User:The ed17/Archives/32
Hooray for communist nonsense sources about 200:1 kill ratios YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 02:31, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
- Heh, I've commented there. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:45, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Talkback
[edit]
Message added 20:43, 3 September 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Rivadavia
[edit]Hey Ed, congrats on the successful FA! While I'm here, let me remind you to put the three articles up for GTC. I took the liberty of mocking up the box for you here, all you need to do is create the nomination page and the book. Parsecboy (talk) 12:33, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks Parsec, I've nominated it. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:07, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Novels welcome template
[edit]Which template are you using for the Welcome for new Novels users?Sadads (talk) 16:31, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
- The syntax is
{{subst:Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Outreach/Welcome|signed=~~~~}}. It's on WP:NOVO as well. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 16:32, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Talkback
[edit]Message added 19:53, 6 September 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
The Signpost: 6 September 2010
[edit]- Book review: Cognitive Surplus, by Clay Shirky
- WikiProject report: Putting articles in their place: the Uncategorized Task Force
- Features and admins: Bumper crop of admins; Obama featured portal marks our 150th
- Arbitration report: Interim desysopping, CU/OS appointments, and more
- Technology report: Development transparency, resource loading, GSoC: extension management
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LIV (August 2010)
[edit]
|
|
A recap of the month's new Featured and A-Class articles, including a new featured sound |
Our newest A-class medal recipients and this August's top contestants |
|
|
To change your delivery options for this newsletter please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 23:52, 7 September 2010 (UTC) | |
Uboat.net
[edit]While my FAC on the German Type UB I submarine failed because Uboat.net was used too often in the article's text, is the site still considered a WP:RS that can be used for things outside of FAC such as DYK, GAN and ACR? I belive the issue was that it was not a high quality RS and just a regular RS but I still want to make sure before I continue to work on U-boat related articles :) Thanks! --White Shadows Your guess is as good as mine 01:39, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, the site (in my opinion) is reliable, but it does not meet the high-quality criterion of FA. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:41, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks.--White Shadows Your guess is as good as mine 15:51, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
WikiProject Connecticut Autumn 2010 Photo Contest
[edit]
  |
As a member of WikiProject Connecticut, you are invited to participate in the WikiProject Connecticut AUTUMN 2010 Photo Contest! Rules:
Everyone who adds 15 pictures will earn a barnstar, and the editor who adds the most pictures will earn a special unique barnstar! To enter the contest, click here. Thanks for your attention and good luck! –Grondemar 04:14, 13 September 2010 (UTC) |
- If I still lived in Connecticut, I would definitely participate...but Marquette, Michigan is halfway across the country. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:35, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LIV (August 2010)
[edit]
|
|
A recap of the month's new Featured and A-Class articles, including a new featured sound |
Our newest A-class medal recipients and this August's top contestants |
|
|
To change your delivery options for this newsletter please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 23:52, 7 September 2010 (UTC) | |
Coordinating
[edit]Thanks for the kind words. I had actually been havering about it last night but given up, decided to sleep on it, and gone to bed just before you posted! Shimgray | talk | 18:23, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
The Signpost: 13 September 2010
[edit]- News and notes: Page-edit stats, French National Library partnership, Mass page blanking, Jimbo on Pending changes
- Public Policy Initiative: Experiments with article assessment
- Sister projects: Biography bloopers – update on the Death Anomalies collaboration
- WikiProject report: Getting the picture – an interview with the Graphic lab
- Features and admins: "Magnificent" warthog not so cute, says featured picture judge
- Arbitration report: Tricky and Lengthy Dispute Resolution
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
regarding Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr.
[edit]Hi: The edit dispute on this page seems very stale. Is it still necessary to have it permanently protected after 3 months? RayTalk 06:06, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
- I've removed it, thanks for the note. I'm not sure why I set the protection to indef before... Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:09, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Hey there
[edit]- (Replying to earlier) Ah, sorry to have caused worries. When I burn out, I burn out hard and fast. But I think I'm back now. :) - The Bushranger Return fireFlank speed 22:35, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
- I can tell! Either way, we're all excited to have you back. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:48, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
- (Replying to earlier) Ah, sorry to have caused worries. When I burn out, I burn out hard and fast. But I think I'm back now. :) - The Bushranger Return fireFlank speed 22:35, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
FYI
[edit]In regards to this, you might also want to look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/South Dakota class battleship (1939). This definitely seems childish and definitely is stepping on toes. Especially when one considers that the Iowa class has been Tom's baby for half a decade! I've asked him to withdraw both noms: User_talk:WikiCopter#A-Class_reviews -MBK004 05:51, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
- Although it's probably a good thing for the So Dok article (because it's probably ready!), the Iowas would simply take too much work that people aren't willing to put in. This is why FAC has the rule that significant contributors be consulted... Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 14:00, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Lolwut?
[edit]Can you give an example of how I "see Wikipedia through a politicized glass too often"? - Dank (push to talk) 13:26, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
- That was a poorly thought-out inside joke – I've sent you an email and refactored the vote. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 14:00, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks, I'll go check my mail :) - Dank (push to talk) 14:51, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
The Milhist election has started!
[edit]The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. You are cordially invited to help pick fourteen new coordinators from a pool of twenty candidates. This time round, the term has increased from six to twelve months so it is doubly important that you have your say! Please cast your vote here no later than 23:59 (UTC) on Tuesday, 28 September 2010.
With many thanks in advance for your participation from the coordinator team, Roger Davies talk 19:42, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Ping.
[edit]—La Pianista ♫ ♪ 03:53, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Category updating
[edit]A question, if you would allow me. In our project we have a very large number of ship-related articles, from stub-class to Featured level. How often are these categories updated? I ask because I am working thorough the stub articles, attempting with some success to upgrade them (so far Colossus, Ajax, Vanguard, Superb, Condorcet and Charles Martel) and while most of these have now been re-assessed, at my request, as B-level, they still show on the gross listing as stubs. I also see a number of ship articles, for instance the King Edward VII pre-dreadnoughts, which are lavelled as stubs and clearly are not. I ask because if we want people to improve these articles it helps if we can see which ones most need attention. Regards. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 17:39, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
- They are automatically placed in the proper categories when they are reassessed, so I'm guessing your problem is a caching issue. Try Wikipedia:Bypass your cache. Regards, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:52, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
- To confirm my reputation as a talkpage stalker, I think that he might be talking about the individual lists by country which are updated by hand. The bot only calculated gross totals of each grade.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:13, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
- The OMT lists or 0.8's? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 07:09, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
- The problem appears to be arising when articles are assessed differently for different pojects. HMS Colossus (1910) for instance, which I recently upgraded, is now a B-level article in Wikiproject Ships assessment; but is still assessed as a Stub in Miltary History Project. And this appears to cause it to show as a Stub in the list on the Wikiproject Ships page, which it should not. I apologise for not making this clear at first. I am not a software expert, but I suspect the bot is placing articles on the basis of whichever category it sees as the lowest, without having the ability to define category on a per-project basis. For comparison the article French battleship Condorcet (1909) which I also recently enhanced, has received a B-rating in both projects and does not now show as a Stub in the Wikiproject Ships listing, as indeed is correct. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 11:24, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
- Oh, I see your problem. If someone has reassessed an article for WP:Ships but not Milhist, feel free to change the Milhist rating. Regards, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 17:22, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
- OK, fine. I didn't feel comfortable rationalising a rating on my own expansion without sensible authorisation.--Anthony Bradbury"talk" 21:34, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
- Oh, I see your problem. If someone has reassessed an article for WP:Ships but not Milhist, feel free to change the Milhist rating. Regards, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 17:22, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
- The problem appears to be arising when articles are assessed differently for different pojects. HMS Colossus (1910) for instance, which I recently upgraded, is now a B-level article in Wikiproject Ships assessment; but is still assessed as a Stub in Miltary History Project. And this appears to cause it to show as a Stub in the list on the Wikiproject Ships page, which it should not. I apologise for not making this clear at first. I am not a software expert, but I suspect the bot is placing articles on the basis of whichever category it sees as the lowest, without having the ability to define category on a per-project basis. For comparison the article French battleship Condorcet (1909) which I also recently enhanced, has received a B-rating in both projects and does not now show as a Stub in the Wikiproject Ships listing, as indeed is correct. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 11:24, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
- The OMT lists or 0.8's? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 07:09, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
- To confirm my reputation as a talkpage stalker, I think that he might be talking about the individual lists by country which are updated by hand. The bot only calculated gross totals of each grade.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:13, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
proposition
[edit]Hey, Ed
A thought has just occurred to me, taking inspiration from Parsec's "Battlecruisers of Germany" FT. If I can get List of battlecruisers of Japan to GA/FL status, and you could get Japanese battlecruiser Amagi to GA, we could co-nom a Good Topic "Battlecruisers of Japan". You up for it? Cam (Chat)(Prof) 03:19, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
- Hey Cam, I don't think Amagi has enough information to warrant a separate article. She was destroyed and scrapped on the slipway, unlike Tosa, which was used for a series of very notable armament tests. I think we can redirect that to the class article. To make a list of battlecruisers of Japan, I think we'll need someone with Conway's 1860–1905 for the Tsukuba and Ibuki class. Also, did I ever mention that I have Warships of the Imperial Japanese Navy 1869–1945? :D It's basically a Conway's for the IJN. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:52, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
- I have the Conway's 1860-1905 edition, and I think Sturm does as well. I was thinking the same with re: Amagi, Ed. Parsecboy (talk) 03:59, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
- I think that I've got some stuff from Warship and Warship International on both those classes, although I honestly don't think that they count as BCs, despite what the Japanese might have called them briefly. They're only 21-knotters with mixed armament. And, yes, Amagi should probably be turned into a redirect.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:10, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
- I don't think so either – ridiculously large and over-armed cruisers would be a better description – but I don't think we can (or should) arbitrarily exclude them. If anyone's got a handy quote from someone that says they were battlecruisers in name only, we should definitely put that in a note. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 07:08, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
- I think that I've got some stuff from Warship and Warship International on both those classes, although I honestly don't think that they count as BCs, despite what the Japanese might have called them briefly. They're only 21-knotters with mixed armament. And, yes, Amagi should probably be turned into a redirect.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:10, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
- I have the Conway's 1860-1905 edition, and I think Sturm does as well. I was thinking the same with re: Amagi, Ed. Parsecboy (talk) 03:59, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Janes Fighting Ships 1914 classifies both Tsukuba and Ibuki as "Armoured Ships"; of course, at the time they were built the term Battlecruiser did not exist, and I suspect that the application of this appellation to these ships is retrospective. Amagi, the sister-ship of Akagi, was lainched in 1922 but virtually destroyed by earthquake and fire in September 1923. I feel that there is little scope for an article there. It could be argued that the Imperial Japanese Navy never possessed any battlecruisers, as the four ships of the Kongo class, so designated in European literature, were classified in Japan as battleships. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 11:39, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, this is true, but the Kongo ships were only reclassified as such after extensive reconstruction in the mid-to-late 1920's. They started life as battlecruisers, 27 knots w/ 8x14. Their battleship equivalent at the time was Fuso, 22 knots w/ 12x14. They were conceived, ordered, and started life as battlecruisers. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 18:38, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
- University of Ottawa Library has Conway's 1860-1907 and 1939-1945. I'll probably be able to get over there on Tuesday and take a look at it (I have Tuesday off. I love it!) Cam (Chat)(Prof) 18:43, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
- Don't bother, neither ship is in the 1860-1905 Conway's. Jentshura calls both armored cruisers. They're pretty comparable to the Warrior-class armoured cruisers of the RN, except that their main armament is heavier (12-inch vs. 9.2-inch) which is probably where the proto-battlecruiser comment originates.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:14, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
- Just to note, the Tsukuba and Ibuki classes are covered in Conways 1906-1921. Parsecboy (talk) 19:08, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
- University of Ottawa Library has Conway's 1860-1907 and 1939-1945. I'll probably be able to get over there on Tuesday and take a look at it (I have Tuesday off. I love it!) Cam (Chat)(Prof) 18:43, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, this is true, but the Kongo ships were only reclassified as such after extensive reconstruction in the mid-to-late 1920's. They started life as battlecruisers, 27 knots w/ 8x14. Their battleship equivalent at the time was Fuso, 22 knots w/ 12x14. They were conceived, ordered, and started life as battlecruisers. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 18:38, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
And are both classified therein as Battlecruisers. But I remain convinced that this a retrospective identification. As we all agree, they do not possess battlecruiser characteristics.--Anthony Bradbury"talk" 21:31, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
- They've got 1906-1921 as well. I can take out up to 100 books from either of the two libraries for two weeks. I'm still going. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 00:57, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
- @Anthony: The IJN officially classified them as BCs from 1912 to 1921. Parsecboy (talk) 01:21, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
- Wouldn't be the first time that a navy has screwed something up by our standards. They're not BCs because they're not fast (20.5 kn!) and have mixed armament, although they do have the standard armored cruiser/BC light armor, but that doesn't count either way.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:36, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
- Alright then, we have consensus to not include them. :-) We still need to include a note though – to explain why we aren't including them. However, do we really need a list for only two classes (Kongo and Amagi)? The only other class I can think of is Number 13 class battleship, because if I remember right, Conway's 1906–21 classifies them as battlecruisers. (I don't have the book here with me at college) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:02, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
- The #13's are a bit of an odd case, because they've got the speed of a battlecruiser, but the firepower and armour of either a heavily upgraded German battlecruiser or a Japanese battleship (same gun type as Yamato, 13in armour belt). I'll swing over to U of O this weekend and see if I can find Conway's 1906-21 and take a look. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 15:00, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
- Alright then, we have consensus to not include them. :-) We still need to include a note though – to explain why we aren't including them. However, do we really need a list for only two classes (Kongo and Amagi)? The only other class I can think of is Number 13 class battleship, because if I remember right, Conway's 1906–21 classifies them as battlecruisers. (I don't have the book here with me at college) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:02, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
- Wouldn't be the first time that a navy has screwed something up by our standards. They're not BCs because they're not fast (20.5 kn!) and have mixed armament, although they do have the standard armored cruiser/BC light armor, but that doesn't count either way.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:36, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
- @Anthony: The IJN officially classified them as BCs from 1912 to 1921. Parsecboy (talk) 01:21, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
- They've got 1906-1921 as well. I can take out up to 100 books from either of the two libraries for two weeks. I'm still going. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 00:57, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Return and tranche
[edit]Hi
Apologies for my unexplained absence - I was pretty ill with flu in the early part of the month after returning from a wikibreak and after that had some problems with my pc and my isp.
It looks as though I may have missed the deadline now unfortunately.
Apologies to all involved and I will make my apologies on other pages in the next hour or so.
Sorry for any inconvenience caused and for not replying sooner
Chaosdruid (talk) 16:01, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
The Signpost: 20 September 2010
[edit]- From the editor: New ways to read and share the Signpost
- News and notes: Dutch National Archives donation, French photo raid, brief notes
- In the news: Rush Limbaugh falls for Wikipedia hoax, Public Policy Initiative, Nature cites Wikipedia
- WikiProject report: All Aboard WikiProject Trains
- Features and admins: The best of the week
- Dispatches: Tools, part 2: Internal links and page histories
- Arbitration report: Discretionary sanctions clarification and more
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
Judge needed!
[edit]Hey, could you please act as an impartial judge in this discussion, and make the call as necessary? There are three pictures (one featured, two valued) for which Tony is claiming points. The featured picture required Tony to contact the author a few times, one of the valued pictures is a crop of a photograph which in which Tony cloned out a logo, and the other is a photo on which Tony blurred out the number plates. I started a discussion about the FPC (the valued images were raised by White Shadows), but Tony has (probably fairly) pointed out that having other participants judge his contributions really defeats the point of having judges. J Milburn (talk) 12:04, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
I've replied to everything.--White Shadows Your guess is as good as mine 23:06, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Dear WikiCup judge, time for a MFD
[edit]It just ends up flooding the place with stub DYK/GA and cheapshot noms YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 02:19, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Erin
[edit]I had an inkling that that was a copyvio way back when I was writing the Reshadieh class. Smooth move. Buggie111 (talk) 18:56, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks, but the credit has to go to VernoWhitney and the guy who posted a message to Parsec's talk page. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:00, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
FYI
[edit]Since you ruled on nominated versions as opposed to the promoted versions in which I was the primary editor, I call your attention to this edit.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:32, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
- I removed them again; it's still not enough. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:29, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
The Signpost: 27 September 2010
[edit]- News and notes: French million, controversial content, Citizendium charter, Pending changes, and more
- WikiProject report: Designing WikiProject Architecture
- Features and admins: The best of the week
- Arbitration report: EEML amendment requests & more
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
1993 NSWRL season
[edit]Hi. Just with this move request. You seemed to have missed the 1993 NSWRL season. Cheers.--Jeff79 (talk) 07:16, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
- Hey, sorry. You didn't miss it. It just needs the 'F' in 'NSWRFL' removed. I tried to move it but I can't.--Jeff79 (talk) 15:45, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
- No problem, I must have had a typo. Thanks for telling me! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:16, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
- Cheers. Another small thing. I'd like to properly create a Luke Phillips article but when I try I can't.--Jeff79 (talk) 18:37, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry, I missed this with the other new messages below. I've unprotected the page. It had been salted for being repeatedly recreated in March 2009. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:53, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
- Cheers. Another small thing. I'd like to properly create a Luke Phillips article but when I try I can't.--Jeff79 (talk) 18:37, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
- No problem, I must have had a typo. Thanks for telling me! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:16, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
- Hey, sorry. You didn't miss it. It just needs the 'F' in 'NSWRFL' removed. I tried to move it but I can't.--Jeff79 (talk) 15:45, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Talkback
[edit]You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Grsz11 19:27, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
submariner coming up for air
[edit]I looked at my account and realized that I've not made a content post in a loooonnnnnnggggg time. Trying to finish this dissertation! A couple of students are finally finishing their articles from last semester, too. How time flies. I wanted to thank you for your help with the online projects, though. You gave timely encouragement and appropriate advice, and my students appreciated your generosity of time and talent! auntieruth (talk) 21:50, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks Auntie, but if I remember right, I really didn't do much more then welcome all of them. :-) Feel free to send them my way if they need any further assistance! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:45, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Chilean battleship Almirante Latorre
[edit]I think this is a very funny coincidence. I'm working on the Almirante Latorre (User:Bernstein2291/Sandbox) and I was doing research when i found a link to your work on the article. I was wondering if we could work together on it. Bernstein2291 (Talk • Contributions • Sign Here) 23:41, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
- Sure, but you're going to have to watch for plagiarism, like:
- Your article: "Santiago was able to be laid down when Rio de Janeiro slid into water on January 22 1913. Within months the Imperial Russian Navy made an offer to buy both ships. However, Chile declined their offer despite the substantial profit involved."
- Versus the source: "When the Brazilian battleship, since purchased by Turkey, slid into the water in January 1913, Almirante Cochrane was laid down on her slip a week later. Within a few months the Imperial Russian Navy made an offer to buy the pair of battleships, but the Chileans declined despite the substantial profit involved."[1]
- Also, Bennighoff isn't reliable. He's parroting stuff from other published works (or so I found a little after Design 1047 battlecruiser, when I purchased Axis and Neutral Battleships in World War II), and we need to find them. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:45, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
- Great. Bernstein2291 (Talk • Contributions • Sign Here) 00:55, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
- Is this a reliable resource? Latorre battleship(english translation) Bernstein2291 (Talk • Contributions • Sign Here) 18:32, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
- I also found this. The Dreadnoughts and the Battleship Almirante Latorre Bernstein2291 (Talk • Contributions • Sign Here) 18:46, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
- The first one looks to be self-published, but the header at the top of the second may indicate that it is part of an official project... Also, I wonder if it would be possible to get "El Acorazado Almirante Latorre , autor Gerald L. Wood, edited by Navy Magazine, 1988, Number 784, pages 255 to 286 Wood, editado por Revista de Marina , 1988, Número 784, páginas 255 a la 286" ... Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:08, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you! I really appreciate that you helped me with the article. Bernstein2291 (Talk • Contributions • Sign Here) 03:24, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
- You're welcome, although I did overwrite many of your additions. :/ Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:26, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
- It's not a matter of who wrote what, but the quality of the article. Do you think we should add that parts of the ship were used to restore Japanese battleship Mikasa? Bernstein2291 (Talk • Contributions • Sign Here) 20:19, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- It's on the Main page!!!!! Thank you. Bernstein2291 (Talk • Contributions • Sign Here) 02:27, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
- It's not a matter of who wrote what, but the quality of the article. Do you think we should add that parts of the ship were used to restore Japanese battleship Mikasa? Bernstein2291 (Talk • Contributions • Sign Here) 20:19, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- You're welcome, although I did overwrite many of your additions. :/ Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:26, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you! I really appreciate that you helped me with the article. Bernstein2291 (Talk • Contributions • Sign Here) 03:24, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
- The first one looks to be self-published, but the header at the top of the second may indicate that it is part of an official project... Also, I wonder if it would be possible to get "El Acorazado Almirante Latorre , autor Gerald L. Wood, edited by Navy Magazine, 1988, Number 784, pages 255 to 286 Wood, editado por Revista de Marina , 1988, Número 784, páginas 255 a la 286" ... Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:08, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
- I also found this. The Dreadnoughts and the Battleship Almirante Latorre Bernstein2291 (Talk • Contributions • Sign Here) 18:46, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Congrats!
[edit]
Congrats on your election as Coordinator of the Military history Project! In honor of your achievement, I present you with these stars. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:06, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks Tom! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:45, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Pong
[edit]I think I've replied to your most recent. J Milburn (talk) 20:46, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks
[edit]
|
The WikiProject Barnstar | |
| In gratitude of your service as coordinator for the Military history Project from March 2010 to September 2010, I hereby award you this WikiProject Barnstar. —TomStar81 (Talk) 23:15, 29 September 2010 (UTC) |
WikiCup 2010 September newsletter
[edit]
We are half-way through our final round, entering the home straight. 
TonyTheTiger (submissions) leads at the time of writing with 1180 points, immediately followed by 
Sasata (submissions) with 1175 points. 
Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) closely follows in third place with 1100 points. For those who are interested, data about the finalists has been compiled at Wikipedia:WikiCup/History/2010/finalists, while a list of content submitted by all WikiCup contestants prior to this round has been compiled at Wikipedia:WikiCup/History/2010/Submissions. As ever, anything contestants worry may not receive the necessary attention before the end of the round (such as outstanding GA or FA nominations) is welcome at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews, and please remember to continue offering reviews yourself where possible. As always, the judges are available to contact via email, IRC or their talk pages, and general discussion about the Cup is welcome on the WikiCup talk page.
Despite controversy, the WikiCup remains open. Signups for next year's competition are more than welcome, and suggestions for how next year's competition will work are appreciated at Wikipedia talk:WikiCup/Scoring. More general comments and discussions should be directed at the WikiCup talk page. One month remains in the 2010 WikiCup, after which we will know our champion. Good luck everyone! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox and The ed17 23:10, 30 September 2010 (UTC)