User:The ed17/Archives/42

WikiCup 2011 June newsletter

We are half way through 2011, and entering the penultimate round of this year's WikiCup; the semi-finals are upon us! Points scored in the interim (29/30 June) may be counted towards next round, but please do not update your submissions' pages until the next round has begun. 16 contestants remain, and all have shown dedication to the project to reach this far. Our round leader was Casliber (submissions) who, among other things, successfully passed three articles through featured article candidates and claimed an impressive 29 articles at Did You Know, scoring 555 points. Casliber led pool D. Pool A was led by Wizardman (submissions), claiming points for a featured article, a featured list and seven good article reviews, while pool C was led by Eisfbnore (submissions), who claimed for two good articles, ten articles at Did You Know and four good article reviews. They scored 154 and 118 respectively. Pool B was by far our most competitive pool; six of the eight competitors made it through to round 4, with all of them scoring over 100 points. The pool was led by Hurricanehink (submissions), who claimed for, among other things, three featured articles and five good articles. In addition to the four pool leaders, 12 others (the four second places, and the 8 next highest overall) make up our final 16. The lowest scorer who reached round 4 scored 76 points; a significant increase on the 41 needed to reach round 3. Eight of our semi-finalists scored at least twice as much as this.

No points were awarded this round for featured pictures, good topics or In the News, and no points have been awarded in the whole competition for featured topics, featured portals or featured sounds. Instead, the highest percentage of points has come from good articles. Featured articles, despite their high point cost, are low in number, and so, overall, share a comparable number of points with Did You Know, which are high in number but low in cost. A comparatively small but still considerable number of points come from featured lists and good article reviews, rounding out this round's overall scores.

We would again like to thank Jarry1250 (submissions) and Stone (submissions) for invaluable background work, as well as all of those helping to provide reviews for the articles listed on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Please do keep using it, and please do help by providing reviews for the articles listed there. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews generally at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup.

Two final notes: Firstly, please remember to state your participation in the WikiCup when nominating articles at FAC. Finally, some WikiCup-related statistics can be seen here and here, for those interested, though it appears that neither are completely accurate at this time. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! 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 and The ed17 23:41, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Triple Crown nomination

Hi The ed17, it has been nearly a month since I wrote to you regarding your TC nomination. I'm not sure if you are still keen to pursue this. You need to provide evidence to support your nom. I understand if you are busy and do not have the time to do this. I'm just letting you know that I will clear the nom on 6 July 2011 (1 month since original nomination), if no action is taken to move it forward. When you have the time, you can renominate it again. Thanks and best wishes. – SMasters (talk) 07:40, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding me, I'll try to get to it asap, but if I don't, I'm fine with you removing it. Regards, Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 18:12, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Russian Empire (again)

Just a spotcheck, I've added a lot more sources to the article, do you think that the sourcing, as is, is suitable? Those books are taking forever to arrive, unfortunately. There are a few topics that are, so far, only covered in Stone, for instance the underrated Münnich. ResMar 02:53, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Also, there's a Military history of [x] during World War II for all of the major powers, but none for Russia! I seen an opportunity here ;) ResMar 03:12, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Much better. I'd prefer at least one more book that focuses on the entire military history of Russia (to ensure you get a balanced perspective), though. Re WWII, good god, g'luck. You will have a lot of source discrepancies with communist histories vs. western histories vs. revisionist histories vs. modern scholarly works. I'd recommend a healthy dose of explanatory notes for the differences, similar to what I did in Brazilian cruiser Bahia#Loss except much more complex. :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 03:32, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the best reference is in central storage :/. As for WWII, now that I have this system worked out, I can just get a stack of books together and pile through it; although you're right, it'll probably be harder then I thought it would. But the article still deserves to exist, so...Res Mar 04:36, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Wow, the cheapest I found online for that book was $75. All but one were over $100. Do any other NY libraries have it? Like I said, good luck with the WWII article. The only other advice I have is to try to get references from Russia and the West that also go from the Cold War to today. The CW, or more specifically anti-Communism, tended to influence many historians during that time. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:24, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations

		The WikiChevrons
		The WikiChevrons are hereby bestowed upon The_ed17 for his efforts in the June 2011 Military History monthly article writing Contest, placing equal first with a total of 21 points from one article. Well done! Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 16:35, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Rupert, much appreciated. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:24, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Arizona

Ed, we need to standardize our formatting for refs and citations. All the journals cited are going to need place of publication and publisher. Since we have no authors with multiple books in our refs, I see no need to provide a title with each cite and am just using author, p. #. I just got Stillwell from ILL and am reminded why I'm not so fond of Friedman's books. Anyways, I wanted to ask how you want to handle the modernizations? I tend to put them in chronological order like I did with the Renown and Repulse articles, but I've also placed them in the basic descriptive paragraphs as appropriate. What do you think?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:30, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not bothered by author, page#, I'm just used to going by Chicago style. All my history professors required it for my papers in the last three semesters and I got in the habit of writing out the citations. Whichever way you want is fine by me. Stillwell provides a lot of information we're not going to use, but it's certainly a bit more interesting than Friedman's design-oriented histories :-) I usually put modernizations in chronological order and save the dirty details for the class article, so the ship articles are focused on the service history and the class articles are focused on the design history. So yes, chronological is fine with me haha Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 07:39, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I think that JSTOR has access to these two articles that we probably need to reference: John F. De Virgilio. Seven Seconds to Infamy, Naval Institute Proceedings, 123(12) Dec. 97, pp. 62-65 and Rodgaard, John, et al. Death of the Arizona, Naval History 15(6) Dec. 01, pp. 22-28. Email copies to me if you can get them, if not let me know and we can figure out how else to get them.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:46, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

NMU's site seems to be broken at the moment, but I think that's because they've overhauled the whole library's site. From memory they have old Proceedings in print form, so I should be able to get it assuming it's not in storage. I don't think they'll have the other one, but again, that's from memory – I'll try again tomorrow or Monday (I'm still in Boston and I'm flying back tomorrow!) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 15:59, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

No hurries, I'm not exactly working at frentic pace myself.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:16, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

WT:WikiProject Military history/Strategy#Ambassadorship

Interested in your thoughts. - Dank (push to talk) 16:12, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

This Month in GLAM: June 2011

This Month in GLAM – Volume I, Issue VI, June 2011 From the team • News in brief UK report • Event calendar
To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

Unsubscribe · Global message delivery 17:16, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

List of battlecruisers of Japan

Hello

Right now I am translating List of battlecruisers of Japan and I have many problem with guns and other stuff what use "Convert" template. For example in Amagi there is info that main guns have 410 mm, and in "Amagi" there is info that they have 406 mm. Probably something is wrong with that template, but I don`t know how to fix it. It`s strange that this article is featured list - for sure nobody from Europe (cm\mm country) was in creation of that article.

I see this error many, many time on en.wiki ships. It`s very annoying. 100 mm or 102 mm, 406 or 410 mm, and so on.PMG (talk) 15:41, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Those are rounding errors. The template will round off itself to the number of digits in the input. For inch measurements that typically means 1 or 2 digits, thus 4 inches is converted to 100 mm rather than 102 mm and 12 inches to 300 mm rather than 305 mm. The thing to do is to force the template not to round at all by adding "|0" to it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:17, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Sturm, that's exactly why it's wrong. I'm not a huge fan of the convert template. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:26, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Its possible to change this using bot? Let`s say "change in Category:ships every convert template where you have mm or cm inside" + do list with all changes (list of diffs) and give it to check fo human.

And I am really suprised that article with such errors can be featured. For me as a cm/mm citizen this is such errors as lets say "ship have 8 guns cal. 410 mm" vs. "ship have 8 guns cal. 406 mm" is very big error. And if its additionaly with "ref" is "wrong error" :). PMG (talk) 10:26, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I doubt a bot could fix these as the template works just fine for measurements like 3 inches (76mm), etc. And the whole issues is also complicated because many guns have nominal calibers that differ from the real size of the shells. Forex German 28 cm guns are really 28.3 cm in diameter while their 15 cm guns are really 14.91 cm. As in most things Wiki, if you've identified what you think is a problem, then it's up to you to fix it, plus whoever else you can persuade to work with you.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 10:51, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

So maybe use it for special values? For example this 4 or 16 inches? I am quite sure that every "convert" template with 4 and 16 inch value in Ships category should be 102/406 mm not 100/410 mm. And if somebody already put that convert template then its not special case as you say with that German guns. PMG (talk) 21:06, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

List of battlecruisers of Germany

List of battlecruisers of Germany - in "key" paragraph there is no "Fate" description. PMG (talk) 17:56, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

"The five remaining battlecruisers—Von der Tann, Moltke, Seydlitz, Derfflinger, and Hindenburg—were interned with the bulk of the German fleet at Scapa Flow following the end of the war and subsequently scuttled by their crews in 1919" <-- I think that's their fate? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:26, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

No, no. Look - List_of_battlecruisers_of_Japan#Key there is "Fate". List_of_battlecruisers_of_Germany#Key is not. But in next tables there is "Fate" part (List_of_battlecruisers_of_Germany#SMS_Von_der_Tann). So in my opinion "Key" part (legend of table) of article should have the same parameters as in Japan article. I won`t add this because my pl->en skills are not so good as en->pl, and thats why I want avoid adding anything more than interwiki and categories to en.wiki. PMG (talk) 10:20, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Book reviews

Hi Ed, Adding links to relevant book reviews published elsewhere is a great idea. I've just added another one and will include this in the future. Nick-D (talk) 01:51, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad you like it, I thought about it today and hoped you wouldn't mind me adding it without your consent. :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:26, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 July 2011

News and notes: Picture of the Year 2010; data challenge; brief news

In the news: WikiLove roll-out; €25,000 in damages for being removed from Wikipedia; brief news

WikiProject report: The Star-Spangled WikiProject

Featured content: Two newly promoted portals

Arbitration report: Arb resigns while mailing list leaks continue; Motion re: admin

Technology report: June report: Virginia datacenter, parser, user profiles; WikiLove 1.0; brief news

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 11:47, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

WPUS A Class guidelines

I just wanted to let you know that as far as the A class standards for articles WPUS already accepts the criteria used by WPMILHIST. --Kumioko (talk) 16:54, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay thanks, I'll keep a lookout for US articles that are A-class in Milhist. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 01:29, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Japan BC

Hello

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Operation_Majestic_Titan#Japan_BC - maybe you know answer? PMG (talk) 14:57, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Writer's Barnstar
	You damn content editors... – GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:04, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Get off my lawn. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 04:05, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Quick Message

Stick your nose out of it, I wasnt insulting him i was responding to what he said, Theres no point of you making the situation worse. Goldblooded (talk) 19:12, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to not take my advice – that's your prerogative, of course. Just know that we're all trying to help, yet you're not listening. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:14, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Well next time dont bother ive already been spat on by several users and admins on here. Goldblooded (talk) 19:47, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Revert at User:Chzz

Reverting a user's edit to their own userpage? --The Σ ^talk_contribs 19:05, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Well he always his sticking his nose in things and interfering with other peoples business, as i have learnt. Just revert the edit its their talkpage the owner should do whatever they want with it. Goldblooded (talk) 20:05, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Um... is there a more civilised way to say that? --The Σ ^talk_contribs 23:48, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Long story short, Chzz and I were both at the Wikipedia in Higher Education Summit. He borrowed my computer, forgot I was the one logged in, and reverted something on his user page. Don't worry, I already yelled at him for it. ;-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 07:58, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

OMAI sockpuppeting. sonia♫ 15:48, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I couldn't do anything about it, the revert had already gone through before I knew what was happening! I should sue... ;-) I will personally slap anyone who mentions NLT Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 15:50, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Honestly, I sat at a table with the two of them, Ed and Chzz, and I couldn't tell one from the other, except that Ed was wearing a hoodie. Drmies (talk) 18:55, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, I already offered to block the both of them for sockpuppetry :D – GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:35, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Gorilla, since I saw you without the King Kong suit on you have lost all authority with me. I still love you for your charm, of course. Drmies (talk) 20:26, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Hm, now that people have discovered I'm not 400 pounds and unusually hairy, I seem to have lost my street cred :D Perhaps I should become meaner... Great image, by the way. I may have to use that in the future. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:57, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Drmies, stop lying. He had a few more wrinkles and a much heavier accent. Gorilla, I still find it hard to believe you aren't a 40-year old, 300-pound man with pizza stains on his stomach and a sticky keyboard. ;-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 01:29, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Like! Besides, now that we have discovered her wit and charm, we will never be able to view her as a gorilla again. I guess she should rename herself to "CharmfulWarfare" or something of the like. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:47, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

"Charmful"? I believe the word is "charming", my dear... As for the rest of it, maybe I am a 40-year-old, 300-pound man cleverly disguised as a young girl... – GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:56, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Why are we dividing the line between male/female her? Obviously she's transgender. Duh. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:49, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

If I'm transgender, then I guess we'll need 89.5 guys and 9.5 girls around to complete the demographic. This complicates matters... – GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:09, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Given my height, I probably count as the .5 of a girl. sonia♫ 21:10, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Or we recruit another transgender individual to balance the demographic? Or was that too simple of a solution? ;) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:57, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

After a long, complicated series of cocktails in Cheers, there is little chance of a coherent reply from me. So, here's a picture instead. Chzz ► 17:18, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

So, verdict? Is it as good as the bar from the show? – GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:09, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Chzz, you were that inebriated by 1pm?! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:57, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

It was a long night... Chzz ► 04:55, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Understandable then. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:18, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

So you did go to it! Did you go to the original bar or imitation? Next yeara, excluding the gorilla, we should all go barhopping during Wikimania. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:22, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

They can be friends.

Chlopeck (talk) 19:40, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Like Thanks very much! Let me know if you need any help in getting your article to FA! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 07:59, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello Ed

Ed, it was a pleasure meeting you in Boston, and good work ignoring all rules regarding Quran miracle. I look forward to collaborating with you on the rapid expansion of Wikipedia in Higher Education. Cullen328 (talk) 14:41, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Likewise. I feel like Quran miracle will be the first thing we talk about if we meet again in the future. ;-) Hope to see you at Wikimania 2012! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 15:36, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

They tried again with Quran numeric miracle but that didn't last long. It seems that sockpuppets and or meatpuppets who believe in this miracle are now being born. Getting on a plane for home in a few minutes. Cullen328 (talk) 18:45, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh, they tried again? I'm sorry I missed the party. Happy trails, Cullen, and please give my regards to Mrs. Cullen--do tell her I respect her for sticking it out with you and even accompanying you to that geek conference! ;) Drmies (talk) 18:50, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure you all saw this, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Quran Information. I was about to go ahead and start blocking when I saw that an SPI had been opened--an open and shut case, of course. Drmies (talk) 18:53, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

It's like playing whack-a-mole...! Hope you had a safe trip, Cullen. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 01:29, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

We arrived home OK, Ed, but the flight had terrifying moments, which I discussed on Drmies talk page. Cullen328 (talk) 14:47, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I read about it – I'm very glad you made it home safe. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:57, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

War and poetry

Voila. Drmies (talk) 18:06, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I think I have a source on that somewhere... Ryan's The Longest Day, perhaps? Nice additions though, that's a very interesting topic. :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 01:29, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes it is. I thought it today. Did you listen to the poem? Like it's straight out of the movie (which, in the motherland, is on TV every year, early June--you can guess why). If you go through my edits, you'll see at least a few references to that flick. Hint: it has to do with categories. That should narrow it down. Drmies (talk) 02:08, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I read it, but I can't find it online. It wouldn't surprise me to learn that there is an easily-viewable video somewhere that I completely missed, though. Re references in cats, if that's what entertains you, keep up the cleverness. ;-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:49, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Whenever I added categories, I used to type "Pluskat" in my edit summary. Drmies (talk) 16:20, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

You know you're a geek when... Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:57, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

RfCs

You offered above to close RfCs. I have posted several RfCs at AN (see the first three sections). If you could close one or a few of the RfCs, I'd be grateful. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:52, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I definitely missed this message. I will take a look either tomorrow morning or night (aka before or after work). Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:49, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

It seems that you can't close most of the RfCs since you've either participated in them (Talk:Main Page/Request for comment: minimum prep-time for blurbs), they've been recently closed (Wikipedia talk:Edit warring#RfC on proposed new 3RR exemption), or they are not ready for closure (Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/dash drafting).

However, some of the proposals at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Account security remain open and can be closed, such as "#Require more complex passwords" and "#Notify users via email when someone tries to log into their account with the wrong password". Best, Cunard (talk) 07:41, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Yup, that's what I found when I went through them. I took care of the two you linked, but how about the "subjects of commentary" RFC? There's consensus in the first section, but the other threads explore many other alternatives and don't really have a consensus. As such, I'd lean no consensus but I'd appreciate a second view on it from you. :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 08:21, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for closing the two from the account security proposals. My reading of the RfC (after a superficial skim) is that in the first section, most people are in agreement with SlimVirgin's proposal, while the rest of the RfC is general discussion and alternate proposals that have failed to achieve consensus. Cunard (talk) 18:13, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, okay, I'll think this over and close it tonight. Thanks Cunard! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 18:40, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

After thinking about it and nearly forgetting, I decided your ideas were close to reality than my initial thoughts. There is a clear consensus to remove it in the first section, and the remainder of the discussions should be treated separately from that. Thanks for giving your input! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 10:01, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 July 2011

From the editor: Stepping down

Higher education summit: Wikipedia in Higher Education Summit recap

News and notes: Wikipedians' surfing habits explored, Sloan Foundation renews $3M grant

In the news: Britannica and Wikipedia compared; Putin award criticized; possible journalistic sockpuppeting

WikiProject report: Listening to WikiProject Albums

Featured content: The best of the week

Arbitration report: Tree shaping case comes to a close

Technology report: WMF works on its release strategy; secure server problems

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:42, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Sukhoi Su-37

I've read your message, and thought, shouldn't that be the whole point, keeping the project's ambiance non-serious? If we take the project seriously, it'll be easier to burn out. Anyway, the Sukhoi Su-35 is almost complete, and now I'm working on the Sukhoi Su-37. I really think the Su-37, along with the Su-33, Su-34 and Su-35, reach FA statuses. After the Su-37, I'll work on the Su-34. If only I can promote the Su-27 to GA, and create a Featured Topic. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 05:23, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

By the way, I'm in the CUP, so if somehow I pull this off and promote all of them to FA, oh geez, so many points. I'll be more proud of these articles than the fail A330. Because you're a judge, I'd like to ask, how many points typically does the winner score? Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 05:26, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Like I implicitly stated, that opinion is not shared by everyone. Good luck! It's a very noble project to undertake. :-) I can't answer that because the points have changed from the previous years and participation varies from year-to-year. Sorry! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:31, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

There', Sukhoi Su-37 is almost done. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 06:00, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Looks good! I still wish they had put it into production though... it'd be hard to top an aircraft with the nickname 'Terminator'. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:57, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Scharnhorst guns.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Scharnhorst guns.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Denniss (talk) 09:01, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Glorious photo

Your attention is drawn to Commons:Deletion requests/File:HMS Glorious last picture.jpg. Not sure what to do here.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:03, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

The NHHC states that any image they have is PD, so I don't think that's an issue. The bigger problem is that I can't find the image on history.navy.mil, which is weird considering we even have an identifying number. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 18:40, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Milhist task force expansion

Hi Ed :) Per this discussion the South American task force, of which you are a coordinator, has now been expanded to cover Central America as well. The new task force can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Central and South American military history task force. I've left a redirect at the old title but you may wish to update your watchlist accordingly. Best, EyeSerene^talk 17:00, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi ES! Thanks for the note, I've added the new page to my watchlist. :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:21, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually the watch feature moved with the page when you moved it, but no harm done! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:22, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Cool, I didn't know it did that... EyeSerene^talk 08:36, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Neither did I. ;-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 09:40, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Removal

Hello. I notice that you removed a comment that I placed on Brad101's talk page: [1]. I am trying to be courteous and assuming good faith, but I believe your edit was wrong. Please do not do anything like that again. Bulldog ^talk ^{da contribs} ^{go rando} 05:58, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Hiya Bulldog, you need to see WP:REMOVED. Brad is well within his 'rights' to remove your comment. Please don't insist on restoring it; not everyone is a fan of Wikilove. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 09:40, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I thought that Brad was being rude by removing my comments. Sorry. Bulldog ^talk ^{da contribs} ^{go rando} 06:23, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

RfC close at WP:NFC

Hi. I note in closing the recent RfC at WP:NFC, you have removed the words "As subjects of commentary" from NFCI #8. diff.

NFCI is intended to be a whitelist of uses that will in general almost always satisfy the WP:NFC requirements.

The effect of your change is therefore to whitelist any use of "Images with iconic status or historical importance" in all circumstances.

That is a huge step in a policy with legal considerations; and I'm not sure that it is actually where the discussion at WT:NFC had moved to.

Can I ask: was this really the implication that you intended in making this change? And do you really think the RfC expressed consensus support for such a position? Jheald (talk) 10:14, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it was what I intended and yes, I realize what that changes policy-wise. No, I didn't say I thought it was the best idea. However, there was a clear consensus for removing the wording, and absolutely no consensus for any replacement in the subsequent sections. For better or worse, that's how Wikipedia works. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 10:19, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

The discussion in the latter sections was ongoing and though it did not amount to concluding an alternative wording, it clearly did conclude that merely removing the phrase was unsatisfactory, for exactly the reasons Jheald listed. This does not change policy on the matter- the policy is and was the NFCC, not the NFCI- but it does mean that, now, the guideline is inconsistent with policy. That's a poor close whether or not a lot of people voted in support of it. In any case, I have started a new section to continue the discussion; clearly, the NFCI entry as it was was unsatisfactory. That much is clear from the RfC. But that does not mean that we should change it to something else unsatisfactory, shrug our shoulders and hope nothing bad happens. J Milburn (talk) 11:12, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Heh, well my reading was that people wanted the removal of the phrase, and the discussion beneath involved a smaller number of participants who couldn't decide what to replace it with. I'm fully supportive of any effort to find a replacement (and in retrospect, I should have archived only the first section) and hope you can find a solution; as I said, I don't like the current wording any more than you do, but maybe that should be a talk reserved for the people who supported the original proposal. :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:49, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I believe you assessed the consensus correctly, though the consensus may have been wrong and undesirable. A difficult closure, Ed. One I'm glad I didn't have to make. Thank you for your bravery and willingness to close this RfC! Best, Cunard (talk) 01:20, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

An exciting opportunity

...to get out and learn something more. Voila! Drmies (talk) 18:14, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

That early medieval warfare one looks really fun, but the problem is that I'm not a graduate student about to receive a master's degree. ;-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:49, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, get on it then! Drmies (talk) 20:52, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Jyoti class tanker

Help me out here, Ed. I don't understand the basics--or the article isn't very well written. Is Jyoti the name of a ship? the name of a class of ships? both? are all four called Jyoti? Should the article be INS Jyoti, with a related article Komandarm Fedko class? This is too military for me. Thanks, on behalf of the Indian Navy, Drmies (talk) 20:44, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I think it's fixed now. I'm guessing the original Soviet ship was named "Komandarm Fedko", but I can't find anything on the civilian ships. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:19, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Milhist FA, A-Class and Peer Reviews Apr–Jun 2011

		The Content Review Medal of Merit
		By order of the Military history WikiProject coordinators, for your devoted work on the WikiProject's Peer, A-Class and Featured Article reviews for the period Apr–Jun 2011, I am delighted to award you this Content Review Medal. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:06, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Aussie! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:55, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXIV, June 2011

Your Military History Newsletter

Project news: From the editors; medal recipients; contest results
Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content
Book reviews: Nick-D looks at Finland and Spitfires
Op-ed: Fifelfoo and hunting for plagiarism

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. BrownBot (talk) 00:09, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 July 2011

News and notes: WMF Annual plan; Article Feedback tool; university outreach; brief news

In the news: Fine art; surreptitious sanitation; the politics of kyriarchic marginalization; brief news

WikiProject report: Earn $$$ free pharm4cy WORK FROM HOME replica watches ViAgRa!!!

Featured content: Historic last launch of the Space Shuttle Endeavour; Teddy Roosevelt's threat to behead official; 18th-century London sex manual

Arbitration report: Motion passed to amend 2008 case: topic ban and reminder

Technology report: Code Review backlog almost zero; What is: Subversion?; brief news

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:35, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Canoe River train crash

Would you mind taking a look at this article, presently at FAC and make sure I haven't misused any military terms? Many thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:51, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Looks good to me, Wehwalt. Nice article. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 17:51, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks on both counts.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:40, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Civility Barnstar
	Thank you for your support in my block inquiry , i appreciate it and i hope i will be able to continue to improve and contribute to wikipedia. Goldblooded (talk) 21:25, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks...

...for keeping my talk clear. IDK who that IP was; random weirdness - cheers. Chzz ► 00:30, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Anytime Chzz. It wasn't even vandalism really, so I didn't bother to leave a message on the IP's talk. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 00:34, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Banned contributor on my talk page

Thanks. :) He's restored it, and I've archived it in place. I won't be responding to him any further. I'm going to be traveling (though I won't be completely out of touch) but am perfectly happy for you to RBI and/or semi-protect as seems necessary. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:58, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, I've already started doing that haha. Safe travels! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 18:44, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 July 2011

Wikimedian in Residence interview: Wikimedian in Residence on Open Science: an interview with Daniel Mietchen

News and notes: Oral citations; the state of global development; a gentler Huggle; brief news

In the news: Open access clash with copyright; rising reader satisfaction; the wiki-correlates of geopolitical instability; brief news

Recent research: Talk page interactions; Wikipedia at the Open Knowledge Conference; Summer of Research

WikiProject report: Musing with WikiProject Philosophy

Featured content: The best of the week

Arbitration report: New case opened; hyphens and dashes update; motion

Technology report: Protocol-relative URLs; GSoC updates; bad news for SMW fans; brief news

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 23:55, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

arizona = walkway around the pilot house?

See User talk:Dominic. – Ling.Nut 08:44, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for the barnstar, and you're welcome for the help. I'm hoping to get more active September/October-ish, and if I am able to do so, I'm leaning toward making MILHIST my new home for a while. Will probably start out on on U.S. Civil War battles, but would be willing to work on other things if it seems like a good topic. Cheers! – Ling.Nut 11:47, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
  - Me loves people who check their facts. I can't promise I'll be able to do anything, but I will definitely keep you in mind. Excellent work on the verification of naval images, BTW. – Ling.Nut 08:58, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

NARA uploads

Since you have contact info, could you pass on to the NARA uploader that the photo in File:Eskimos harpooning a whale, Point Barrow, Alaska, 1935 - NARA - 531123.tif does not match its title. It's in the Signal Corps set. Thanks, Dankarl (talk) 09:59, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Dominic is the Wikipedian-in-Residence at NARA; I'll point him to this post. It looks like the image should be this one, but I can't locate what the title of the image actually uploaded is (it's not located here, and various Google searches for "Stanley Morgan 1935" and/or "Eskimo holding gun" haven't turned anything up). Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 10:11, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Oops, note that this is also being handled at Commons here Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 10:16, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Misidentified ship, clearly not a light cruiser, but a heavy 8 inch cruiser. There will be a few more in the NARA upload, I bet. Should it be moved to a different name, or do we stick to NARA label? JustSomePics (talk) 15:10, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Ed - I've asked a similar question here. Parsecboy (talk) 15:13, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Yup, I already found that and let Dominic know. :-) I'm in email contact with Dom, and hopefully we'll get one set up soon. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 15:19, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Great, thanks. Congratulations and thanks to all for uploading this great set of images. JustSomePics (talk) 15:36, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

There's something like 123,000 in all, so I'm hoping more ship images are forthcoming! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 15:39, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Point Park Civic Center edits

Can you explain why you reverted all my edits to Point Park Civic Center? I know its Today's Featured Article, but there are parts of it that are missing citations and there are weasel words in the lead section (that aren't elaborated upon in the prose). I don't think we should treat it any differently than a regular article just because it's on the main page. I wasn't trying to "tag bomb" it; I was simply trying notify other editors that there are issues that should be taken care of, seeing how it is Today's Featured Article. Also, you removed my tags, but not that tags left there by other editors, which does not make any sense. –Dream out loud (talk) 16:14, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your dedication, but you don't tagbomb a TFA for the same reason you can't AFD a TFA – it doesn't look good to our readers. You don't purposely dirty the welcome mat you put out for visitors, do you? :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 16:46, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

No, that wasn't my intention. I was simply adding to the tags that were already present because the article has issues which need to be fixed. There's no reason to treat it differently than any other article. You can't compare tagging an article to and AFD, those are two completely different things. If you feel the need to remove the tags I added, why don't you go ahead and just remove all the tags in the article while you're at it. No reason to just take out mine. Let's just make everyone think there are no issues with this article at all, so when it's no longer a TFA, it will sit in the same condition. Or do you want to redecorate it with tags tomorrow? The point, this article needs work, and there is a no better time than right now to take care of it, but removing the tags is only counterproductive. –Dream out loud (talk) 17:10, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, there actually is a reason: "You don't purposely dirty the welcome mat you put out for visitors, do you?" And yes, I'd much rather put the tags on tomorrow, but most preferably I'd wait until it's entirely off the main page (four days) and FAR it. The problem here is that the article should not have been selected for TFA in this state, but now that is has been, I'm not going to decorate the top article on one of the world's top websites with tags. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 17:33, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Well said.--Peter cohen (talk) 22:34, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree the article should not have been selected for TFA. But you still didn't respond to the statement I made twice already. I want to know why you only felt the need to remove my tags, but not the ones added there only a few hours beforehand by other editors. –Dream out loud (talk) 23:05, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

~~The other tags?~~ I didn't see them at the time, my bad. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:57, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Ambassador Program: assessment drive

Even though it's been quiet on-wiki, the Wikipedia Ambassador Program has been busy over the last few months getting ready for the next term. We're heading toward over 80 classes in the US, across all disciplines. You'll see courses start popping up here, and this time we want to match one or more Online Ambassadors to each class based on interest or expertise in the subject matter. If you see a class that you're interested, please contact the professor and/or me; the sooner the Ambassadors and professors get in communication, the better things go. Look for more in the coming weeks about next term.

In the meantime, with a little help I've identified all the articles students did significant work on in the last term. Many of the articles have never been assessed, or have ratings that are out of date from before the students improved them. Please help assess them! Pick a class, or just a few articles, and give them a rating (and add a relevant WikiProject banner if there isn't one), and then update the list of articles.

Once we have updated assessments for all these articles, we can get a better idea of how quality varied from course to course, and which approaches to running Wikipedia assignments and managing courses are most effective.

--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 17:30, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Re:Got a question for you

Great image, got a lot of potential. Could maybe do with a little bit of restoration (the scratch on the left, for instance) but that's not really my area- we've been a little starved of images like this of late, so people may lap it up, or may be able to offer some advice on what needs to be done. Alternatively, if you don't want to just jump straight in there, there's picture peer review. J Milburn (talk) 18:15, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Commons:National Archives and Records Administration/Error reporting

By popular demand, error reporting is here! I'm just letting you know personally since you've been involved in one of the threads related to errors encountered in the NARA catalog. If you can add error reports to that page from now on, we'll have an easier time relaying them to the NARA digital description staff, and we'll be able to track our progress. Let me know if you have any problems using the page; I already added one report as an example. Providing corrections for mistakes in the online catalog is one of the best ways we can show demonstrable benefits to the institution, and you'll be helping all the other users of the archives, so it's really useful. Thanks! Dominic·t 23:37, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Tosa class battleship

Hello

I translate Tosa class battleship to pl.wiki and go to GA. Problem is that what exactly was name of class.

On en.wiki is mess

Tosa class (加賀型戦艦, Kaga-gata Senkan

On de.wiki is one name

Tosa-Klasse {{lang|ja-Hani|加賀型戦艦}}, Tosa-gata senkan

So it was Tosa or Kaga class? PMG (talk) 11:08, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

It should be the Tosa class, but there may be variance in a few sources because Kaga was launched first. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:26, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Hyphens again

There's a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(ships)#Punctuation_and_ship_classes that I think you should know about. Yours, Shem (talk) 20:32, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

National Maritime Museum Warship Histories project is go!

Hello! I'm very pleased to say that the collaboration with the National Maritime Museum which I mentioned earlier in the year is going ahead. They have put a load of their data on Royal Navy warships up on their website. Please do drop by Wikipedia:GLAM/NMM to find out more, start work, and/or help suggest ways of moving forward. :-) The Land (talk) 12:28, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

O-class battlecruiser

I also translate O-class battlecruiser and go to GA. Question is why bold part is in quotation marks - its something special in this words? Because in my opinion reference at end will be ok.

By 1940, project drawings for the three battlecruisers were complete. They were reviewed by both Hitler and Admiral Raeder, both of whom approved. However, outside of "initial procurement of materials and the issuance of some procurement orders",[4] the ships' keels were never laid.[4]

PMG (talk) 18:51, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Because it's a direct quote from the source. You can of course rewrite it so it doesn't require an immediate attribution. Parsecboy (talk) 18:54, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you - I rewrite article in pl.wiki. PMG (talk) 20:47, 30 July 2011 (UTC)