(Talk / Contribs) 05:15, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
I? I bathe twice a day! Perhaps you've taken a whiff in the wrong direction. —LaPianista(T•C) 05:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
(out) Bathing cannot rid you of the smell of guilt, my dear. Only getting if off of your chest can do that. :P —Ed 17(Talk / Contribs) 05:21, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm taking nothing off my chest with you watching, jerkwad. —LaPianista(T•C) 05:23, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Not me, pal - that was all Durova. I just asked her to restore that. :) —Ed 17(Talk / Contribs) 02:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Oops. >.> Well, if you're reading this, Durova, good luck to you with the featured picture. I myself haven't ever had one, but they can be picky with their choices there. :) I'm such an idiot. Shouldn't I be working or something? —LaPianista(T•C) 02:52, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Prolly. :D If you want to learn how to restore images, Durova seems rather willing to help... —Ed 17(Talk / Contribs) 02:54, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Prolly. Meaning, if I had the time. Still struggling crawling along with P:CLM and some new stuff coming up at WT:CM. :) —LaPianista(T•C) 02:57, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
O yeah - how's the peer review going? —Ed 17(Talk / Contribs) 03:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Dead. I haven't heard from SH in a long time - we were supposed to help find some more good audio files for the calendar. So, for now, I'm still the one-girl-band here. At least we have Klein at WP:CM. Shoemaker will come around though, I'm sure. —LaPianista(T•C) 03:10, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Nah, it's okay. Shoemaker probably just forgot - I'm not mad, it happens to me all the time. :)
But, now, if you're talking about the sad situation of classical music in American culture...*leans back in chair* I could talk to you for an entire evening. Doesn't that sound fun! —LaPianista(T•C) 03:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
(out) Poke him. :P
You poooor baby :) —Ed 17(Talk / Contribs) 03:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Lawl, that is so fuuuuuunny. Kissy kissy kissy! :P
On different note, YFinis the c/e of Connecticut. That, of course, is only speaking figuratively. I'll run it through several times over in my free time, surely - I'll try to make it comment-on-bad-grammar-proof on its FAC. —LaPianista(T•C) 03:55, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Anyway...shut up now :P
Thanks! I'm going to talk to Maralia first, and I will put it up if she thinks I should. Love ya ;) —Ed 17(Talk / Contribs) 03:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Shutting up...even though saying so is in direct violation of doing so.
Likewise. Good luck with that FA! —LaPianista(T•C) 04:02, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
I added a {{reflist}} and a "References" section, and it seems like some of the references are messed up. Just to tell you... MathCool10Sign here! 03:44, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Lol I know - it's because I copied parts directly from Alaska-class cruiser without fixing the ref naming feature on some. Thanks though! —Ed 17(Talk / Contribs) 03:52, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
I forgot to add you as a friend in my drop-down box on my userpage. Feel free to whack me with a trout for my insolent memory. =C Blooded Edge (T•C•A) 22:48, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Maybe tomorrow...Ed is a little tired. :) —Ed 17(Talk / Contribs) 05:21, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks you for your support!!! I am working on putting the aircraft that were assigned to our squadron into a sortable table. Working slowly, but working none the less. Cheers! B29bomber (talk) 18:45, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
You are very welcome. By the way, if you want to start a new section, click the "New section" tab towards the top of your screen or put two equals signs around the header ... e.g. == Header here == Now, I've got to go to class, but I will be on later. Cheers to you too! —Ed 17(Talk / Contribs) 18:48, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Someone just wiped out the majority of my data i uploaded? How can I stop them? Bomberboy (talk) 21:25, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
It looks like you got it. Going to the talk page of the article now for more... —Ed 17(Talk / Contribs) 21:37, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Sir, please take a look at my article.., and see if you can offer advice.., feedback.., CheersB29bomber (talk) 19:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Question I did some little copy-editing. Should I be looking at each individual mission, or are they going to get merged anyways so it's not worth the effort? Note distinct laziness here :P. Icy // ♫ 00:00, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Honestly, I have absolutely no idea what to do with that. Is there such a thing a too detailed? I've asked for help here and here, so ... yeah. :/ —Ed 17(Talk / Contribs) 00:12, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
That helped a lot. All my questions are answered, now :P. Well, actually, I'm not familiar with MILHIST articles, meaning that I really have no idea how to patch this little'un up when it comes to organizing sections and exactly how much detail should be going into it. Gah. I'll try and dance around all the individual missions for now. Icy // ♫ 00:21, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm just going to continue to ask questions until I get answers <<eyeroll>>. O.K., I see a lot of lines under subheadings (like -----, etc. etc.), and I really don't know what to do about it. Isn't there something in MoS that discourages it or something like that? -If not, I'm just going to go right to B29bomber and ask. B29, if you're reading this, your input is welcomed :) -Icy // ♫ 22:31, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
I would say to leave them for now...no, nothing in MoS for or against them (I think), but with how detailed those "missions" are...something is needed there. :/ —Ed 17(Talk / Contribs) 03:00, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
It seems to be coming together nicely. Thank you again for all of your assistance. I plug now and then when I can. best regards, --B29bomber (talk) 22:11, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Not cool. Freakin' freaked the crap out of me. Geesh. :)
Oh, and trumpets are better. :D —Ed 17(Talk / Contribs) 04:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
(e/c)Zomgosh, MoP, you are my new bestest friend! :D —LaPianista(T•C) 04:24, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Aww, yay, a Wiki-BFF!
As for you, Ed; I played trombone for 2 years, and no, brass instruments are not better! Worst thing ever is getting woken up by the ear-bursting "music" of a trumpet player who woke up with too much air in his lungs. Plus, pianos are more portable than trumpets. >_>Master of PuppetsCall me MoP! :D 04:29, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Heh. I was by far the loudest player in my high school band when I wanted to be...but I couldn't play louder to sound good with the rest of the band normally - but on the Star-Spangled Banner high part when I was the only trumpet in the Pep band... ;D —Ed 17(Talk / Contribs) 04:35, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Your shining moment? Awesome, haha. Trumpet your only instrument or are you a jacked of all trades? Master of PuppetsCall me MoP! :D 04:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Not really. The band program took the down elevator about 40 floors in the middle of my sophomore year, due mostly to how crappy Michigan's schools have been getting...less money = less teachers = more class conflicts with band (75 people when I was a freshman; about 40-45 in my senior year, and like 14 seniors graduated with me). A lot more. So I was one of, oh, maybe 8-10 people who could play halfway decently in the whole band my senior year...so basically, everything was a shining moment when you realize that most of those 'good' players were flutes or saxophones (very quiet flutes and saxophones...)
Stupid fact: I was better in 7th grade (when I was in a #1 band program...) then I was in 12th grade/senior year (when I was in the UP - part of Michigan's absolutely terrible school system). Seriously. I cold play stuff then that I can't play now...it's pathetic.
Lol, I wish my stories were half as witty. Well, my school never had a band program, so how do you feel now? All that happened was the grade 5 kids got caught with weed. Then I moved to a private school in 9th grade, where they did have a band program, but unfortunately by then I was a piano/guitar man and didn't care much for woodwinds or the brass. Master of PuppetsCall me MoP! :D 05:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Eh. I have nothing to contribute to this conversation - I never played anything besides piano, and, frankly, I suck at singing. Seriously, the cat bawled while I was attempting to howl O Holy Night for Grandpaw - his favorite Christmas piece. Never doing that again, I tell you... —LaPianista(T•C) 05:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
But singing is so much fun! I'm sure you're not that bad. The cat probably just contracted a disease or something at that exact moment. Master of PuppetsCall me MoP! :D 05:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Again, you've never heard me sing. What is with you?! Nice people aren't supposed to exist anymore! :P —LaPianista(T•C) 05:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Well, partly, yes, I guess. :P. But from my 17 years of careful observation I've noticed that people are often very hard on themselves without reason. Sure, sometimes they may be right and be subpar in a field, but I know at least 3 people who think they suck at singing yet could probably put some of those rock stars on the radio to shame. Master of PuppetsCall me MoP! :D 05:32, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
I know two good singers too! :) —Ed 17(Talk / Contribs) 05:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
(e/c) Ya, well, in my <place my age here> years of experience, I've met many pianists who think they pwn the world, and yet they play bad enough to make Mozart turn in his grave. Not a pretty sight at all...though it does feel good to put them in their place with some Rachmaninoff every once in a while. :D
(after) I'd venture a "no." —LaPianista(T•C) 05:38, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
His first CD, a recording of Chopin's complete Preludes and his op. 62 Nocturnes, was released by Deutsche Grammophone in April, 2008.
I need to find a source for this sentence. Would a link to an Amazon.com item work? I think not, but I'm completely dumb when it comes to things like this. —LaPianista(T•C) 06:24, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
;> Many. About 20 when not counting severely inactive users. (I went and looked...that's more than I thought there were...)
As long as Amazon covers that, yes. (not one of the customer reviews!) —Ed 17(Talk / Contribs) 06:31, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Ooo, you're evil. I like. :D
Perfecto. And by no means would I think of using a customer review - thanks! —LaPianista(T•C) 06:33, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Well, you're not alone, be comforted in that. Whenever I feel ashamed to staying up late editing, I just click "recent changes" and look at all the people editing at the same time as I am. Of course, a good lot of them are from radically different time zones, but there is the occasional American. So we're good for now. :)
But let's talk about your mind. Eh, no matter. Let's see if Ed got that one... —LaPianista(T•C) 06:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Now that was NOT nice... :'( —Ed 17(Talk / Contribs) 06:52, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Now that was CERTAINLY classic pianista. No wonder you...ah...like me. :P —LaPianista(T•C) 06:53, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
I'd be a sad individual if I liked you without ever meeting you....:P —Ed 17(Talk / Contribs) 06:56, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Hey, I was being sarcastic and exaggerating. Epic fail for missing that. On the other hand, that does make you a sad individual. Hmm... —LaPianista(T•C) 17:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Can you or anyone else tell me why the hell USS Connecticut (BB-18) does not have too much of a coverage on websites? It's a battleship for goodness' sake, and should be covered. There's almost nothing except the navy pages and some dictionary thingy (and copies of them). Or is it just that I'm too stupid to find them? Chamaltalk 15:33, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
It's an old battleship that didn't fight in any of the decently big wars (Spanish-American, WWI, WWII). The only thing she did of any massive consequence was lead the Great White Fleet...so not many people are interested. :) It's the mature of the beast. Thanks for looking though...it means a lot :) —Ed 17(Talk / Contribs) 22:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm still looking, but this is driving me nuts ;) Chamaltalk 02:25, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Isn't it rather early your time to be looking for stuff on a random battleship? :P —Ed 17(Talk / Contribs) 02:28, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
0800 is early? :P Chamaltalk 02:34, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
When do you Sri Lankans get up? Seriously...crazy early birds. I got up at noon, then did way too much stuff, got on here, got off, got on...busy. :( —Ed 17(Talk / Contribs) 02:46, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Early pigeon. ;) —LaPianista(T•C) 04:30, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Umm... got up at 0530, studied, then practiced some shots, then got on here, more studying, classes+fooling around with friends and making life hard for the other people there.... stuff like that. Sounds like a normal day to me ;) Chamaltalk 06:04, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes, we are talking about 5:30 a.m. and 8:00 a.m.. I don't know, I've never played football, or even seen a match. It's similar to Rugger, right? Anyway, I like to send the ball over the boundary line rather than running with it ;D And I still can't find sources :( Chamaltalk 06:26, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
(e/c) Just as Pianos > trombones. —LaPianista(T•C) 06:29, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
(@ Chamal) Good gravy! I get up at 7:30 at the earliest for my 8:00 class on Mon-Thurs...I've only gotten up before that twice this semester - to study (that was the day I caught you on here ;D) and when I woke up at 5:30 and thought that it was 7:30 ... was almost walking out the door at 5:55 when I realized that I had 2 hours... -_- And football is awesome, trust me. :)
Both true, though trumpets pawn all three of them. By a mile. :D —Ed 17(Talk / Contribs) 06:36, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps, but pianists say "pwn", not "pawn." I smell a redneck... —LaPianista(T•C) 06:52, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
(out) :'( Didz ai failz? —Ed 17(Talk / Contribs) 09:20, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
No. Your typos are such pure genius, you have been nominated for the next Nobel prize. —LaPianista(T•C) 17:47, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
I try to type too fast :) —Ed 17(Talk / Contribs) 17:51, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Don't try. :) —LaPianista(T•C) 17:57, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
And, Ed - what does this comment refer to? I'd ask him myself, but I don't want to look like an idiot. Which is something I can't risk with you. jk —LaPianista(T•C) 18:00, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Ummmm...
Looks around, praying for another TPS'er to come out of the woodwork... —Ed 17(Talk / Contribs) 18:02, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Wait - I think he means that I should customize the {{WikimediaForPortals}} template since some of the links don't work. Perhaps I should redirect some of those links to a classical music category thing-a-ma-jiggy. —LaPianista(T•C) 18:08, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Wow. While looking for a CM category at WikiNews, I came across this story. Wow. —LaPianista(T•C) 18:09, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Sounds good? Lol...
LOL! As long as that judge didn't sentence me to rap, I'd have done that :) —Ed 17(Talk / Contribs) 18:14, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
What hurts is that he decided to pay the fine instead... :( —LaPianista(T•C) 18:17, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
That's how classical music is held these days by a lot of people...pretty stupid, as it's normally alright, but... —Ed 17(Talk / Contribs) 18:19, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
And while I am thinking of it...are you still really bored? —Ed 17(Talk / Contribs) 18:20, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Eh. I'm going to practice in about an hour and got some French to study. But if it's quick, I can try. What's the work? :) —LaPianista(T•C) 18:21, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
This is not something that had to be done now, but I want my pages to be redesigned as part of the first neutral !vote in my RfA. The problem with this is that I don't want to redesign them...I'd rather they look decent (now) than bad (which they would be if I redesigned them myself). :) But if you don't want to, that's alright :) —Ed 17(Talk / Contribs) 18:25, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, enlighten me. What a friend I am, huh, to forget that detail at your last RfA. Was it something about the archives? —LaPianista(T•C) 18:30, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Ah, so it's an issue with the colors and contrast? I don't see that little orange box Townlake was referring to, so I suppose that's fixed. —LaPianista(T•C) 18:38, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Yeah...that's fixed. :) But redesign however you want if you are going to do it - as long as there isn't any pink or purple, I don't care. :D —Ed 17(Talk / Contribs) 18:40, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Achoo. —LaPianista(T•C) 19:07, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Don't you have studying to do or something? I don't need sick thoughts running through my head during my Wikipedia time... ;D —Ed 17(Talk / Contribs) 19:11, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
I do, but I'm currently wrestling (not pillow-fighting on a comfy bed, come on out of the gutter now) with the prototype of your userpage. How does it look? —LaPianista(T•C) 19:13, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Comments :D - is it possible to put the 'current projects' in a drop down box, under the header?
Is there a decent background color that might work? (or should I stay with the normal white to be less myspace-y... (:D)
Can all of the 'Contributions' be put put into there own little drop-down boxes too?
You pick - it's the artist's palette. It'd be great if you could pick three or so colors for me to work with, too, so it will have a nice "theme." That's what you get for having female design your page, buddy.
I'll try for that, too.
You're welcome. Good luck purging the bad thoughts from your mind. :) —LaPianista(T•C) 19:26, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Surprise me. In a GOOD way, you sick-minded individual.
Gnarggh! Come now, you must have something in mind. Just say green, blue, or red - I'll go from there. Just give me something to start on, and I'll be ready to fly. :P —LaPianista(T•C) 19:32, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
The prototype is already a shade of blue - so are you thinking a more gray blue, blue blue, green blue, or purple blue? Or blue as your heart, as it weeps for me? —LaPianista(T•C) 19:37, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Actually....I like that blue that is there. :) —Ed 17(Talk / Contribs) 19:39, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
All right! Thankye. —LaPianista(T•C) 19:40, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks pal :) But my friend wants to play ping-pong, so I will be back later. Love ya <3 :D —Ed 17(Talk / Contribs) 19:43, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Hey, Ed. Have a look now - is the small text a problem? Don't worry about the ugly userbox position - will fix that in a few. —LaPianista(T•C) 21:54, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
It looks good! Can the 'Contributions' be hidden in a box like that too? And can the userboxes be side-by-side with all of the projects? —Ed 17(Talk / Contribs) 22:00, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
All right, there are some things even Jeannie cannot do. I'm having a problem making the userboxes stay alongside the dropdown thing-a-thingies. Would it be a problem if I just put it in the main body of text? (Unless you want the entire thing to be within the little dropdown thinga-cha-chas). —LaPianista(T•C) 22:25, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Well then, never mind that - it's not a big deal :) —Ed 17(Talk / Contribs) 22:27, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Wait! I thought of a good alternative. *beams* —LaPianista(T•C) 22:32, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Another question - under "Interesting," would you rather it in two columns or one? And would you like "The Free Corps' Final Stand" to have its own box or to be a subset of another? —LaPianista(T•C) 22:44, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
What looks better to you? I don't really care :P —Ed 17(Talk / Contribs) 22:46, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Why does that not surprise me? :D I'm partial to the two cols - resuming work now. —LaPianista(T•C) 22:50, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Done :D The only major modification, I think, was the removal of the RfA analysis. It was a bit disruptive to the "theme." —LaPianista(T•C) 23:09, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
(out) :O I love it! My page will be short for the first time in ages! Incidentally, this will be the first time since '06 that my user page hasn't had {{boxboxtop}} on it. :) No, leave it off. Change is good!
As the the RfA analysis, I'll shove that in my sandbox or something - it's not a big deal. :) —Ed 17(Talk / Contribs) 23:18, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
You're welcome! I based it on my "dream" userpage, but I'll have to think of another - I hate two userpages that look like identical twins. —LaPianista(T•C) 23:19, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Oh, and unless you prefer right angles (and vulgarly huge font and disturbing spacing), you might want to add something along the lines of "This page looks like blue-gray whitewash unless it is in fullscreen Firefox." —LaPianista(T•C) 23:25, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Aww, thanks :)
lolol alright. Whenever you feel that you are finish, transfer it in. Thanks so much once again! :) —Ed 17(Talk / Contribs) 00:02, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
You're welcome! But I'm finished with the userpage...whenever I feel nice (which is oftener than it seems), I'll think up a redesign for your talk page, too. —LaPianista(T•C) 03:12, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Alright :) Did I mention that I love you? —Ed 17(Talk / Contribs) 03:14, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Font size is too small... is hurtin mah eyez The collapsing thingies make the font sizes smaller, so you have to make it bigger to make it look normal... or something like that... Chamaltalk 03:30, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
(e/c) Aw, already done! Not as chic as I designed it, but oh well.
(after) I say that you actually do but don't want to admit it, because it's too stupid, or don't know it, because it's so silly. *no smiley* —LaPianista(T•C) 04:25, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
(e/c) I'd have to meet you to know if I love you, pal. Haven't we gone over this before? :P Sorry if you are now heart-broken... (after) But silly? No. IRC or something might be a better place for this...faster convo. —Ed 17(Talk / Contribs) 04:29, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
*gasp* Waaaaaaah! Idiot. Likewise - of all people, I'd be the last to fall for something like that. :P
Can't figure out IRC. Help? —LaPianista(T•C) 04:32, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Go here, set nickname (La Pianista), IRC to "Freenode", and channel = "wikipedia-en-milhist" just becuase I've been in there. —Ed 17(Talk / Contribs) 04:37, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Okay...and the next step is...? I have a premonition that the answer is simple... —LaPianista(T•C) 04:43, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Ed, re-read what I wrote about Wiki-gaming and you will notice a link to WP:FIRST! I'm very disappointed in you. He's my adoptee! Thanks anyway. I'm touched by your willingness to help others. I'll mention stuff like that at your next RfA (sometime soon?). I'll see you around. Oliver Fury, Esq.message • contributions 19:42, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Re RfA. Maybe in another two months. I'm still (very slowly) working on vandalism posts to WP:AIV etc...and I do not want to fail again because the new RfA was too close to the last one. :) Cheers pal, —Ed 17(Talk / Contribs) 19:46, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough. Also, don't forget about the deletion discussions; afd was a major factor in my getting adminship since it somewhat compensated for my lack of AIV posts. I'm still willing to nom or conom, if you want. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:04, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
I've got to a few (go to the bottom) - I've gotten involved in a CFD and an AFD - but both of which were listed on WT:MILHIST. :/
Thanks - it means a lot, Tom. :) —Ed 17(Talk / Contribs) 08:11, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
"Obi-one has taught you well." :) Glad to see thats starting to catch on at ACR. On the other matter, your welcome; its the least I can do for a good contributor and a good a friend. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:20, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Isn't it "Obi-wan"? ;) And same here, pal; I think that I have as many friends on here as I do in RL...and the scariest thing is that I have quite a few RL friends. :O
Now go to bed, Tom. You're up too late. :P —Ed 17(Talk / Contribs) 08:25, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
I would, but [AS] runs anime on Saturday night (or to be technically correct, Sunday morning), and its the only 60 minutes of anime I get to see all week long. I won't hit the sack until 3:00 AM my time. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:28, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Nice :) I'm hooked on NCIS and House reruns on USA, though those air on evenings, lucky me. —Ed 17(Talk / Contribs) 08:30, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Your lucky in another respect too: to get to my one hour of anime I have to wade through three hours of God awful "comedy" programming by Adult Swim. Why in hell's name they abandoned their earlier half and half scheme I don't know, but its been another depressing loss for me. In addition, since this is technically Sunday, I got to be up in the morning to carpool other people to church, so I miss out on the other anime they run since I do have to sleep. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:42, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I've never liked Adult Swim...sorry Tom :( —Ed 17(Talk / Contribs) 19:52, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
12... you're getting there Ed :P Chamaltalk 14:12, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Slowly. Very slowly. On the flip side, there are plenty of classes of foreign cruisers that need creating.... ;) —Ed 17(Talk / Contribs) 20:05, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
We're still going strong. Couple of things though; please note that you must make it known you are in the WikiCup when nominating FAs, FLs, FPos, FPs, and FSs. This is to lower the possibility of bias. We're also changing the way you get to the next round. Now, the top two from each round get through, along with ten wildcards. This means that even if you're not in the top two you can still get into Round 2, so even if you're in the group of death you can still go through. Hopefully this will be fairer for all. We've also unfortunately had our first withdrawal - Truco has left the Cup. Best wishes for him in the future. Garden., iMatthew // talk, and TheHelpfulOne
If you don't wish to receive this newsletter in the future, remove your name from this list. If you are not a participant, but would still like to receive this newsletter, feel free to add your name to the list.
WikiCup At a Glance
As of this newsletter, the WikiCup participants have collected a total of:
In this round of the WikiCup, the top two contestants from each pool, along with ten wildcards, will advance to the next round. As of this newsletter, the current pool leaders are:
Pool A
Gary King (452)
Catalan (254)
Pool B
Shoemaker's Holiday (233)
La Pianista (61)
Pool C
Candlewicke (400)
Scorpion0422 (249)
Pool D
97198 (148)
NapHit (63)
Pool E
Sasata (233)
X! (210)
Pool F
Bedford (202)
the_ed17 (148)
Pool G
Sunderland06 (142)
Ceranthor (134)
Pool H
Juliancolton (491)
Tinucherian (95)
Pool I
Durova (887)
Theleftorium (458)
Pool J
Mitchazenia (671)
Paxse (291)
Wildcards
Useight (250)
J Milburn (181)
Spencer (177)
Climie.ca (169)
Rambo's Revenge (100)
Tinucherian (95)
WereSpielChequers (77)
Wrestlinglover (67)
Rlevse (65)
10. ThinkBlue (57)
10. Skinny87 (57)
All scores are accurate as of the time the newsletter was sent out.
20:40, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Delivered by J Milburn, on behalf of the judges. 20:40, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Theoretically, we could initiate our FT nom this exact minute. I opted to conduct a series of PRs though before the FT nom to get input on what may or may not need fixing before then, however you are welcome to raise this point with the others and see if they are for it. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:29, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
After a straw poll on the matter I have initiated the FT nom for the Iowa-class battleships. Since your name appears on the list of major contributors I am leaving this message here to inform you of the nom's opening and to offer you a chance to chip on the matter. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:31, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
The Teamwork Barnstar
For your oustanding efforts during Operation Trailblazer, culminating in the 2009 Featured Topic nomination for the Iowa-class battleships, the passage of which resulted in the first ever Wikipedia Featured Topic concerning ships exclusively, I herby present you with The Teamwork Barnstar. Thanks for all of your help, this is as much your Featured Topic as it is mine. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:17, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Tom! First, nice error that Maralia had to fix. :D Second, I really didn't do much to help you with the operation...you give me too much credit... but thanks for the barnstar, and congrats again on the FT. :) —Ed 17(Talk / Contribs) 00:14, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 15:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 23:10, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXV (January 2009)edit
Don't forget the six-monthly Coordinator elections will take place in March for the April-September term. If you want to become more involved in the project, now's the time to start thinking about it!
Following extensive discussion, the structure of the A-Class Medal System has been changed to include three new medals: The A-Class Medal with Oak Leaves, the A-Class Medal with Oakleaves and Swords, and the A-Class Medal with Oakleaves, Swords, and Diamonds, each of which is respectfully awarded after 5, 10, and 20 groups of three A-Class Articles.
The number of our A-Class articles grew by more than 25% during this month, compared to the total number of A-Class articles existent at the end of December.
A drive is underway to identify the core topics of World War I with the aim of improving their quality before the centenary of the start of World War I in 2014.
A Survey is currently underway to determine how MilHist's processes, logistics, and management can be improved.
Abraham, B.S. has been awarded the WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves in recognition of his many valuable contributions to the project as an active reviewer, a thoughtful contributor to military history discussions, a fine content contributor, and a gentleman.
The Contest department has completed its twenty second month of competition, which saw 62 entries. The top scorer this month is Bellhalla with 93 points followed by Abraham, B.S. with 52 points. Cam, Georgejdorner and 11 other editors also fielded entries. Bellhalla remains the overall leader with 687 points in total. The Chevrons go to Bellhalla and Abraham, B.S. gets the Writer's Barnstar. You are encouraged to submit any articles you are working on as entries.
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:10, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXV (January 2009)edit
The January 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 05:30, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
I haven't turned up anything on WWI service for BB-18 at home (not yet anyway), so I am at this point going to look into the resources at the library on compus, including Jstor and other sources to see if they have any relevent info. I hope to have something concrete one way or another in a few days time. Sorry that I couldn't be of more use during the rewrite. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:13, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
I doubt that there is much...we're talking about a ship that conducted training exercises for the entire time. Not very exciting. :) But I'll stop being pessimistic - thanks! And shut up...what were you going to do, come here and borrow the book that I used for most of it? :P —Ed 17(Talk / Contribs) 20:32, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
So when does work begin? :) —LaPianista(T•C) 05:29, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
And while we're *cough* goofing off, I think you'll like the new post. I'm not spamming, just being considerate of your interests. >.> —LaPianista(T•C) 06:13, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Ping (email). —LaPianista(T•C) 04:04, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Pong. (LP, I love you lol!) —Ed 17(Talk / Contribs) 04:13, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Ding! —LaPianista(T•C) 04:18, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Another one. —LaPianista(T•C) 04:19, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Work begins when I feel like writing the meteorological history. –JuliancoltonTropicalCyclone 04:25, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Which is perpetual, is it not? Ed: I love you, too. ;) In the clean sense, of course. —LaPianista(T•C) 04:29, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Ding. —LaPianista(T•C) 04:40, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
(@ Julian) - I'll be able to do the military section for sure...the entireThird Fleet was caught in that, so that is a lot of DANFS articles that I can reference to. ;D —Ed 17(Talk / Contribs) 04:57, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
The individual Iowa class battleships will be of use since each has a paragraph concerning the fleet composition of the hurricane and each links to a list of ships that incured damage or reported injured/MIA/KIA officers. Just thought I would point that out. TomStar81 (Talk) 15:52, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
K + I know, I laughed too! :) —Ed 17(Talk / Contribs) 06:11, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Last ping - going to bed after reading your rez. —LaPianista(T•C) 06:30, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
I lied. Ping. —LaPianista(T•C) 06:43, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Pingz. If there was a way to send you e-mails without writing on your talk page, my article-user ratio would be so much better. —LaPianista(T•C) 18:26, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
I would love some help with figuring out a DYK hook for the article. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Cam(Chat) 06:39, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Finish expanding it first :) I think that you may be able to get something for a hook from her fate. —Ed 17(Talk / Contribs) 07:12, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Alright. Expansion done, any help is appreciated. I have a few ideas, but I'd prefer to see what you think as well. Cam(Chat) 05:50, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I've got nothing on the Royal Dutch Navy. While you're active, there are two brand-new noms for the A-Class medal languishing at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Awards. -MBK004 02:04, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
No problem, and I've supported. Thanks! —Ed 17(Talk / Contribs) 02:11, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBotedit
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 04:41, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
I was looking through your recent contributions and spotted your hoax tag for this article. I concur with your assessment that this may be a hoax, and have nominated it for deletion. Additionally, you unintentionally (but beneficially) located a user with a handle that needed permanet blocking, which I have done. Not bad, ed, not bad :) TomStar81 (Talk) 05:36, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Heh. I was bored, so went looking for something to tag. Didn't check the user though :/ —Ed 17(Talk / Contribs) 05:44, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
:O You were "looking through [my] recent contributions"?!? STALKER! :P —Ed 17(Talk / Contribs) 05:47, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Can't help it, when your ready to try your hand at rfa again I will have to go through your contributions -recent and old - to find examples for the new nom so that the cummunity will !vote for you instead of against you. May as well do it now instead of later, ya know ;) TomStar81 (Talk) 05:50, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
You would... :) Thanks! —Ed 17(Talk / Contribs) 05:54, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
@1: No, its because I just came from filing the afd, so now thats why I'm thinking about.
@2:You're welcome. You'll be there someday, but today is not that day, and tomorrow ain't looking good either :) TomStar81 (Talk) 05:57, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
I figured, but I had to tease.
Hahahaha no, probably not. :) Out of curiosity, would you happen to have any info on the Dutch Design 1047 battlecruiser of 1939? I was thinking of writing an article on in, but w/o pg. 386 of Conway's 1922–1946, I'm not confident in it being a decent article (I want to give a decently long explanation of why the Dutch wanted the BC's, which is what 386 would give... :( —Ed 17(Talk / Contribs) 06:01, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
I found Primary gun info, and as an added bonus, the location of a few extra sources for checking (bottom of the page). Its not much, but if you can work backwards, you may be able to pull enough information together to create a page. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:14, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
What's pathetically sad is that I found that page but didn't think of checking the bibliography... :) Thanks Tom (as always!) —Ed 17(Talk / Contribs) 06:16, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
More importantly, you now know that the Germans were involved, so it may be a good idea to see if the project was know to German engineers by a different name. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:35, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
:O Interesting thought....I'll be on the lookout for that now when I'm looking through stuff. That could be why I'm not finding a lot...(or maybe there just isn't anything lol :) —Ed 17(Talk / Contribs) 06:41, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I think you've got a decent shot for puling an article together. I put Montana class battleship together from nickle and dime info and scraps from the Iowa class page, and its FA. If they bothered to draw a picture then there has to be info out there somewhere, its just a matter of finding it. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:46, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Well this one could get to A-class, I think, with the info that is on page 386, but not much more. The U.S. Navy either keeps much better documents than the Dutch (;D) or theirs are much more accessible (and in English lol). :(
Maybe I should stop whining and go hunt down a different book on the history of the Dutch Navy... —Ed 17(Talk / Contribs) 06:55, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
So I think that I am going to write an article on the never-built Dutch Design 1047 battlecruiser...would any books in your library have any additional info than this? (Otherwise, I will probably have to wait until I buy Conway's 1922–1946 so I can see the history ('background') of the Royal Netherlands Navy up to WWII on page 386 (argh Google Books...)) Thanks for the help, —Ed 17(Talk / Contribs) 02:01, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I only have books that cover the Imperial Japanese and US World War II navies. I'll try to find some book titles that might have information on this subject. For what it's worth, there probably are some German sources (as well as Dutch) that likely cover that subject, but I don't know if that helps you any. Cla68 (talk) 12:35, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, but I can't read those languages...so probably not (though I could just get a translation lol). Thanks for the help, Cla! —Ed 17(Talk / Contribs) 18:03, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
About a month ago you did an excellent GA review for this article. You and other users raised some issues that prevented the article from reaching GA status. Since then I have improved the article accordingly: removed inline citation from the lead, shortened the story section, expanded the development section and re-written the Nintendo DS section. I thought that I would come to you to see if you'd be willing to pass it against GA, rather than go through the process of GA, as there is always a backlog and you probably know the article better than other users. I don't know if it's compulsory to go through that process, but if it is then I will do so. JollyΩJanner 17:13, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Well, first let me say that you have done an excellent job with that article—I'm beyond impressed. In particular, that plot summary is not too long, but isn't 'bare-bones' either!
However, I'd list it on WP:GAN, if only to get another opinion on it. IMO, if you get a good reviewer, you might be ready for FAC (I mean, after having three good reviewers got through it (two on the first (counting me :/) and one on the second)... it's the problem that I know the article (well, sort of...that overhaul you did changed it a lot :) that gives me pause...I may be too familiar with it and missing mistakes! Trust me, though it may take a little longer, going through GAN will help in the long run.
However, if you need any help during the GAN or (if you go there) FAC, please ping me; I'll be willing to help. Cheers! —Ed 17(Talk / Contribs) 17:53, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your quick response. I hope I didn't wake you (your status was set to sleeping). I've just noticed that there's a special department for GA reassessment which, surprisingly, has no backlog! I will add the article there and wait impatiently. Thanks for your help once again! JollyΩJanner 18:00, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
How would you wake me? :) I tend to forget to change that....
Hold on - that's for GA's that need to be delisted! :) —Ed 17(Talk / Contribs) 18:01, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Yeah... just noticed that as I was reading the instructions. Looks like I'll have to wait. The backlog's about a month, which isn't too bad. I've seen far worse. JollyΩJanner 18:09, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Your majesty, it gives me great pleasure to bestow these Imperial triple crown jewels upon The ed17 for your contributions in the areas of WP:DYK, WP:GA, and WP:FC. Cirt (talk) 02:47, 15 February 2009 (UTC) Thank you for contributions to the project, Great work, especially on The Sword of Shannara - quite an in-depth piece on a literary work, nice job. May you wear the crowns well. Cirt (talk) 02:47, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
There's not really much to say this week, everyone is still doing well. There was a discussion on shortening the length of round one, but the idea is dead in the water. Thanks for contributing! GARDEN, iMatthew // talk, and TheHelpfulOne
If you don't wish to receive this newsletter in the future, remove your name from this list. If you are not a participant, but would still like to receive this newsletter, feel free to add your name to the list.
WikiCup At a Glance
As of this newsletter, the WikiCup participants have collected a total of:
In this round of the WikiCup, the top two contestants from each pool, along with ten wildcards, will advance to the next round. As of this newsletter, the current pool leaders are:
Pool A
Gary King (673)
Catalan (254)
Pool B
Shoemaker's Holiday (308)
La Pianista (62)
Pool C
Scorpion0422 (483)
Candlewicke (451)
Pool D
97198 (210)
NapHit (97)
Pool E
Sasata (262)
X! (210)
Pool F
Bedford (275)
the_ed17 (161)
Pool G
Sunderland06 (144)
Ceranthor (136)
Pool H
Juliancolton (559)
Tinucherian (100)
Pool I
Durova (1135)
Theleftorium (656)
Pool J
Mitchazenia (777)
Paxse (371)
Wildcards
Useight (325)
Spencer (215)
Climie.ca (203)
J Milburn (202)
Rambo's Revenge (110)
Rlevse (93)
WereSpielChequers (82)
Dendodge (74)
ThinkBlue (72)
Wrestlinglover (72)
All scores are accurate as of 22:40, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
23:31, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your help with Lewis Gun reference formattingedit
I really appreciate it! Now, the next question is: If I put Lewis Gun up for ACR, am I going to regret it? :p Commander Zulu (talk) 02:56, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
No problem! Just next time, put all of your punctuation before references please :)
And no, I don't think you would - the only MoS error I see is an image sandwich in the 'Aircraft Use' section, but I don't know where else the image could go :/ —Ed 17(Talk / Contribs) 03:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, that's my fault; I was always taught to put the reference before the punctuation as it was part of that bit of the sentence, if that makes sense. I've made a few more tweaks to the article and put it up for B-class review; I'll see what happens there before going to ACR/FAC. Thanks again for your help! Commander Zulu (talk) 04:53, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Well, that changes things. As a suggestion, why not try looking for a wikiproject on a spanish speaking country? WP:MEXICO, WP:SPAIN, and others should attract the interest of at least one bilingual user who you may be able to plead for help from; alternatively, the project members may offer to tranlsate for you if you post on the main talk page. You can also try google searching for your page and seeing if an option for translation appears (its worked for me before). TomStar81 (Talk) 04:15, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
I tried the Google translation...it and babelfish are both not so helpful... :)
I will try WP:MEXICO and SPAIN though. Thanks! —Ed 17(Talk / Contribs) 04:17, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
New Development, Ed: It appears the page you want translated is actually portugese. See you milhist talk page post. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:27, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
By the way, I can translate from Spanish into English if you ever need help doing that. Cla68 (talk) 23:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.
Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 07:52, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks to everyone who participated in either my successful RfA, or the trial run, whether you supported, opposed or remained neutral. Special thanks to I'm Spartacus! and Cyclonenim for nominating me, and for those of you who treated this as a !vote not a vote and reviewed your position as the discussions developed. I am deeply humbled by the trust that the community has put in me. I'd also like to thank my tallybots, the closing crats, the vandalfighters who wiped vandalism from my RFA, the users who initially welcomed me and gave me rollback, everyone whose worked with me here, those who created the various guides and tools for aspirant admins, the Lolcat who nommed me in my first RFA and everyone else who has helped make Wikipedia such a wonderful site. ϢereSpielChequersThe lycanthropic loquacious fruit tree.
To copy this elsewhere type {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Ta muchly for RFA}}
Dear Ed, thanks for your support in both my RFAs, and sorry for the lack of Lolcat in the second one. ϢereSpellCheckers 23:01, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Heh. I was so totally kidding :) Congratulations WSC! —Ed 17(Talk / Contribs) 01:32, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
I've been through the Lee-Enfield article and, as near as I can tell, every paragraph is now referenced. When you get a chance, do you think you could give it a look-over? No-one else is commenting on the ACR page and I'm not going to be happy if it gets closed with a "Consensus: No" because no-one was paying attention after I'd fixed the issues that had been brought up... Commander Zulu (talk) 04:39, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Hahaha no you don't. I just changed your new wording a bit - I wouldn't have seen better wording in my own writing...it took those changes from you to make me go "oh, hey, this would be a good word... Thanks pal! —Ed 17(Talk / Contribs) 16:36, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of Design 1047 battlecruiser at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Gary King (talk) 18:03, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Hey, Ed, could you take the look at the DYK hook for Japanese battleship Haruna, it's on the template talk under February 14. Cam(Chat) 04:50, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Japanese doctrine was to apply bigger guns to their ships before anyone else did (14-inchers on Kongo and her sisters, 16.1 inchers on Nagato and Mutsu, 18.1-inch on yamato and Musashi). Cam(Chat) 05:55, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
I've nominated Lewis Gun for A-Class; let's hope it's less problematic than Lee-Enfield has been! :p Commander Zulu (talk) 06:09, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your support in my RfA, which closed with 83 ayes to the right, one no to left and five abstaining users! Sabre (talk) 21:13, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
I'll look for the french guy tomorrow if the opportunity presents itself, otherwise you have done a good job of minding the FAC complaints and addressing them in a timely manner. Keep it up :) TomStar81 (Talk) 05:39, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Alright. There's a "List of French Navy ministers" or something like that, but I didn't know if the "commander-in-chief" = "minister". :/ And I'm trying to keep it up, but I fear that it won't pass in time... —Ed 17(Talk / Contribs) 16:06, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
You've contributed to two of my favorite wiki articles: the article on the Alaska-class cruisers, and the article on the Design 1047 battlecruisers. Thanks for your work. =) Panzer V Panther (talk) 11:42, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Really? Heh...that's awesome. :) Three articles left: O class battlecruiser, Super Type A Cruiser, and an article on "Large cruisers" or "cruiser killers" (which name should it be?)
But thanks for the thanks...it means a lot to know that people read and like my articles. :) Cheers friend! —Ed 17(Talk / Contribs) 15:56, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Large cruisers, in my opinion; they weren't always designed to kill cruisers. The Germans built theirs for commerce raiding (which you know already). (I wasn't sure which talk page this should go on, so I put it here, in context. Feel free to move this post.) Panzer V Panther (talk) 22:36, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Nice work on the 1047, Ed! I just noticed that French battleship Danton (1909) is "in the news" on the main page. It'll probably be up there for at least a day; what do you think about trying to polish it up a bit while it's still highly visible? We've both got Conways, and some of the WWI naval combat books I've got may mention it as well. I've got class shortly, but should have plenty of time this afternoon to do a bit of work on it. If you're busy, that's cool too. Parsecboy (talk) 14:52, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks :) And that sounds like a plan, although I don't know when I'll be able to do something - we're going to play tennis sometime today. It closes at 5 though, so I'll be on it by this evening at the latest. —Ed 17(Talk / Contribs) 17:04, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Hello, I noticed that the 12"/45 caliber Mark 5 gun article I created not too long ago was recently up-rated to B-Class, and very quickly after downgraded by you to Start Class. In your note, you write that it has not met the criteria for an uprating. I wonder if you wouldn't mind explaining in what way you find it deficient, because to be honest I don't find it to be lacking anything substantial that, for instance, the 14"/50 caliber gun article has, which is rated B-Class. Thanks. Jrt989 (talk) 07:10, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, that was my bad. I just saw that he added a bunch of unneeded parameters and reverted, not realizing that he had reassessed it. It's clearly a B, and I just changed it to one. Sorry! —Ed 17(Talk / Contribs) 07:14, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
No problem, and cheers on the page being placed on DYK today! Thanks for nominating it and for the good hook! Jrt989 (talk) 17:19, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Hah, it was no big deal. Good work on the article! —Ed 17(Talk / Contribs) 19:56, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
I elected not to since the image caption is whats been written. Clicking on the image reveals the same information in the infobox. (Also, I have to admit that I prefer not having thumbs if I can help it, to me it makes the pictures look more streamlined, and as a result they look cooler to me this way) TomStar81 (Talk) 07:37, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Oh. Never mind then! :) —Ed 17(Talk / Contribs) 07:41, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Your welcome, by the way. Couldn't very well let such an important anniversary go by without a shout out, the next time a centennial anniversary for the GWF occurs I'll be over 120 ;) TomStar81 (Talk) 07:54, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes, thank you! I would have one one myself, but I don't have the patience to do all that code. ;) —Ed 17(Talk / Contribs) 18:15, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
certainly. It would definitely lesson my workload, as I also have to deal with IB Calculus this semester (if you took AP Calculus, they're sorta similar...in that they're a crapload of work). Feel free to add to the sandbox on it. Cam(Chat) 07:52, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Puke. I took a pre-calc course, as my school didn't offer any better, but I can imagine. Will do!
Questions:
How long do I get (bytes, paras)?
I'm not sure of exact length. A brief overview of the naval war would be preferred. Cam(Chat) 16:42, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
What would you like me to cover? (just WWI, or a short history of how dreadnoughts and subs came into play....etc.)
Just WWI. The dreadnought stuff I'm writing into the background. Cam(Chat) 16:42, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Focus on Jutland, unrestricted sub warfare, blockade, or even it out?
Because I'm doing this by year, Jutland will likely go in the 1916 section, while unrestricted sub warfare and convoys will go in the 1917 section. Cam(Chat) 16:42, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Any talk about what the war spawned (fire-control systems (I think, would have to check), "all or nothing", convoys) —Ed 17(Talk / Contribs) 07:58, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Kudos to you, sir, for your excellent work on this excellent article! --Kralizec! (talk) 02:31, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! It was a fun one to write, though frustrating at times - there are not many sources that discuss Brazilian battleships :) —Ed 17(Talk / Contribs) 02:36, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Original post to his talk
See User talk:79.75.114.109; please check what you revert. Those were definitely not test edits, definitely not vandalism, and actually a good edit. —Ed 17(Talk / Contribs) 02:34, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Sorry about that. There must have been a error when i was using the program sorry.
Um, no offense, but I doubt that...you reverted him twice about five minutes apart. Just please check your reverts. —Ed 17(Talk / Contribs) 02:37, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
No offense but things do happen please understand that and i do apologize about that.
Dude, you reverted him twice, five minutes apart, for two different reasons, for the the same edit repeated twice! Thanks for apologizing, but an apology to the IP might be better. —Ed 17(Talk / Contribs) 02:40, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Well as i stated to the ip i am using huggle which picked up on it but however i do take full responsibility for not looking over the edits.
Wp:Civil]
Hi Ed, I've just posted a rationale for the semi-protection at: Talk:USS Connecticut (BB-18). Major vandalism every 10 minutes seems to me to be sufficent reason to protect a TFA, and the protection will expire in six hours. Nick-D (talk) 03:28, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Already replied at your talk. I was being dumb. :) —Ed 17(Talk / Contribs) 03:29, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Outstanding. I wasn't sure we would make there for a moment, but our project members came through and Raul654 waited to the last possible moment to schedule the tfa for 22 February. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:38, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
To THE last possible moment. Like 6 hours before. :-/ We owe him a lot.... —Ed 17(Talk / Contribs) 05:39, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
BTW, did you notice that 3 battleships are currently on the main page? —Ed 17(Talk / Contribs) 05:40, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Heh. The Three Ships Alliance (albeit real ships and not gundam era ships). A proud moment for SHIPS. And MILHIST too. On the matter or Raul654: its his consideration to do such things that I felt qualified him for the Chevrons w/oak leaves, it would have been easy for him to simply schedule the day and be done with it, the fact that he waited shows that he does try to consider the request others make. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:43, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Yep! He deserved those more than we can say!
...and two of those BB's are "my" articles... ;D —Ed 17(Talk / Contribs) 05:45, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Wow. It almost looks like your gunning for my spot here :) I'm glad to see that that so much of "your" work is up on the main page, it'll be good for your next rfa. I still glowing with pride over the success of the Iowa FT nom and over the fact that my suggestion for a barnstar was adopted this week. Seems this was a good week for everyone. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:48, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
)@ good week) Pretty much :) (@ aiming for your 'spot') Yeah right. Gunning for your spot? I may eventually have more FA's then you (almost certainly if you stay on half-break ;) ), but I will never approach the level of detail in your FA's.... —Ed 17(Talk / Contribs) 05:56, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi! I saw that you gave a score to the Platine War article. How did you do that? Who made the review of it? And how is going to be possible to check the sources (the only criteria not met)? Thank you very much - --Lecen (talk) 11:47, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi Lecen! I was clearing out Category:Unassessed military history articles (should be empty now) last night, and yours was one of the articles I did. Our B-class criteria state that every paragraph should have at least one reference that covers the information in that para (e.g. only one ref at the end of the para covering all of the info in that para), and I saw quite a few paras that needed refs in the beginning. Having said that, you have a very nice article going there, and with only a few more references (make sure all of the info in the article is covered by reliable sources), you should be able to take that to WP:GAN and/or WP:MHR#A-CLASS. Cheers! —Ed 17(Talk / Contribs) 18:16, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Hello again! Thank you very much! I gave my best on that article. About the paragraphs that lack source, although I know from which books they came from, I do not have them with me. I´ll have to go to my College´s Library to pick all pages from those books. I ´ll do that next thursday, don´t worry. One other thing, Ive been improving for quite sometime the article about the Empire of Brazil. Everything from Empire of Brazil#Form of Government up to the end I wrote my self. The problem is that I can´t write (which take a lot of time as I have to do research, work on the text, write everything and make sketchs, etc...) and at the same time correct grammar, wikify, proof-read, etc... Do you know someone who would be interested on doing that? I´m going to start working on the text about the history of the Empire (because it has many absurds and mistakes) now and I´m pretty much sure that it will take me some time to finish it. Anyway, thanks again! - --Lecen (talk) 18:48, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
(@ waiting to get books) - Alright - notify me when you are done, and I'll go over it and probably re-rate it. :)
(@ Empire of Brazil) - hey, I was looking at that about a week ago when I was doing Brazilian battleship Minas Gerais! :) And I talked to Icy on IRC, and she said that she would take a look at it. She's a great copyeditor, so I'm sure that she'll help a lot. :) Cheers! —Ed 17(Talk / Contribs) 19:05, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks a lot! When I make the changes, I´ll tell you! - --Lecen (talk) 19:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Hello again! I´ve put all citations needed on the article about the Platine War. Could you take a look? Thanks once again! - --Lecen (talk) 16:57, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
It's B now, but make sure that the ends of all your paragraphs have refs if you go for A-class. :-) —Ed 17(Talk / Contribs) 18:20, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Done it! - --Lecen (talk) 19:07, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
That´s ok. As I said before, I don´t have even enough time to write the article. Even more, writing it, wikifying it, correcting it, etc, etc... I´m now focusing on the article about the Brazilian Empire. About the Platine War article, I think it´s good as a start point to anyone interested in expading the subject (and there is plenty of room). But I´d like to thank you for all your help and attention! P.S.: But I still want to learn more abou the WP:MoS! So then I´ll not commit the same mistakes with the article about the Empire of Brazil! - --Lecen (talk) 10:45, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi; pls see this page and look for the "1839: Massacre at Nulato" entry....a Russian Imperial Navy ship and a Royal Navy one, engaged and destroyed...that's why I included MILHIST...Skookum1 (talk) 13:50, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Well, normally towns aren't covered by MILHIST - for example, London isn't in MILHIST's scope because of the The Blitz, but The Blitz itself is. If a separate article is made on the massacre and battle, that'll be in out scope, alright? Cheers, —Ed 17(Talk / Contribs) 18:16, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
OK, I'll remember that in future. ThankxSkookum1 (talk) 18:20, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Sorry you missed the meeting, time zones are always a nuisance. I've uploaded a summary here. I've published a public log here for now. Please give us your views on-wiki after you read the log. Cheers, Walkerma (talk) 05:05, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to thank my partner... and my parents... and my agent... and Jackie Fisher... ;-) The Land (talk) 16:53, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Bahahaha yeah, without Mr. Fisher, you'd be up a crick without a paddle. ;-)
Out of curiosity, why are you "The Land" when you write about battleships? :P —Ed 17(Talk / Contribs) 17:34, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Because I once needed an online identity that would make my affiliation obvious to those in the know while baffling the casual observer. It's kind of like a Masonic handshake. This dates from long before I knew anything about battleships, but I've kept it ever since! The Land (talk) 18:21, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi Ed. I'm still here- but I've been away for the past week. Thankfully I had internet access so I could keep an eye on my watchlist, I didn't feel like editing though :)
I should really resume the railway article but, to be honest, I can't be bothered at the moment. Maybe later in the week.
Did you have a nice Valentines? I put a nice little message on my user page- next update will be Mothers Day!
Hi Guys! Well it's Thehelpfulone's first time properly looking at the scores as he made this newsletter and he's impressed on how much work you have all done. It's a shame to say that RyanCross has withdrawn from the Cup. We have almost hit 200 DYKs, not far off from 100 GA's and Durova has passed the 1000 point mark on points, with 1347 points so congratulations to her!
If you don't wish to receive this newsletter in the future, remove your name from this list. If you are not a participant, but would still like to receive this newsletter, feel free to add your name to the list.
WikiCup At a Glance
As of this newsletter, the WikiCup participants have collected a total of:
In this round of the WikiCup, the top two contestants from each pool, along with ten wildcards, will advance to the next round. As of this newsletter, the current pool leaders are:
Pool A
Gary King (923)
Catalan (254)
Pool B
Shoemaker's Holiday (420)
La Pianista (67)
Pool C
Candlewicke (534)
Scorpion0422 (533)
Pool D
97198 (271)
ThinkBlue (143)
Pool E
Sasata (437)
X! (211)
Pool F
the_ed17 (293)
Bedford (285)
Pool G
Sunderland06 (158)
Ceranthor (140)
Pool H
Juliancolton (588)
Tinucherian (110)
Pool I
Durova (1348)
Theleftorium (840)
Pool J
Mitchazenia (814)
Matthewedwards (504)
Wildcards
Paxse (426)
Useight (424)
Spencer (250)
Climie.ca (239}
J Milburn (222)
Rambo's Revenge (157)
Rlevse (121)
NapHit (98)
WereSpielChequers (84)
Wrestlinglover (78)
All scores are accurate as of 11:25, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
[2], that was me at the university computer lab while studying for a Roman Criminal Justice exam. I would think that type of edit and the WHOIS from the IP (and my {{sharediupedu}} tagging of the talk page, plus my userpage would give it away? -MBK004 03:45, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
I wouldn't have reverted it if I read left to right (e.g. realizing that you were adding the templates, not removing them.) :) Trout-slap me if you want... —Ed 17(Talk / Contribs) 03:49, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
In regards to United States Coast Guard outposts/Installations have you figured out if they should be tagged for MILHIST? -Marcusmax(speak) 00:01, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
I have not, but I'd say to tag them. It looks like USCG is tagged, so I think that the bases can be tagged too. Sorry for de-tagging them before! —Ed 17(Talk / Contribs) 00:44, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
No problem, thanks again. -Marcusmax(speak) 01:00, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I note your comments on the assessment department page about MILHIST B. Perhaps we could start the process between us (and others ideally) of establishing some more formal criteria for the different class level. I know we have the basics, but something that is more turned to the Novels requirements. I know you expertise is more on MILHIST but a fresh pear of eyes is always useful. What do you think? :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 10:11, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
<!-- B-Class checklist -->
<!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all
major points are appropriately cited. -->
|B-Class-1=
<!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and
does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. -->
|B-Class-2=
<!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including
a lead section and one or more sections of content. -->
|B-Class-3=
<!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. -->
|B-Class-4=
<!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials,
such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. -->
|B-Class-5=
<!-- Reviews and collaborations -->
|A-Class=
These are in the style of [Template:Upgrading needed]] which is itself called by Template:Film. Hope this isn't too much all at once. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 11:03, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
(@ first) - yeah, MILHIST uses the same parameters. :) We might want to note somewhere that 5 isn't a requirement for some articles; i.e. some fictional characters (no free picture, possibly no infobox). Also, what about 1? Do plot summaries have to be referenced or not? May want to add a little there.
I think the plot referencing has been answered elsewhere - not sure where currently. But there have been contributions on this. Ideal to have them but difficult to find. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 18:19, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
I wasn't entirely clear. :) No, plot summaries do not have to be referenced, but it would be good to highlight that for people who don't know. —Ed 17(Talk / Contribs) 21:40, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
(@ MILHIST) - yeah, I haven't done substantial anything in NOVELS for a lonnnng time. Sorry about that; I never thought that I would get this carried away in MILHIST. :/ I hid my name on WP:NVCOORD a little bit ago becuase of this. If I thought it was okay to do next to nothing and still be listed there, I would have stayed, but...yeah.
(@ second) - the upgrade templates are awesome. I wish they had been around when I started here :)))
Probably the priority to get these sorted out. With an overall scheme of criteria for the process. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 18:19, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Probably. Where are we going to put them? —Ed 17(Talk / Contribs) 21:40, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Stored under Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Assessment/ but made use of conditionally and primarily by the project banner. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 09:06, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
(random) - you have A-class in that banner plan above. Was that a mistake, or did you want to start up an A-class reviewing process? I'll un-hide myself on NVCOORD (so I can help you close reviews) if you do want to start one up (seeing as I would actually be doing something in NOVELS then...)
Probably a mistake - or something we can get going once we have these other things out of the way. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 18:19, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Alright. Feel free to ping me if you need help setting it up or when you are done making it - I'll review most or all A-class noms like I do in MILHIST. —Ed 17(Talk / Contribs) 21:40, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
(NOV coords) - are we really going to set up another election in March? Considering the (amazingly low) participation in the last election, I think it might be worth to scrap them indefinitely and just 'crown' editors that have clue if/when they come along. Liveste comes to mind... —Ed 17(Talk / Contribs) 17:26, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Probably best to put these on hold and say they can be revived with more interest. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 18:19, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Sounds good, though if A-class comes along soon, we will have to revive it so that 'just anyone' cannot close them. —Ed 17(Talk / Contribs) 21:40, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
(NVCOORDS again) - I'll un-hide myself and put me as a assistant coord. While I don't do much, it'll be easier to do it now, and this way I'll be able to help with a minimum of any possible drama if A-class goes ahead. —Ed 17(Talk / Contribs) 21:40, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
