Wikipedia

User:The ed17/Archives/35

< User:The ed17‎ | Archives

GOCE elections edit

Greetings from the Guild of Copy Editors
 
 

Elections are currently underway for our inaugural Guild coordinators. The voting period will run for 14 days: 00:01 UTC, Friday 1 December – 23:59 UTC, Tuesday 14 December. All GOCE members in good standing, as well as past participants of any of the Guild's Backlog elimination drives, are eligible to vote. There are six candidates vying for four positions. The candidate with the highest number of votes will become the Lead Coordinator, therefore, your vote really matters! Cast your vote today.

Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors via SMasters using AWB on 02:05, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Almirante Latorre-class battleship edit

Hi mate, was this a self-assessment of B-Class? If so, I don't doubt that it's worth it but it should be done by an uninvolved party. I only noticed it because I'm verifying the November contest entries and if the assessment isn't strictly valid it doesn't count for November (but could count towards December once the assessment is independently verified). Ed! did a couple similarly and agreed to drop them from last month and put them towards this month -- anyway let me know what you think, it doesn't affect the placings for November, so might be more useful to you counting towards December's score anyway... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:02, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I figured it was an okay application of IAR. No qualms with moving it over, it's not a big deal, especially if there is already precedent. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:26, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Newsletter edit

I'm just finishing off a Human Rights paper; when I'm done I'll get to work on finishing off the Articles and Members stuff for the newsletter so we can have it out in a reasonable time (ie before the end of the week hopefully). Cam (Chat)(Prof) 20:12, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good. I should be able to do a little tonight or tomorrow. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:52, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
we've got a newsletter to write, and I've got a car to drive off a cliff... (couldn't resist) Cam (Chat)(Prof) 22:10, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Bahamut0013 has submitted an editorial for this month. Unless you have more pressing editorial stuff, I think we should run that (it's fairly interesting; all about military biography deletion policy). Cam (Chat)(Prof) 04:12, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I was planning on running that without any other options :) I think NativeForeigner (talk · contribs) is going to try to cook up one for next month. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:23, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
could you check over the From the Coordinators section to make sure I haven't missed anything big? After that I think we're ready for delivery (only 6 days into the month; that's gotta be some sort of record!) Cam (Chat)(Prof) 04:02, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Done, and I converted it all to the new formatting. You missed the front page too. :P I think it's ready to go now, though! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:29, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Excellent! You're the guy who knows the mailing procedure; could you message the bots that be so we can send this thing out? Cam (Chat)(Prof) 19:06, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Done! Skynet will be in operation shortly. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:27, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

hello edit

you had previously commented at t:tdyk under 19 november for the dyk hook for Death panels (political term). you said that the article was pov and used too many quotes. there has been some work on the article and if you can point out improvements on the talk page it would be appreicated. i would like for it to be approved again. i will cut out one long quote in particular now. thanks. Jesanj (talk) 15:39, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

1 & 2. Jesanj (talk) 16:09, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
FYI I think it is "fixed" for now, but of course any comments to the talk page would be welcome. thanks. Jesanj (talk) 04:47, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Sorry but I don't have the time to look into this further. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:59, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

MILHIST: U.S. Navy Command History edit

Hi, Ed17! I think your steady hand is needed to resolve this issue. Marcd30319 (talk) 13:23, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Hey Marc, while I think those types of articles violate WP policy, I wonder if we can create a different project page under Milhist (like Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/U.S. Navy Command Histories) that lists all of the sources? The difference would be in the namespace. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:59, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi, Ed17! I think the best approach is to put the command histories link in the External links section of the specific articles, with a Milhist project page as a backup. I don't know how to set up a project page. Marcd30319 (talk) 12:41, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Changing my mind here. I think external links would be fine. If someone wants them, all they would have to do is go to that ship's article – no need for them to be in two places. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:28, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Okay. Thanks, Ed! Marcd30319 (talk) 21:20, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
You're welcome, friend! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:20, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Ed, more from Buckshot06 and GraemeLeggett. I think my last suggestion is a workable solution. Maybe this needs some adult supervision. :) Marcd30319 (talk) 20:29, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

(od) Marc30319, one other issue with that category: it should only contain the Carrier Strike Group and maybe Battle Group entries (eg HST BG or Commander Carrier Division Four (ComCarDiv 4)). It should not contain the destroyer articles (they go in the Category:Destroyers of the United States Navy or similar categories) or the carrier air wings (which should go in Category:United States Navy Carrier air wings, under 'Aviation units and formations of the USN' or some such). Categories should only contain things that are included in the title, not extra articles. The linkages work through the text of the articles. Have I made this clear what I mean? Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 05:47, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Carrrier Strike Groups integrate carriers, their air wings, their escorting Ticonderoga-class guided-missile cruisers, and their assigned destroyer squadrons into a single unit. Also, in the case of Carrier Strike Group Fourteen, the only ships assigned are the Ticonderoga-class guided-missile cruisers USS Philippine Sea (CG-58) and USS Gettysburg (CG-64). It is this force integration that is the raison d'être for carrier strike groups, and these units are permanently assigned to their respective carrier strike group. Therefore, including carrier air wings, as well as the assigned Tico cruisers and destroyer squadrons, within Category:Carrier Strike Group is both appropriate and consistent. Marcd30319 (talk) 16:42, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
While I see your thinking, to me this seems similar to putting the 3rd Regiment Royal Horse Artillery in the category:Brigades of the British Army because it is currently attached to the 7th Armoured Brigade. GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:18, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
We well understand your point about IDTC workup and integration of varied ships through a training cycle into one formation under a single ISIC. But do you understand how this would work logically Marc? Every ship that ever served in the Atlantic Fleet would go directly in the Atlantic Fleet category. It makes the categories impossible to use. Buckshot06 (talk) 18:44, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
I do not intend to include every DDG and FFG assigned to an active CARSTRKGRU within this category, just their respective DESRON. Nor do I intend to include the AOE or SSN that may deploy with a CARSTRKGRU. At most, Carrier Strike Group category will encompass 11 CVNs, 10 CVWs, maybe 19 CGs, 11 DESRONs, and earlier CVBGs for historical reasons. Please note that the official web site for each CARSTKGRU lists its flagship CVN, its embarked CVW, and its assigned Tico CG and DESRON, except CARSTKGRU FOURTEEN which has only two Tico CGs. This seems consistent and logical, and it represents current U.S. Navy operational and doctrinal policies as well as ongoing deployment patterns. If this is not agreeable, then I suggest that only CARSTRKGRU articles and their earlier CVBG antecedents be linked to the Carrier Strike Group category, not individual CVNs, CVWs, CGs, DESRONs, etc., which will be listed in the individual article's infobox. Marcd30319 (talk) 20:24, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Whoa, that's a lot of acronyms. I don't think that including ships in the categories is viable – why not simply link them in the article? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:51, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
I think a section called Current Composition 2010 would work. Marcd30319 (talk) 22:17, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

OMT in the Signpost edit

"WikiProject Report" would like to focus on Operation Majestic Titan for a Signpost article to be published this month. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Also, if you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 02:46, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 December 2010 edit

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 04:27, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

South American dreadnought arms race edit

You ask on your personal project page if there's a better name for this article-to-come. I would suggest South American naval arms race, since the term "naval arms race" is already familiar for many because of the German–British one, and because the South American arms race included more than just dreadnoughts, no? Were not a large number of destroyers ordered/purchased? Srnec (talk) 03:44, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I thought of that, but there were multiple naval arms races in South America (ex 1890s between Argentina and Chile), and the principal reason for the naval acquisitions were to obtain dreadnoughts. Otherwise that would be the ideal name... Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:32, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

travel details edit

Hi Ed. Mishelle Gonzales, the project assistant for the Public Policy Initiative, has been trying to get ahold of you by email for the necessary travel details for the ambassador training event. Please get in touch with her ASAP.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 16:37, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Planning for next term in the Wikipedia Ambassador Program edit

Hi again Ed! We're trying to figure out how many students we can mentor next term and how many additional Online Ambassadors will be needed. Based on the revised plan for what participating courses will be like next term, I've sketched out what will be expected of mentors. Please look that over, and then go to the online ambassadors talk page to indicate much mentoring and other ambassador activities you'd like to do next term. Thanks!--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 18:15, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LVII, November 2010 edit

 
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 23:25, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Rivadavia class edit

Hi Ed! Good to know you're still busy with the "minor" navies' battleships. The Rivadavia's articles look good, I currently don't have access to additional sources to add/change anything. Maybe more "free" images of both ships would be needed, I'll try to find some and add them to the articles. Good work!
Cheers, DPdH (talk) 06:16, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Not sure what I'll be able to get, especially about the Latorre... anyway, images available online should be considered "free" given the time elapsed since most of them might have been taken (more than 50 years in the case of the Rivadavias...); I need to check what Argentinian copyright laws say. Just have a bit of patience, I'm quite busy lately but will have a few free days next week.
Regards, DPdH (talk) 06:27, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

José Paranhos, Viscount of Rio Branco edit

Ed, José Paranhos, Viscount of Rio Branco is now a Featured article! You were great there and certainly helped a lot. Thank you, my friend. --Lecen (talk) 12:54, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 December 2010 edit

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 02:05, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Cliff Lee edit

You're really going to edit a protected BLP article without providing a source? Corvus cornixtalk 07:46, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Are you serious? Read my edit summary, and feel free to go to Google News and read the 935 articles.[1] Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 07:48, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
"Go to Google news" is not a reliable source. This is a BLP. Corvus cornixtalk 07:55, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
The edits you provided are valid. I'll strike my comments on the article's Talk page. I am shocked that an admin would be editing a BLP without providing sources. Corvus cornixtalk 07:56, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry that I don't edit things in one swipe. Please don't ever berate someone over easily provable pure facts that aren't even controversial. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 07:59, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
And why was the article protected in the first place? Because unsourced edits were being made right and left. Corvus cornixtalk 08:01, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Which is understandable when it hasn't been announced yet, but when nearly a thousand news sources are reporting something uncontroversial, don't throw process wonkery on someone because you can't be bothered to check for yourself. It's really not appreciated and pisses people off. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 08:05, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Admin_User:The_ed17_and_BLP Corvus cornixtalk 08:24, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Heh, please remember to provide full context in ANI posts. Thanks. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 08:30, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

File:Iowa class aircraft carrier.jpg edit

Well, that was a fast reply :) I barely even had time to add the image to the working draft I have before you came along and cleared up the copyright. Thanks, I was just a little unsure as to who created the image and did not want to chance putting it up at the commons since if it turned out to be a fair use image it would have been axed. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:54, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

No problem. FWIW, the NH&HC has told me in emails that they consider everything held by them as in the public domain. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:55, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Tis the season edit

 
 

ϢereSpielChequers is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Xmas, Eid, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec10/Balloon}} to your friends' talk pages.

Thanks WSC! Hope you have a fun holiday season too! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 16:05, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Broken watchlist edit

You broke the layout of the watchlist page. I fixed it. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 19:13, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh damn, I shouldn't have gone back and removed a second div. My apologies – thanks for the fix. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:21, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Friendly reminder edit

Just thought I'd remind you that in the OMT piece to run in the signpost you had volunteered to write the current events at milhist part, but nothing has yet been firmly developed in that section. It is not a life or death thing, but I thought I'd remind you about it since time is a factor :)

On an unrelated note, I'm nearing completion of the "Iowa class battleship version 3.0 rewrite", as I am calling it <Tom chuckles>, but I have come to realize that I will be unable to adequately address all points from the FAR and subsequent improvement discussions due to a lack of better resorces. To this end, I wonder if you and the others could move to help address what will remain when I put the new version up and open the PR for it. I think what I have now is better than what is there currently, but I know for a fact that I lack the resources needed to address some of Brad101's points (among others), and I strongly suspect that there is information in the G&D book and the Friedman books that would help the article but that I can not add to the article because I do not have any of the books. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:02, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Hey, Tom, this popped up on my watchlist. I'm home on winter break at the moment, but when I get back to Carleton on January 2 I can immediately get my hands on a whole series of books via interlibrary loans that can probably give you a hand. I end up having access to the entirety of the Ontario University Library system (23 universities in all), so I'll see what I can find. Merry Christmas! Cam (Chat)(Prof) 07:26, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Well I took an impromptu five-day break, and obviously I never got around to it. My apologies. Friedman focused more on the design history, so he shouldn't have much more, but there are literally hundreds of sources out there you can get off Ebay, Amazon, or a good library. Ex. Warship International, federal government sources like "Notice of Availability for Donation as a Museum/Memorial, the Battleship ex-IOWA (BB 61)." Federal Register 24 May 2010., "The Unstable Dynamics of a Strategic Technology: Disarmament, Unemployment, and the Interwar Battleship" at JSTOR, etc. etc. Search JSTOR and other sources like that; I have access to some things, and Cam might have access to others. If you find something, we can download and email it to you. I'll take a look at the article asap. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:07, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Move "Argentina-Brazil War" to "Cisplatine War" edit

The ed17, I'd appreciate if you could take a look in a present discussion and share your opinion about it. Its in Talk:Argentina–Brazil War#Requested move. And if possible, could you call other wikipedians interested in military subjects to give their votes? Regards, --Lecen (talk) 14:15, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

You have an email Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:07, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 December 2010 edit

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 03:12, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Merry Christmas! edit

Behave yourself Ed edit

I stumbled on to that RFA where you're causing all the trouble. Don't you know that a cabal of sheep get very upset when someone comes along with the wool clippers? Brad (talk) 13:15, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

With those reactions, you'd think I deleted the main page or something. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:02, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
With all of the embarrassing incidents that have happened to WP over the years involving admin you would think there would be more suspicious people. In my experience it's usually a waste of time to point out potential trouble because the one you question is too much of a saint in the eyes of the supporters. Brad (talk) 23:50, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
They were many suspicious people until there was a massive backlash at trivial opposes. Now I guess it is just as bad, but in the opposite direction. You can see why I rarely head over to RfA and give my opinion. :-) BTW Brad, how are you? Long time no talk. How are the six frigates coming along? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:57, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Sadly I think I've reached the saturation point on the frigate articles. I can't stomach the thought of working on them right now. It's very repetitious going through the Quasi-War, Barbary Wars and War of 1812 over and over again and I'm just sick of the whole thing now. Chesapeake needs the final push before it goes to FAC but I don't even care to do that either. There are four articles that need to go to FA still including Chesapeake.
Lately though it seems like it's all I can do just to keep up with the daily ships chores tagging and assessing new articles. There's an editor that has made it his mission to complete articles on every little stub he can about the WWI section patrol (SP) craft. It takes a lot of time to make sure the articles cross-reference over to respective lists of ships etc. Brad (talk) 05:16, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
I can understand that. I've been sick of American articles ever since I finished the mammoth known as North Carolina-class battleship. Take a break for awhile and wait for the spark to come back. You know, there's always battleships you could write on instead... ;)
I'm not a big fan of assessing multiple articles. Kudos to you for being able to keep up with all that work. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:25, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I forgot we were having a conversation over here... doh. I have been on a frigate break for quite some time now. I don't know if the urge will come back or not; we'll see. I looked over the North Carolina article again and it's a masterpiece. Too bad the Iowa-class article hasn't reached those heights yet. Just shows what serious effort can do once you set your mind to it. So did MBK announce a break or just vanish? I couldn't find any posts by him saying so. Bellhalla vanished over a year ago but here we are. Brad (talk) 09:19, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Ping? Brad (talk) 05:01, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Whoops, sorry! I hope the urge returns; I've enjoyed reading your articles. :-) Iowa is slowly getting there, at least. MBK vanished for exams, but now his computer died. I think he'll be back when he gets it fixed or a new one. I wish Bellhalla would come back -- he was a good egg. I have a bad feeling though: he randomly vanished, didn't reply to emails, and his personal Flickr account hasn't been active since then. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:11, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Since we started this conversation I've begun reading Toll's Six Frigates again so that I can refresh my memory. I also requested a loan of another book that Toll recommended. My emailing experiences with Bellhalla have been what you describe but that was even before he stopped editing. I looked at the history of his edits and there are long gaps since he joined in 2005. Up until a year ago he had been steadily editing for a couple of years. Another missing editor is Benea since last September but at least he/she made reference to being away. Likely this is why ships talk has been so slow. Brad (talk) 22:44, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 December 2010 edit

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 13:27, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Davenport, Iowa/archive3 edit

Are those your only concerns with the whole article? Or are those just the concerns with the History section? CTJF83 chat 18:27, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Glad you're about... edit

...things are changing, getting updated and stuff. I've updated the main page, the FAQ and the scoring page. Changes so far to the scoring: a small drop in DYK points (10 to 5), a small drop in GA points (40 to 30), removal of valued pictures (the project no longer exists), a small incentive to review good articles (2 points for fair sized reviews) and I have posted this thread to hopefully get something final in terms of the multipliers everyone has been talking about. I'm assuming from your most recent post that you intend to stay on as judge, which is great. I'll drop Fox a note too. J Milburn (talk) 21:02, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I've been keeping abreast of the scoring page, but I haven't commented much. DYK/GAN drops are good, considering the integral role they played last year, I'm really happy VP is gone in general, the inventive to review GANs was a little scary (I was afraid of sub-standard reviews, etc) until Wizardman offered to review all of them, and I can agree to the multipler rule you've proposed. Yeah, I'll stay on, and hopefully I'll be around more than last year. :-) I've sent you an email on a possible judge, should we want or need another. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:34, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Sent you a couple of emails. J Milburn (talk) 00:40, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations! edit

   The Military history A-Class medal with oak leaves 
By order of the coordinators of the Military history WikiProject, you are hereby awarded the A-Class medal with Oak Leaves for exemplary work on List of battlecruisers of Japan, Almirante Latorre-class battleship, and ARA Rivadavia, all promoted to A-class between September and December 2010. Congratulations! AustralianRupert (talk) 04:58, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Rupert! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:25, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

GOCE Year-end Report edit

Season's Greetings from the Guild of Copy Editors
 
 

We have reached the end of the year, and what a year it has been! The Guild of Copy Editors was full of activity, and we achieved numerous important milestones in 2010. Read all about these in the Guild's 2010 Year-End Report.

Highlights
  • Membership grows to 503 editors
  • 2,589 articles removed through four Backlog elimination drives
  • Our encounter with Jimbo Wales
  • Guild home pages reorganized and redesigned
  • Report on our inaugural elections
  • Guild Plans for 2011
  • New barnstars introduced
  • Requests page improved
  • Sign up for the January 2011 Backlog elimination drive!
Get your copy of the Guild's 2010 Year-End Report here On behalf of the Guild, we take this opportunity to wish you Season's Greetings and Happy New Year. See you in 2011!
– Your Coordinators: S Masters (lead), Diannaa, The Utahraptor, and Tea with toast.

Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 06:48, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

WikiCup 2011 edit

Hello. You are being contacted because you have previously shown interest in the WikiCup but have not yet signed up for the 2011 WikiCup, which starts at midnight. It is not too late to sign up! The competition will remain open until at least January 31, and so it is not too late to enter. If you are interested, simply follow the instructions to add your username to the signup page, and a judge will contact you as soon as possible with an explanation of how to participate. The WikiCup is a friendly competition open to all Wikipedians, old and new, experienced and inexperienced, providing a fun and rewarding way to contribute quality content to Wikipedia. If you do not want to receive any further messages about the WikiCup, or you want to start receiving messages about the WikiCup, you may add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. If you have any questions, feel free to ask on the WikiCup talk page or contact the judges directly. J Milburn and The ed17 06:52, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:The_ed17/Archives/35&oldid=1143532155"