Jump to content

User:The ed17/Archives/25

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiCup 2010 January newsletter

[edit]

We are half way through round one of the WikiCup. We've had some shakeups regarding late entries, flag changes and early dropouts, but the competition is now established- there will be no more flag changes or new competitors. Congratulations to Hungary Sasata (submissions), our current leader, who, at the time of writing, has more listed points than Pennsylvania Hunter Kahn (submissions) and New Orleans TonyTheTiger (submissions) (second and third place respectively) combined. A special well done also goes to Isle of Man Fetchcomms (submissions)- his artcle Jewel Box (St. Louis, Missouri) was the first content to score points in the competition.

Around half of competitors are yet to score. Please remember to submit content soon after it is promoted, so that the judges are able to review entries. 64 of the 149 current competitors will advance to round 2- if you currently have no points, do not worry, as over half of the current top 64 have under 50 points. Everyone needs to get their entries in now to guarantee their places in round 2! If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, by email or on IRC. Good luck! J Milburn, Garden, iMatthew and The ed17 Delivered by JCbot (talk) at 00:22, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I should've done this :'( When should we start work on the article. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 00:29, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't even know you when this started. :) I was hoping to start Wednesday or Thursday. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 16:43, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
I've begun rewriting the article.[1] —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 05:49, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Good stuff. I'll start work on the battle of guadalcanal tomorrow or friday. A club I'm very involved wiht had a psuedo crisis today. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 06:07, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
No worries! I'll try to add more tomorrow as well. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 06:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
I just got: Author: Hammel, Eric M.

Title: Guadalcanal : decision at sea : the naval battle Publication Date: 1988 Call Number: 940.5426 HAMMEL NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 18:44, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 February 2010

[edit]
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 22:19, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Yamato

[edit]

Started on the copyedit - some questions etc on the talk page. Sorry for the delay (busy busy busy!) EyeSerenetalk 10:52, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey ES, I'll try to get to them tonight. Thanks for your help! —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 22:16, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

BB-55

[edit]

Progress report ... I'd like to replace a lot of the DANFS stuff, but apart from Friedman (which I have here), I'm having trouble finding any books online. Of the references currently listed at BB-55, only this site and this site list their sources, and there are no previews available at Google Books for any of those. In the external links, hnsa.org may be useful. Still poking around; let me know if you have suggestions for sources. - Dank (push to talk) 15:57, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Hiya Dank, off the top of my head Garzke and Dulin's United States Battleships in World War II (or the updated version United States Battleships 1935–1992) has a good section on the history of the ship. I'll poke around for more. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 22:16, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

USS Congress

[edit]

I'm getting ready to take USS Congress (1799) for a second run at FAC soon. If you could briefly look for copy editing it might need I would appreciate it. Of course I invite any slapping around to fix things that escaped me. One thing that bothers me is the Later Career section which I feel is too generic of a title but have drawn a blank for an alternative title. --Brad (talk) 01:07, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVII (January 2010)

[edit]
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter Issue XLVII (January 2010)
From the coordinators
  • It's only a month into the New Year, and we've already made changes to the project's infrastructure, merging and improving several task forces (see below). Much content within the project's scope has also been improved: eleven new featured articles, two featured lists, two featured pictures, a featured sound, and seventeen A-class articles. Thanks and congratulations to all editors who contributed and/or nominated these items.
  • In other news, the elections for new project coordinators are coming up in March. Think about whether you would like to run or not, and self-nominations will be coming up at the beginning of next month.
  • Lastly, our project's A-class review process is desperately in need of new reviewers. Please consider looking at least one and leaving comments, no matter how small or trivial. It will be greatly appreciated by the article's nominator(s).
  • For the coordinators, —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 03:32, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Articles of note

New featured articles:

  1. Battle of the Nile
  2. Bodiam Castle
  3. Charles Eaton (RAAF officer)
  4. Frederick Scherger
  5. Helmut Lent
  6. James Whiteside McCay
  7. Johann von Klenau
  8. Peter Heywood
  9. The Battle of Alexander at Issus
  10. Thomas Baker (aviator)
  11. Walter Peeler

New featured lists:

  1. List of Asian American Medal of Honor recipients
  2. Order of battle at the Battle of the Nile

New featured pictures:

  1. Return of the Great White Fleet
  2. SMS Moltke (1910)

New featured sounds:

  1. It's a Long Way to Tipperary

New A-Class articles:

  1. Alexander Pentland
  2. Battle of Osan
  3. Battle of Winterthur (1799)
  4. Cedric Howell
  5. CFM International CFM56
  6. Florida class battleship
  7. Friedrich Freiherr von Hotze
  8. HMS Lion (1910)
  9. List of battlecruisers of Germany‎
  10. List of Knight's Cross with Oak Leaves recipients: 1940–1941
  11. Max-Hellmuth Ostermann
  12. Operation Windsor
  13. Petlyakov Pe-8
  14. Robert Peverell Hichens
  15. Smedley Butler
  16. USS Hawaii (CB-3)
  17. Vernon Sturdee
Project news
Contest department
Awards and honours

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) 03:02, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVII (January 2010)

[edit]

The January 2010 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) 04:52, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/USS New Jersey, 1918 (2)

[edit]
Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted
Your nomination for featured picture status, File:USS New Jersey (BB-16) in camouflage coat, 1918 edit.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. jjron (talk) 12:50, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

[edit]
Hello, The ed17. You have new messages at Auntieruth55's talk page.
Message added 23:17, 5 February 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Re Battle of Winterthur (1799) FAC, do you know how to add a map with coordinates to an info box? Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:17, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the page protection

[edit]

Hi Ed, I've decided to come here rather than ask for another page protection on the official page. I was wondering if you could possibly page protect EA Sports MMA for the exact same reasons as were given for UFC Undisputed 2010, please. If so, that would be great. Thanks for the protection to the UFC page. Paralympiakos (talk) 02:30, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I actually hadn't protected it—I edited the wrong section. :) However, both are now protected for three days. Regards, —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 02:36, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Haha, I know, I realised that about a minute after writing the first message. I read the accidental notice on the page protection section before noticing no actual page protection. Regardless, thanks very much for both counts. Much appreciated. Paralympiakos (talk) 02:42, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
My pleasure. Regards, —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 02:45, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Chadic languages

[edit]

I will first say thank you for attending to the article, but I believe your decision was hasty. This is not really a case for consensus, because peer reviewed scientific articles were added that specifically discuss Chadic speakers. It is not up to me to prove they have a place there, but rather those removing them need good reasons for doing so. None have been offered.

Please remove the page protection, or either restore the article to the proper state. DinDraithou (talk) 04:46, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

You are welcome, but I have no knowledge nor interest in the article. I would begin a discussion on the article's talk page; I will not remove protection so another edit war can begin, and I will not edit through protection to restore it to the "right version". Regards, —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 04:51, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Then you should have let someone else handle it. Would you do that now? If you won't then I will ask for the assistance of other administrators. DinDraithou (talk) 05:01, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
No, as a neutral administrator I am allowed to do that. I don't have to have a vested interest in a subject to enact restrictions on an article, just a good reason (like edit warring). Feel free to ask for other administrators as you see fit, but I ask you to notify me if they remove the protection. Regards, —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 05:30, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

[edit]

images at Battle of Wintherthur (1799). I don't know how to change them, and although that may not be the "perfectest" image for the infobox, it's what is available. I don't want this to die for lack of supports. Auntieruth55 (talk) 22:54, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Would you take a look again at this and see if you can support? Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:54, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
I'll try to take a look tonight, but if I haven't, ping me constantly until I do. :) —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 22:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

USS Washington Additions

[edit]

Later today I am going to add some material to the washington article. Make sure it looks good, because I have limited article writing experience.  :) NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 23:23, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Get working! :P —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 22:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Fair use dispute

[edit]

My image of a French gun (File:Canonde138mmMle1929.jpg) is being disputed as replaceable. This is the only image I've been able to find of this gun anywhere so there's little chance of a free version being found. A drawing could be created, as it could of almost anything, but so what? There's nothing at hand to illustrate the article. Can you check into this for me?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:39, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Ed!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:26, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
You're welcome! —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 22:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Now it's up for deletion. Thought you might want to know.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:17, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
I've commented; thanks for the note. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 05:26, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

ITN

[edit]

Hi ed, thanks for updating ITN recently. Next time you do it could you also update the timer at the same time? It's there so we can keep track of how "fresh" ITN is. I have retrospectively done it for the Superbowl but it is much easier if it is done at the time, many thanks - Dumelow (talk) 08:12, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I can do that, sorry :) —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 22:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Question about (possible) GAN('s)

[edit]

Hi Ed. I was trying to get the German Type UB I submarines to GT status but the nomination failed because SM U-10 (Austria-Hungary) and SM U-11 (Austria-Hungary) were still at B-class. User:Bellhalla, the main contributor to these articles seems to have retired so I was going to finish the work that I belive he planed to do and give him the credit for it (I'll just get credit for the nom and any work that still needs to be done. Anyway, I just asked Malleus if these two articles are ready for a GAN and he said that they are and that I should nominate them now. However, he also said that I should get a second opinion. What do you tihnk about them? Are they really ready?--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 22:04, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Coldplay, I've seen this but don't have to refply now. Will do in hopefully four hours... —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 22:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, they aren't too bad except for the references. IN SM U-10, you provide a map from Google Maps when the link in {{coord}} does the same thing. Also, the citation "Austrian or Austro-Hungarian Navy, WW1". Naval-history.net. http://www.naval-history.net/WW1NavyAustrian.htm#ss. Retrieved 2010-02-09. is not reliable (luckily, it looks like Gardiner p. 343 covers all of that? [2])
In SM U-11, I see this citation: Erwin Sieche. "The Austro-Hungarian Submarine Force". "Austro-Hungarian Warships In Photographs, Vol. 2. 1896-1918". http://www.gwpda.org/naval/ahsubs.htm. Retrieved 8 February 2010. That's an excerpt from a book by Lothar Baumgartner and Erwin Sieche, so the citation needs to be formatted with {{cite book}} while the link is used for convenience. 17:25, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm am working on the GAN for SM U-11 while Nergaalis working on SM U-10. I'll try to get to these issues on the othetr article once the GAN of SM U-11 passes.--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 18:20, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 8 February 2010

[edit]
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 03:33, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Canonde138mmMle1929.jpg

[edit]

Hello,

regarding [3], we do have Free replacement for this file readily available on Commons. See File:Mogador-2-guns.jpg for instance. Rama (talk) 08:59, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

That's the 1934 version though. In any case, it doesn't really matter, as it looks like this has been addressed by Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs). Regards, —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 17:26, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Msa

[edit]

Hey Ed, thanks for taking care of that situation for me. Msa is getting to be a problem; no doubt you noticed he was blocked just last month for socking to further his strange POV in regards to screws/propellers and arabic numerals/named numbers. Something tells me this isn't going to end well for him, unless he learns to follow the MOS and drop his quasi-nationalistic crusade. Parsecboy (talk) 20:41, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

No problem. I don't see how screw -> propeller is POV... —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 05:26, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
[edit]

Please see Wikipedia talk:In the news#Country links for nationalities. Thanks! —David Levy 20:08, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I've commented. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 20:22, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Urgent

[edit]
Hello, The ed17. You have new messages at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Coordinators#Major_milmos_incident.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

TomStar81 (Talk) 06:43, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

[edit]
Hello, The ed17. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships.
Message added 09:59, 12 February 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

-MBK004 09:59, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 15 February 2010

[edit]
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 13:47, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

KGV class discussion page

[edit]

Hi. Will you please review Kurfurst's comments on the KGV Battleship talk page? It is very tiring to have him always making personal attacks. thanks.Damwiki1 (talk) 01:41, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm looking into it now. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 04:22, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
I've commented. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 04:32, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Kurfurst's behavior is disruptive and seems to me to be bordering on vandalism. There is no support for his edits (just the opposite actually) on the talk page, and I don't know why he is allowed to behave this way.Damwiki1 (talk) 17:49, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Ridiculus. You and you alone want to desperately remove a couple of sourced references from the article, which has been there for more than half a year. No other editor had a problem with them, no other supports this utterly revolting campaign of yours which only wants remove references which you just don't like. Curiously only the few parts of criticism from this author seems to disappear with your 'help'. For example you removed the immunity zones for the article class on the pretext that 'the authors give no source for it.' And then you removed another sourced immunity zone figure from another renowned naval expert on the grounds that YOU think he is wrong... Then you come here and have the guts to accuse another editor with vandalism, who restores the sourced parts nobody has problem with but only you, who keeps it removing without having any support for it from other editors. You simply do not care what other editors thing, you turned the whole discussion page into a sad circus which is now only filled with your nonsensical bickering about why YOU decided the naval experts are wrong, and need to be removed. Then you proceed on removing then, and when nobody agrees with you, you remove it again and again and again, if many editors oppose this, then you wait a month or two, and remove it again, violating just about every possible rule we have, including 3RR, and engaged in sock/meatpuppetry to circumvent it. Who would in their sane mind would actually believe that edits like these [4][5][6] are honest ones? Then you come here and accuse other editors with disruptive behaviour, HILLARIOUS! Kurfürst (talk) 18:17, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
GUYS. This isn't that important in the grand scheme of things; please stop taking it so seriously. It's Wikipedia, for crying out loud. I think that you both have some relevant points. Damwiki, I think you are right in removing some of the 1980 G&D references related to the sinking of POW, as the discovery of the wreck has invalidated many of their assumptions. Onthe other hand, Kurfurst has a point in that you are removing a lot of stuff reffed to G&D, though I agree with the statements you removed in the first two links given by him above. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 18:24, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the immune zones, R&R state completely different values, that I discussed in the talk page. How can such completely different figures be reconciled? We can add them as footnotes, but putting them in the article would just be ping-ponging. I added as much of Kurfurst's language as possible to the recent editd and I am willing to work with him, except that his rigid insistance on a single source makes it very difficult. Regarding Kurfurst's behavior look at his comments above. It is most one long personal attack. This should not be permitted and you have warned him about this recently. I do my absolute best to avoid responding in kind. I'm not picking on G&D, but I would like to create an article based upon facts that can be verified via several sources. I have an extensive library related to naval history, and quite frankly G@D, made lots of mistakes in Allied Battleships that become apparent when referencing other works.Damwiki1 (talk) 19:03, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, R&R give different values? That's certainly annoying. I would use your suggestion and put the discrepancy in a note, similar to what I did with Brazilian cruiser Bahia. I believe that Kurfurst is placing G&D on too high of a pedestal; I like your goal of using multiple sources for every statement. I'm too involved, so I'm not going to block anyone; I'd recommend taking it to ANT or WT:MILHIST for a discussion there. As an aside, I don't like hearing that G&D made a lot of mistakes because I bought that book last year. ;) —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 23:25, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
I placed the immunezone calculations into a footnote as per your suggestion.Damwiki1 (talk) 20:40, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

[edit]

Thank you for your comments; I'm curious, which decisions of mine did you disagree with? If you would prefer to respond off wiki, that's OK, either way is fine. Thanks! -- Avi (talk) 06:24, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Let me be clear up front, I'm not trying to engage you in a conversation about them and try to convince you; I'm just curious as to which events they were. -- Avi (talk) 06:26, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) In the times when I have drifted away from WP:MILHIST to WP:BN and other places, some of your comments have not resonated with me. I think a couple of them may have been in Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Bureaucrat Unchecking/Poll. My !vote was the result of me thinking "I remember something about that guy I didn't like, but can't remember what." Because of this, I'm not comfortable supporting, but I'd be even less comfortable opposing, seeing as I don't even remember the comment(s) in question; hence the neutral. Sorry to be so vague.
(after) I know you aren't trying to convince/badger/whatever they are calling it nowadays, don't worry. Rereading my !vote, I would have been curious too. Kind regards, —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 06:59, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Fair enough; thank you for the explanation, I appreciate it :) -- Avi (talk) 07:13, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
You are welcome. Have a great day/night; I'm off for much-needed sleep. :) Regards, —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 07:20, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

DYK

[edit]

Please check my comment at WT:DYK. Materialscientist (talk) 06:43, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

DYK update

[edit]

Are you available to do the DYK update at 6 pm UTC (that's five hours from now)? See WT:DYK#Next update. (Note that I'm sending this message to several admins.) Ucucha 12:47, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

The Fox and the Hound (novel)

[edit]

Please reinstate the protection on this article. It was protected because it is a constant target for the sockpuppets of User:Bambifan101. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:57, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I just realized why I couldn't see the original protection—it was in another block log. It's been protected since 2008; don't you think it's time to give it another shot? —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 00:00, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
No, as he hit fairly recently, including stealing stuff from my user WIP and throwing it into articles in an obviously incompleted form, and there is another active SPI on him. Especially now when the article is up for FAC. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:06, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Okay then, reprotected. :) —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 00:20, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks :-) -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:22, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Ed, I'm reviewing The Fox and the Hound (novel) for FAC, and I was just wondering why you reprotected it today. [7] There haven't been any IP edits since July 2008. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 05:18, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, just saw the above. Not sure what it means though. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 05:19, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
See also [8] -- apparently Collectonian has a sock-stalker who is still hanging around. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 06:28, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi Ed, if it's a page-move problem, it can be protected against page moves without protecting it against editing. Semi-protection only locks it to IP edits anyway, and there haven't been any since July 2008. Your call though. I was just curious. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 06:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
I know, but Collectonian seemed to think that it needed to be semi-ed. I left a {{tb}} on her talk, let's see what she has to say. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 06:45, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
All of the Bambifan101 targets are under pretty much indef protection. There have been no IP edits because its been protected. If it is unprotected, Bambifan will attack it, as he already has done others and as he continues to do on many of the other language Wikis (which is one reason the poor bots are constantly having to update the links). -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 07:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

USS Triton (SSRN-586) A-List Review

[edit]

Ed, hope all is well. I have been doing some major revisions/edits on the USS Triton (SSRN-586) article in anticipation for an A-List review by the WikiProject Military history. I have attempted to set this process, but I am flummozed. Any help will be appreciated. I'd like to have this as a FAC for 11 May 2010, the 50th anniversary of the end of the Triton submerged circumnavigation voyage.Marcd30319 (talk) 00:44, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Marc! Nice to see you around here again. I fixed the A-class nom and added it to Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Review. Hope this is all you wanted; if it isn't, drop me another line and I'll fix it. Regards, —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 02:04, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Ed, someone took it upon themselves to take a major section out of Design History section of the USS Triton (SSRN-586) article, namely the sub-section about its Radar Picket Roles. Since Triton was built as a radar picket submarine, I thought some background on radar picket submarines was needed. Evidently, User:Trekphiler thought otherwise, and did not think enough to allow me the opportunity to address any questions or concerns. While Trekphiler may have an interest in submarine per his user page, he has had no involvment in this article since its inception on 21 December 2003 until yesterday, 22 January, while I have made literally hundreds of revisions to improve this article since 11 February 2007. Tell me, should I just return the content of this article back to its cut-and-paste DANFS origins that still manage to achieve a B-class rating from the powers-that-be here? The world wonders, who has blundered? Maybe me for wasting what little time I have on this. Marcd30319 (talk) 19:32, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Any word from Marc? I'm getting worried here, it was not my intention to scare him off with the A-class review, nor was I expecting him to react so suddenly to Trekphilers edits. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:55, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
He hasn't replied yet, but he's edited Triton twice since I sent it. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 03:58, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Whoa, Marc, if you're reading this, I'm sorry. I never even saw the message you left above until just now. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 03:59, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Following up to your e-mail: Ed, sorry about the kerfuffle at the A-List review for the USS Triton (SSRN-586. I was actually looking forward to the review, and even TREKphiler's comments, while somewhat juvenile, were not unhelpful. However, what set me off was the indiscriminate gutting of the radar picket info in the Design History section. To understand Triton, one must understand its radar picket function. Also, TREKphiler has a tendency to pepper his edits with personal aside. An example is in Operation Sandblast with footnote 15. As a senior technical writer with over 30 years of experience, including six working at General Dynamics Electric Boat, plus a college graduate in history, I am more than willing to have my copy edited, but my preference is to do the writing myself. Perhaps if the review board can provide a laundry list of suggested edits, I can incorporate them into the article's copy. If there are any questions, then we can discuss the matter. What I am asking is that I remain the lead writer in this, and the review board can provide the editorial direction needed to upgrade the article to the A-list. If there any minor technical corrections (e.g., Triton's vs. Triton's), then by all means, please do so. I also suggest that the Triton's GA Review could address many questions, particularly as it pertains to SPS issues. Please let me know what you think about this, convey my apologies and willingness to go forward with the A-List review to TomStar81, and thank you again for your help on this matter.Marcd30319 (talk) 18:25, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Marc, just a note that I have seen this and will reply as soon as I can, RL is intruding again. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 21:16, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Oh damn, forgot about this. Better late than never, right? :-/ I have never seen the word "kerfuffle" used before, but I think I'm going to in the future; that's an awesome word. Anyway, on to responding:
That's Trek-speak. I think he tries to fit in a comic book reference into 90% of his posts, whether in an edit summary, a section header, or a comment. Okay, so you felt that the radar picket information was needed? Next time, add it back and note what you did and why to the review. Assuming the text has been in the article for some time, you have every right to do this per Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle.
I'm not sure how technical writers retain credit, but the standard practice that I know of is that you don't claim credit for something unless you've significantly added to it. Copyediting, etc. are normally not noted. If you're worried about that, then I hope I assuaged your concerns. On the flip side, if it's something more, then we may have a problem; while you can ask editors not to add stuff in unless you check it, etc., a central tenet of Wikipedia is that anyone can contribute to any article at any time (tangent point - unless it is protected, but there are special reasons for that). To attempt anything else is to "own" the article; more on that at Wikipedia:Ownership of articles.
This isn't my viewpoint, it's Wikipedia's (in fact, I have disagreements with the whole "ownership" thing, but without it many more of our controversial/disputed topics would be rampant with nationalistic points-of-view). However, being a professional writer, I assume that you realize that one has to conform to required procedures if you want you work published, no matter how inane they are. That's the case here.
I say this not to discourage or drive you away but to try to explain why this could lead to problems. I will return to Triton as soon as I can. Sorry again for the delay, hope your weekend was fun. Kind regards, —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 07:01, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Ed, thank you for the reply. Regarding my technical writing background, my concern was never over ownership but editorial quality control, and my desire was to maintain a consistent tone. For eample, when I was doing contract work for Nortel, my supervisor only sent out PDF files of the documents for review because the engineers kept going behind the back of the assigned writer to alter the original MS Word files. Thus, you can see my concerns in light of footnote 15 in the Operation Sandblast entry. Again, I really do want to go forward with the A-List review with you, TomStar81 et al. I have split the original Triton article into two smaller, more manageable articles, one on the ship itself and one on the submerged circumnavigation. I have looked a tmany of the comments made so far, and I adopted them. If the approach that I earlier outline previously about me serving as the lead writer, and you and your colleagues on WikiProjec military team providing the editorial guidance for upgrading the extant article on Triton is not feasible or contrary to establish procedures, then I am willing to go forward. Please let me know what you think.Marcd30319 (talk) 00:00, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Okay, I think I see. For the most part, going through an A-class/FAC nomination involves (a) people making comments only to the review and (b) people copyediting/tweaking the article. Some may add a little content, but you will always be the primary writer. The problem with Wikipedia v. technical writing is that the engineers are encouraged to "go behind the back of the assigned writer" (WP:BOLD), so don't get angry if an editor adds something; simply remove it if you feel it isn't relevant or work it into your other prose. :) Regards friend, —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 21:59, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

USS Triton (SSRN-586) A-List Review Status
Hi, Ed17!

I have been busy working on the A-list review for the USS Triton article. I have addressed many of the issues that have arisen, revised the article content, and created a The Way Forward section to aid in the process. I also have several issues which I may need some guidnace. Again, thank you for your support and TomStar81 and the rest of the project, too.Marcd30319 (talk) 01:58, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Marc, it's a little late (~3am), so I'll take a look tomorrow. :) —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 07:45, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Many thnaks for you help and support on this! Marcd30319 (talk) 15:35, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
I have nominated this article for Feature Article consideration, with May 11 being the optimum date. Thanks again and any assistance will be greatly appreciated. Marcd30319 (talk) 16:06, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

RFPP

[edit]

As you seem to be active, could you check out the request I made for Pierre McGuire to be semi-protected? Thanks, Connormah (talk | contribs) 04:14, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Done. Regards, —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 04:17, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks so much. It was getting a bit out of hand. Connormah (talk | contribs) 04:20, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
No problem. :) —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 04:20, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Undercover Boss

[edit]

Hey ed17,

Tedder has assumed that because people disagree with the ridiculous way he has edited the Boss reception page, they are SPA.

I'm so keen to edit Tedder's work because he has provided neither balance (which he claims to want to achieve) nor a fair representation.

He has dedicated 151 words to criticism of the show, including six or seven quotes.

In comparison a mere 51 words have been used to quote praise for the show, with just two quotes.

That's not balanced, nor representative (reception to the show has been predominantly positive, see links).

Originally (before Tedder decided his opinion was superior to all who had previously combined to created a balanced (and admittedly positive, for reception has been positive on the whole) edit) there were quotes from 5 print papers complementing the show. Now they have been reduced to a point of near non-existence.

Criticisms are often far-flung (see New York Daily News pans it, saying "we can probably assume Waste Management won't become a workers' paradise." How is this the show's fault? Or representative of the show's reception?), or invalid (see "LA Times called it derivative (being a spinoff of FOX's Secret Millionaire)." ...Boss' producers were behind Millionaire).

I hope you can see that this 'editor' has abused his power, and is clearly biased in matters relating to Boss. I also hope you could edit, or allow someone else to edit, the page in an appropriate matter.

I would love to be contacted in order to be informed of why this is not possible, if you decree it so. I can't see how this is reasonable at all.

BlueRiver28

P.s. Being a new user, I'm unsure of how to ask a question (despite the guide). I hope you can forgive this.

Quoted below is Tedder's edit, (I've put the positive in bold, as you can see it is non-existent)

CBS's premiere of Undercover Boss on February 7, 2010, immediately following the network's coverage of Super Bowl XLIV, delivered 38.6 million viewers, meaning it had the largest audience ever for a new series following the Super Bowl since the advent of people meters in 1987, the largest audience ever to watch the premiere episode of a reality series, the most watched new series premiere overall on television since Dolly on September 27, 1987 (39.47m), and the third largest post-Super Bowl audience behind Friends Special on January 28, 1996 and Survivor: The Australian Outback on January 28, 2001.[6]

The New York Daily News praised it as "an hour of feel-good television for underappreciated workers", but pans it, saying "we can probably assume Waste Management won't become a workers' paradise... [it] also isn't spectacular TV."[7] Reviewers with the Chicago Sun-Times,[8] The Baltimore Sun,[9] and The New York Times complimented the opening episode.[10] "The show is a welcome change from reality concepts based on humiliating people," concluded The Wall Street Journal.[11]

The Washington Post wrote in a negative review, "What we get instead is a hollow catharsis for a nation already strung out on the futility of resenting those who occupy CEO suites."[12] TheStreet.com also exposed the opening episode, calling it a "public relations valentine", and showing that the editing of the show was skewed, stating "The producers of Undercover Boss (at best) failed to do their homework".[13] Entertainment Weekly panned it, calling the first episode a "CBS-organized publicity stunt" and "a recruiting tool for a worker uprising".[14] The Los Angeles Times called it derivative (being a spinoff of FOX's Secret Millionaire) and also that it was 'cooked' for TV, with the low-level workers being hand-picked.[15]

The show received mixed reviews on Metacritic,[16] it currently[when?] holds a 59 out of 100 score. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.35.19.199 (talk) 19:16, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello BlueRiver. I understand your concerns, but removing all negative information is just as bad, if not worse. Wikipedia is not here to serve as a free advertisement for the show. I took the last 20 minutes and read many of the reviews referenced above. All of them severely criticized elements of the show, ranging from "the executive always seems to be paired with an earnest employee-of-the-month type" (Wall Street Journal) to various comments about the 'we'll be forming a task force' ending. (Chicago Sun-Times, Washington Post, New York Times). The Washington Post was especially critical. I really don't see a reception that was "positive on the whole." If anything, I'd say that it was somewhat negative. I think the section is impartial, but I do agree with you that the New York Daily News quote is a little out-of-place. Regards, —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 19:53, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I do appreciate that ed17, and I appreciate you taking the time. I agree wholeheartedly in terms of providing solely positive information, that was more of a reaction to Tedder's insistence on a 3:1 negative ratio. I apologise. While the print media have, admittedly, not been overly positive the overall reception to the show has not been negative, let alone by a ratio of 3:1! I agree that there should be a balance, but Tedder is not capable of providing that. A 1:1 ratio would be balanced, and if would be nice if the positive reaction to the show could be documented in a more thorough and wholehearted way. If the page was not semi-protected I'm sure a balance, incorporating a variety of editor's opinions, could be achieved. Those who aren't anti-Boss (like Tedder is) could provide the positive part, and substantiate it.

It's simply that currently the show is one of the most popular shows on television with an average audience of around 22.5m, and the reception section really does not portray this due to seemingly one-sided editing.

Thanks ed17.

--BlueRiver28 (talk) 20:08, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Appreciate the rewrite ed17. Far more balanced.

--BlueRiver28 (talk) 20:19, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You're welcome. My rewrite is probably still negative; 1:1 is not possible because most of the critics criticized the show. Keep in mind that audience != critical receptions. I don't have any examples off the top of my head, but many critically derided movies have turned around and had plenty of viewers. I don't think that Tedder is "anti-Boss." From what I have seen of him around the wiki, he is a level-headed and good guy. We all have different opinions as to what "balanced", "impartial", and "NPOV" are; for an extreme example, a far-right conservative would think Conservapedia is neutral. I think that, based on some of the reviews, more negativity could be included into Undercover Boss' article, but the current version's summary works well enough. Regards, —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 20:28, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Battleships portal

[edit]

Be aware that this does not have the fate of the vessel, such a glaring omission for a selected article blurb don't you think? I'd bet the lead of the article needs to be modified as well. -MBK004 04:05, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Done, good catch MBK. :) —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 05:20, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

New to Military History Project

[edit]

Hi, I am a student and am working on an article on the Effect of World War 1 on Children in the United States for my Shaping of the Modern World history class, instructed by user: Auntieruth55. I am working on this article with user: santolinek, where our sandbox is located. We have a rough outline of our article, if you have any questions or comments please feel free to let us know!

Thank you very much! :) Donovank (talk) 04:24, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello! I've taken the liberty of making a few changes; I hope you like them. I can't give many comments at this stage because you only have a paragraph, but I would format my short citations with "Author, Title, page". I've found that doing this makes it a lot easier to find the full citation in the sources list.
I see that you are an elementary education major; what subject are you specializing in? I'm a secondary education-social studies major/history minor. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 05:04, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks so much! We added more to the article, we have to figure out how to put a picture on, and which picture we want to use, but we're still reading about the rules. :) If you wouldn't mind looking over what we wrote, we would really appreciate it! I am majoring in elementary with a minor in English and my partner for this project is majoring in secondary ed and a major in english! Donovank (talk) 03:59, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Ed, thanks for your assistance on the article. Would you offer some help on the cite templates, esp the named templates, if appropriate here? Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:10, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
It's no problem at all. Of course I can teach them how to use the citing template (unless they really want to use MLA or Chicago), but by "named templates" do you mean WP:REFNAME? —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 16:30, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
whatever they want to use is fine, as long as it's consistent. Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:16, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Okay —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 19:32, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 22 February 2010

[edit]
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 12:51, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews

[edit]

Any help you can offer here over the next few days would be very helpful. J Milburn (talk) 00:34, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi J, I should be able to help out with at least one article tomorrow night. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 05:10, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
I don't know if you know anything about basketball, but it would be great if you could review Basketball Association of America. That's the only one on the list as of now that urgently needs input. J Milburn (talk) 13:13, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
On it. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 03:11, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Okay, Ironholds took BAB and I need to talk to you on IRC about the other. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 03:31, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

[edit]

Hey. Thanks for that. That account was created just for that edit; how sad :(

Sorry I missed your rise to adminship back in September (I've been pretty inactive for the past few months). I was actually in the US in September.

Cheers. Oliver Fury, Esq. message • contributions 22:37, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Heh, no problem. You can try to leave, but vandals will always target you! ;) Don't worry about it, we all have real lives to attend to. Where did you go in the States? —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 03:11, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Florida. Oliver Fury, Esq. message • contributions 12:13, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Exciting. A bit warmer there than Britain, probably ;) —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 04:21, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

FAR

[edit]

Hello Ed, How are you doing?

You said:

"I'm sorry Tony, but I spotted the problems and decided to nominate it. Could you at least comment on this point? "Second, I'm not sure this article should be an article; can anyone give me another example of an article about the citizens of a country in a war? I can't find any besides Hispanic Americans in World War II (also written by Tony); otherwise, the only ones I can find are about countries in wars, like Military history of Canada during the Second World War." Again, I'm sorry for all this, but that's the nature of FARs"

  • Ed, I am really inpressed with your contributions in Wikipedia. 9 FA, damn that's good. I honestly do not take the FAR of the article personally. It may have seemed that way since I stated that "I don't have the time for this", which I meant that certain factors of real world life, such as age, health and family have caught up with me and therefore my computer time is limited. With time some references no longer appear as websites and Wikipedia rules have changed, understandable. Your concerns are legit and I respect that.

You state that you don't consider Puerto Ricans in World War II an article just because you can't find another example of an article about the citizens of a country in a war. I don't think that just because you couldn't find another example it makes it much less of an article. I guess that everyone is entitled to their own opinion and I also respect that. In my opinion the article or articles are encyclopedic, educational and instructional. The contributions which Puerto Ricans and Hispanics have made to the United States have for too long been ignored by historians, the same ones that up to recent years have ignored the contributions made by the African Americans, and have fallen into the cracks of time often to be forgotten. My work here on Hispanic history has been acclaimed by governments, universities and believe it or not the Pentagon itself. As a matter of fact this week I received an e-mail from the members of the University of Puerto Rico at Mayagüez chapter of 'Students for Free Culture' who held a meeting at the Free Culture Conference in DC stating that : "Santiago is the one who has done such incredible work on documenting the Puerto Rican people and cultural topics on Wikipedia that has been recognized by the Senate of Puerto Rico." Like I said, I respect the opinions of everyone in regard to the articles that I have written or created, but for me what really counts is the positive opinions of respected institutions outside of Wikipedia including the Government of Puerto Rico.

Take care and have a great day. Tony the Marine (talk) 04:24, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Tony, just a note to say that I have seen this and will respond at some point tomorrow —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 07:43, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the compliment! I was attempting to ask the opinion of FAR reviewers as to whether this is an appropriate topic for an article, given that I could find only one that was similar. You say "[t]he contributions which Puerto Ricans and Hispanics have made to the United States have for too long been ignored by historians, the same ones that up to recent years have ignored the contributions made by the African Americans, and have fallen into the cracks of time often to be forgotten." IMHO, I don't believe that it really matters (hopefully not coming across as racist, I'm not and it's not meant to). I'm white/caucasian/whatever the politically correct term is now, so I probably don't fully understand the specifics of the culture shared among Hispanics and African Americans, but I just don't see a need to recognize the achievements of particular men simply and only because they were Hispanic/Puerto Rican/African American and won a medal or two. If they won, say, the Medal of Honor or a similar top-end medal, then a mention of his race in their article might be appropriate, but I don't think we need a articles to document the war-related achievements of a single race or an island's natives, regardless of what the Puerto Rican government says. I'm not biased on the subject (as far as I know?) and I'm not going to go on a hate-spewing spree against these types of articles, but do you see what I am trying to say? Perhaps I'm just ignorant of race issues, being that I live in an area that is 95% white. :) Kind regards, —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 21:16, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Thank you Ed, your response is well received, As I said before, it all is a matter of opinion. You take care and keep up the good job on your creation of military related articles. I say this not to patronize you, but because it is the truth. Tony the Marine (talk) 23:17, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey

[edit]

Replied in the same place. J Milburn (talk) 09:22, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. Things are going fairly smoothly. J Milburn (talk) 17:34, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Response from Marcd30319 re: USS Triton (SSRN-586)

[edit]

Hello, Ed, my response is here.Marcd30319 (talk) 20:09, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:The_ed17/Archives/25&oldid=1143369539"