Jump to content

User:The ed17/Archives/51

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thank you

[edit]

Thank you and I will study the rights and responsibilities. Mugginsx (talk) 17:14, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome! Use it well so I don't look bad. ;-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:15, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
I won't. Mugginsx (talk) 19:52, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
I mean I will! Oh dear, not off to a very good start am I? Mugginsx (talk) 14:44, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
I figured, it's all good. xD Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:14, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 April 2012

[edit]

Everyone deserves email now and then

[edit]

Enjoy. - Dank (push to talk) 23:15, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

This Month in GLAM: March 2012

[edit]


Headlines
Read this edition in full • Single-page

To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

Unsubscribe · Global message delivery 18:48, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

JSTOR

[edit]

I would use JSTOR mostly for articles on geology and geography: faults, basins, mountains, parks etc. I tend to focus on an article for as long as it takes to fit together as good a view as I can get from online sources, which could be two hours or two days, and then move on. Usually I just work through the sources as I come across them, fitting what they say into the article. I see a JSTOR article, wish I could use it, shrug... So I don't have a specific wishlist, but sure wish I had access. Thanks, Aymatth2 (talk) 20:13, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

That is really helpful. Right now I am taking a break while I try to digest the conflicting views about the Aswa lineament, for a change suffering from too many sources and not sure if I am at all qualified to make sense of them... But I may take you up on the offer later. Thanks again. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:54, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

GOCE March drive wrap-up

[edit]
Guild of Copy Editors March 2012 backlog elimination drive
GOCE March 2012 Backlog Elimination progress graph

Greetings from the Guild of Copy Editors March 2012 Backlog elimination drive! This is the most successful drive we have had for quite a while. Here is your end-of-drive wrap-up newsletter.

Participation

Of the 70 people who signed up for this drive, 40 copy-edited at least one article. Thanks to all who participated! Special acknowledgement goes out to Lfstevens, who did over 200 articles, most of them in the last third of the drive, and topped all three leaderboard categories. You're a superstar! Stfg and others have been pre-checking the articles for quality and conformance to Wikipedia guidelines; some have been nominated for deletion or had some preliminary clean-up done to help make the copy-edit process more fun and appealing. Thanks to all who helped get those nasty last few articles out of the target months.

Progress report

During this drive we were successful in eliminating our target months—October, November, and December 2010—from the queue, and have now eliminated all the 2010 articles from our list. We were able to complete 500 articles this month! End-of-drive results and barnstar information can be found here.

When working on the backlog, please keep in mind that there are options other than copy-editing available; some articles may be candidates for deletion, or may not be suitable for copy-editing at this time for other reasons. The {{GOCEreviewed}} tag can be placed on any article you find to be totally uneditable, and you can nominate for deletion any that you discover to be copyright violations or completely unintelligible. If you need help deciding what to do, please contact any of the coordinators.

Thank you for participating in the March 2012 drive! All contributions are appreciated. Our next copy-edit drive will be in May.

Your drive coordinators – Dianna (Talk), Stfg (Talk), and Dank (talk)

To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

EdwardsBot (talk) 22:22, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution survey

[edit]

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite

Hello The ed17/Archives. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released.

Please click HERE to participate.
Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts.

You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 01:15, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Return kitteh

[edit]
Hello, The ed17. You have new messages at La Pianista's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Shh. Take it. Don't ask questions. Just take the damn cat and snuggle it already. — La Pianista ♫ ♪ 14:10, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

intl. cooperation

[edit]

Hi Ed! Have followed this. A good part of interested autors haver already quit german wikipedia for reasons which might interact with the mainstream in deWP. Nevertheless for you good luck with your idea. BTW i am the autor of the international linkbox which you find in the header on relevant project-discussion pages f.e. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] At present situation an update/extension would be fine in any way. It would be a good idea to extend this navigationblock with an entry for an international newsletter ;-) Take it or leave it + bonne chance --Gruß Tom (talk) 20:36, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Hey Tom! I have and have commented a few times. We'll see if we can get a international newsletter going – who knows. At the least though, I think I'm going to work on formatting that table into our main Milhist page! :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:56, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Pls. give it a second thought. The linkbox should be placed on top of the main page disk-site (as installed in all the other above mentioned wikis) because this is the place for collaboration and the place which intl. visitors will have to consult to get in contact and switch between all the other intl. projects. Its just fine to "hop around the world" for this special interest with a few clicks. Regards --Gruß Tom (talk) 20:57, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
P.S. I felt so free to put it on the suggested site. Additionally i executed updates on the other intl. collaboration disk-sites. --Gruß Tom (talk) 21:35, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
It's been removed because they're listed in the interwikis in the menu on the left, but I'll see if we can get it on the main page in a separate, more-visible box. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:04, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
I do not want to hustle with your experts here. The interwikilinks exist only on the base pages which gives no help to you when you want to make your international walk-through on the discussionpages - perhaps you want to set interwikis for this disk-sites?. I do not suggest things to save the wikipedia ;-) As i introductory wrote: "Take it or leave it + bonne chance" --Gruß Tom (talk) 13:54, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Well, that's true, but the regular project pages get you to relatively the same place. Also, you may want to update your box – the fr page is a redirect, and the pt page has a soft redirect to a WikiProject. :-) I think I'll put the links in a navbox at the bottom of the main page and see what people say. It can't hurt to have a little redundancy if it increases their visibility. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:30, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Template:FootnotesSmall listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template:FootnotesSmall. Since you had some involvement with the Template:FootnotesSmall redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Magioladitis (talk) 10:38, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I've commented. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:56, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Titans

[edit]
RN at Kiel, 1914

Hi Ed, don't suppose you could identify some of these? The commons description is a tad lacking. ϢereSpielChequers 14:16, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Hey WSC, I'll take a look at it tonight. On a preliminary glance, it looks like the front two and the back three might be from the same classes, so I'm hoping it won't be too difficult. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:56, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, I thought you might appreciate this one. ϢereSpielChequers 21:33, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
The three battleships (the two-funneled superfiring ships) are from the King George V (1911) class. All four were there, but there's only three in this image. I believe the four-funneled ships are Town class cruisers, but I can't say what subclass, and I didn't find any corroborating evidence in WP articles. Other than that, I can't really tell. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:32, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikimedia Foundation Blog Post on WikiCup

[edit]

Hi,

My name is Elaine and I'm a communications intern with the Wikimedia Foundation in San Francisco. I'm working on a post about the WikiCup for the Foundation blog [13]. Since you are one of the judges for this year's WikiCup, I would love to do a short interview with you either by phone, Skype, or email to ask you a few quick questions. Let me know if you're interested! You can reach me at communicationsintern@wikimedia.org.

Thanks,

Elaine CommIntern (talk) 19:05, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 April 2012

[edit]

Bugle

[edit]

Any chance I could put something in The Bugle about the World War I editathon I'm organising? Happy to write a story if that helps, just let me know. The Land (talk) 18:49, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Would you be looking for a normal story in "Project news" (e.g. March) or a full op-ed (e.g. March, albeit little of the same content) on why the whole initiative matters? I think the latter would be more fun to read and would get more visibility, if you'd be interested in writing it up. :-) Also if you did something like that, you could probably pitch it to the Signpost's opinion desk. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:52, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
I'll see what I can do! A write-up of the event might make a better op-ed than an invitation? (Or could I do both? how many op-eds can you take? ;-) ) The Land (talk) 19:20, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
I'd do the invite op-ed for sure, to drum up interest. We don't typically have any op-ed applicants (like right now – you're the only one lined up for April), so you're probably free to do what you want. ;-) Worst case, someone else has an op-ed and a write-up of the event can be run under the "review essay" title we've used in the past. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:44, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Done! Think it's what you're after? Do I need to add pictures / a byline? The Land (talk) 15:55, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Pictures would be good to draw the readers in; a byline is your choice. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 08:54, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
I put in a byline, etc, earlier -- feel free to edit the footer, and add pictures if you like, but be quick as the issue must go out in the next few hours. Main thing is the copy, for which thanks! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:05, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Wow, I really did just miss that. Sorry, I should be sleeping but have papers to write (exam week at university, woot!). Agreed with Ian though, the sooner the better. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:08, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
I was thinking of this image -- gets away from the typical battle scene and ties in with asking people to get involved... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:22, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

(od) Cripes, didn't think you'd still be up mate -- I've got the bot running now and seems to be delivering... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:49, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Heh, it's 8pm here, I just had to stay up all last night to finish a paper. To your credit, I was asleep until like 7:30 because I basically collapsed from a lack of sleep. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:59, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Your HighBeam account is ready!

[edit]

Good news! You now have access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research. Here's what you need to know:

  • Your account activation code has been emailed to your Wikipedia email address.
    • Only 407 of 444 codes were successfully delivered; most failed because email was simply not set up (You can set it in Special:Preferences).
    • If you did not receive a code but were on the approved list, add your name to this section and we'll try again.
  • The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code.
  • To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1; 2) You’ll see the first page of a two-page registration. 3) Put in an email address and set up a password. (Use a different email address if you signed up for a free trial previously); 4) Click “Continue” to reach the second page of registration; 5) Input your basic information; 6) Input the activation code; 7) Click “Finish”. Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive.
  • If you need assistance, email "help at highbeam dot com", and include "HighBeam/Wikipedia" in the subject line. Or go to WP:HighBeam/Support, or ask User:Ocaasi. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
  • A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate
  • HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
  • Show off your HighBeam access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/highbeam_userbox}} on your userpage
  • When the 1-year period is up, check applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi t | c 21:04, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 April 2012

[edit]

I commended you elsewhere

[edit]

Dear The ed17, I commended your practice in dealing with newspapers here: Wikipedia_talk:Identifying_reliable_sources#Newspapers. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:56, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Fifel! I've commented there. It's an interesting discussion. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:24, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

DC

[edit]

Hey Ed, are you going to the Wiki meetup thing in DC this summer? I got the grant to do research at the National Archives over the summer and will be there from early June to early August. Parsecboy (talk) 17:17, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I just got an email tonight saying that I didn't get a scholarship to go (not even a partial one!), so I'm not completely sure at the moment... I'll be sure to let you know. Congrats on that grant though, I hope you're excited! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:04, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

GOCE May copy edit drive

[edit]
Invitation from the Guild of Copy Editors

The Guild of Copy Editors invites you to participate in their May 2012 Backlog elimination drive, a month-long effort to reduce the size of the copy edit backlog. The drive begins on May 1 at 00:00 (UTC) and ends on May 31 at 23:59 (UTC). Our goal for the drive will be to eliminate January, February, and March 2011 from the queue. Barnstars will be awarded to anyone who copy edits more than 4,000 words, and special awards will be given to the top 5 in the following categories: "Number of articles", "Number of words", and "Number of articles of over 5,000 words". We hope to see you there! – Your drive coordinators: Dank, Diannaa, and Stfg.

>>> Sign up now <<<

To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. EdwardsBot (talk) 18:55, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Move

[edit]

Can you explain exactly why you've moved the ITN page, please? I don't think it's appropriate. Tony (talk) 02:19, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, I'm publishing the SP this week, and I, Jarry, HaeB, and Jan all agree that it's too opinionated for ITN... Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:20, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
On what basis, please? I strongly object to the move, and the to title change. And who says you're in charge of the publication just because you're pushing the buttons for the bot? I'm pasting a DO NOT PUBLISH at the top of your new page. Tony (talk) 02:33, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Well there is no editor, I volunteered for this issue at least, Sko/Jarry/HaeB agreed, and the latter is helping me through the process. The basis is that ITN has never done any sort of investigative, in-depth journalism like this before. I'm not doing this out of spite. Is there a compelling reason to leave it under the ITN banner (rather than a unique title) that I am missing? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:37, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
You might have said something in the newsroom, but that doesn't make you executive editor, able to make changes behind other people's backs that completely alter the status of a story that has been worked on for the past 72 hours. NO NO NO. Please put it back. Do not publish The Signpost under the current structure. Tony (talk) 02:39, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
No, it doesn't, but I'm not exactly planning on publishing and putting my name to something I haven't vetted myself and with people experienced in the process. They are telling me that the page move is necessary, and I agree. The story is not suited for ITN, but the move does not alter the status of the story, in my opinion. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:45, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Well don't do it, then. You're just the janitor, anyway, running the bots. I wouldn't be worried about that. What I do need to tell you is that if it's published under an op ed slot, and not the ITN slot (with the original title), I will never write for The Signpost again. I will be sheeting the blame home to you, repeatedly and very publicly. There you are: a threat. Tony (talk) 02:49, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
WP:POINT of order... - The Bushranger One ping only 03:09, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) This isn't only me! Check your email – HaeB has told you that both Jarry and Jan agree with me that it should be under a special story. Given that there is no editor right now, and I'm just trying to be a caretaker here, consensus should rule (I think). Is there a reason you are objecting so vehemently to the page title change? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:11, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict)To clarify, I don't have a very strong opinion about the section title, but the arguments of Jan and Jarry make sense to me - also because it's not really usual for ITN to focus on one story only; the "In the news" title carries the implication of a survey of all the most notable news from last week, which this one isn't (not your fault of course). Of course we don't want to lose you as a Signpost contributor. Could you live with a different section title than "PR study"? I understand you are objecting to the piece being classified as op-ed, but the assumption that this is happening merely by running it under a different title than "In the news" seems unfounded to me - since last year, the custom has been to publish op-eds under "opinion essay".
In cases like this, we do need one person to evaluate discussions among the Signpost regulars and make a decision, or publication will be delayed too much. I think right now Ed is in a good position to do so, even if he doesn't yet have (and want) the full authority of an editor in chief.
Regards, HaeB (talk) 03:17, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
If it's published as an op ed, with a lame title chosen by someone else at the last minute, I will not write for The Signpost again. I will do my best to provide critical scrutiny of what The Signpost churns out. This will be a sorry day, when a few loud voices on the talk page before publication – some of them clearly partisan – can force the demotion of a page. There goes the notion of neutrality on The Signpost. Changes have been made in reasoned response to the claims on the talk page. That should be the end of the matter. People are free to comment below the article, as they've already done. HaeB, you have no place to walk in here and pontificate. You resigned, properly, from the role of managing editor. Don't make the same mistake as Ed and believe that you're suddenly the managing editor. I'm surprised you support making The Signpost a puppy dog. Tony (talk) 03:31, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Oh, and just for the record, the email I received from Jan didn't at all weigh in on the matter of demoting this to op ed. So please be careful in using unverified assumptions to support your own views. Tony (talk) 03:39, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm fully on board with allowing you to choose a better title. This is not in response to the 'voices' on the talk page – this is a neutral assessment by me and two Signpost regulars that the article does not fit the typical ITN article profile. Still, I'll wait until tomorrow to publish it to give others the change to weigh in. I don't see it as a demotion, but I could be in the minority. P.S. I wasn't referring to that email, just the one HaeB sent you. The conversation I'm referring to was conducted over IRC. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:41, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
So others are brought in to "weigh in" to bolster your view. It is very clearly a nobbling of what is a critical analysis of the big news story about WP in the past few days. It is exactly what should go into ITN. Could you point to anything that is unreasonable in the analysis, please? And HaeB needs to keep out of this: he resigned from The Signpost because he took up a job with the foundation, signing a restrictive contract. It is no longer his place to engineer demotions to pages on The Signpost: there lies a slippery slope. I find your protestation that "voices" on the talk page have nothing to do with the move very hard to believe. And you have damaged the piece in two ways, not one: you have demoted it to op ed, and you've changed the title. Please revert both. Tony (talk) 03:47, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Be careful with your accusations of canvassing. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:53, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
And BTW, you're the janitor, as it were, so it's like your hide to talk in terms of "allowing" me. Tony (talk) 03:54, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Actually no, others were asked by others who informed me. I concurred. I don't see how this is a demotion in anyone's but your mind; it's going to run in the exact same slot on the main page. I don't have any objection to the analysis, besides the sentence you've already seen, but it's not the sort of material that typically runs on the ITN page. HaeB is not 'engineer[ing]' this page move. That would be me. It's been moved to a special story, not an op-ed, and the title change reflects that. I viewed my role as an interim editor (sort of; I'm not trying to claim the 'final call' power unilaterally) for this issue because there kind of has to be an editor for every issue. Obviously you disagree with that, but that's why I've brought it up on the Signpost talk page, which I've linked on your talk page.
I'm not sure if you realize that I'm doing all of this in good faith, so I'd appreciate you not personalizing the discussion with 'your hide'. And yes, 'allowing' was a very poor choice of words. If you would like to change the title, please do – just not to ITN. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:07, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Your unilateral move from ITN is the deal-breaker. Do that, and The Signpost loses a key writer and gains a stern critic. You'll be living with that. Tony (talk) 04:12, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Hence why I'm looking for consensus, to make it not unilateral. Regards, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:14, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Just to be clear before I go to bed: I support Tony all the way on this. It's his call. Not publishing this would look like we're bowing down to the critics. Good night. Smallbones (talk) 04:18, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
To be clear: this is not a question of whether we will publish it or not, it's a debate about the purpose of the ITN page, and whether it should be expanded to include the type of investigative journalism used in the article. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:20, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I see that you've still failed to move it back into the ITN slot, where it was for many days, uncontested by anyone. That is the minimum when you're asking others to comment: otherwise, you risk contaminating views by displaying its altered status, which will inevitably be perceived as the natural one. I note that you didn't even contact the authors—at least not me—when taking this heavy-handed action. The fact that your purpose was to subdue the piece is clear from your simultaneous substitution of the title with a lame one.

Now, let me get this right: ITN, from now on has rules:

  1. It presents and describes what is out in the news about the movement; but analysis is not acceptable.
  2. It doesn't deal with controversial matters; they must be side-stepped into op ed pieces.

Fine, I've got it. Let's spread the news on this. Tony (talk) 04:47, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

The amount of good faith behing assumed here is astounding. Just because you want something a certain way does not mean it has to be that way, and just because people believe it should be a different way than you want it does not mean they're out to get you and/or to suppress something. Remember what it says below the 'Save page' button on every page on the site: "If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here." - The Bushranger One ping only 05:18, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Are you addressing me? You have a hide. Tony (talk) 07:59, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Yes I am, yes I do, and personal threats aren't a good way to influence people on Wikipedia. - The Bushranger One ping only 08:24, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

oh dear; alright folks, time to sort this out. first of all a point of clarification: i did not say "it's too opinionated for ITN", if i would have thought so i would have said so long ago (monday morning, as i saw the drafts, most likely). what i suggested was that it _could_ (not required to) also run as a special, because of its length & argumentative value, to have more maneuvering space. in my understanding Jarry tabled a very different argument in his own right.
said that & for the sake of falling not too far behind deadline: could we please stick to how it was before we (unintentionally, afaik) started to play chinese whispers for now, publish, and figure out who misunderstood the reasoning of whom from which point of view as well as the actions by different editors out of it all in a proper inquest after that? thanks, regards --Jan eissfeldt (talk) 09:39, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

You've got mail

[edit]
Hello. Please check your e-mail – you've got mail!
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template.

- Jarry1250 [Deliberation needed] 16:14, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 April 2012

[edit]

Protection of Cla68

[edit]

Remove your protection of Cla68 or remove his advertisment. His advertisment fails WP:SOAP and can't stay per that policy. WP:SOAP would need to be changed for that to happen. So either remove his add or your protection. It cannot be protected in it's current state per policy. @-Kosh► Talk to the Vorlons►Moon Base Alpha-@ 11:30, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) That obviously wasn't the conclusion of the ANI discussion on this topic. Ed's protection was entirely valid, and it's unclear to me why you appear to want to continue the edit war over this on Cla's talkpage. Nick-D (talk) 11:37, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
You are in a minority of those who feel that way, Kosh. If you are offended, don't go to his talk page.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:47, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Simple, the existing policy WP:SOAP supercedes concensus. It would be the same if he had a BLP violation on his page and consensus to keep it Policy would supercede consensus. By the way the is no consensus to keep, the last discussion was closed as no consensus. There's already a policy for this, I'm merely requesting that it be followed (WP:SOAP).

@-Kosh► Talk to the Vorlons►Moon Base Alpha-@ 14:31, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, more accurately you are asking for your interpretation of policy to be enforced. However, your interpretation seems not to be as widely shared as others.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:17, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Can't say it much better than Wehwalt. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:26, 27 April 2012 (UTC)


Ed, since you protected the page, would you remove the MfD notice from the page for me. I have closed the MfD regarding this page. There is already an ongoing [[14]] that was started over a day previous and that should be allowed to run its course first. We don't need two concurrent debates that might potentially come to a different consensus. Your protection of the page just shows that it is something that needs a solid consensus in an authoritative way, rather than WP:POINTy attacks on it. -- Avanu (talk) 00:38, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
The MfD closure was reverted by ScottyWong, so at this point I moved the request to AN/I. Just FYI, didn't want you to remove a tag with the MfD still open. Thanks. -- Avanu (talk) 01:24, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
That's fine, thanks for the note. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 08:54, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Iowa class battleship merger

[edit]

Hi Ed! Stopping by here with a quick (or possibly not so quick) request... It looks like the discussion at Talk:Iowa class battleship is a go-ahead on the merge of the Illinois and the Kentucky. I would go ahead and close it and do the merge, except that I really have no idea (never having written a battleship article before) of what information is appropriate, UNDUE, etc. Would you be willing to help with the actual merge if I were to go ahead and close this as an uninvolved admin? I can also do the FA-paperwork duties inherent in delisting a FAR through merging. I'm mainly just concerned about screwing up the actual information merge when dealing with multiple FA/GA-class articles on a subject that I don't write about... Let me know, Dana boomer (talk) 00:24, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

If Ed doesn't have the time, I will in about a week. I was just thinking about doing that, but I figured that I'd have to ask about delisting a FA-class article as I've never done anything significant at FAR.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:59, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
I won't have time for about a week, so either Sturm or I can do it then. We'll work it out. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:59, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Allright, sounds good! Maybe drop me a note when you get around to it, and I can do the paperwork? Dana boomer (talk) 13:14, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Sure thing. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 08:54, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

If you get a chance

[edit]

I've drafted the next newsletter. There was talk about a GAC backlog elimination drive which I would have mentioned, but that seems to have come to nothing. Anything to add? J Milburn (talk) 15:44, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Also, this suggestion is a solid one. I'm afraid I'm busy this evening, so won't get a chance to do that myself. J Milburn (talk) 15:48, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
That looks good, only correction is that the blog post came out today. I like your comments! I meant my FAC comments to come out a little less harshly (ie the hassle of a few unprepared noms is worth what the rest of the competition is achieving), but otherwise it's pretty good. I'll try to take a look at the specific points tonight, my time (EST). Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:22, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

After checking and rechecking, I still got a name wrong in the newsletter. I've sent my bot chasing after the newsletter bot making the change. You'd have thought that, after doing it for this long, I'd have ironed out these sort of problems. Oh well. J Milburn (talk) 23:17, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Heh, it'll always be just after anyone types 'run' that you'll notice everything you did wrong. :P Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:31, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

WikiCup 2012 April newsletter

[edit]

Round 2 of this year's WikiCup is over, and so we are down to our final 32, in what could be called our quarter-finals. The two highest scorers from each pool, as well as the next 16 highest scorers overall, have entered round 3, while 30 participants have been eliminated. Pool B's Conradh na Gaeilge Grapple X (submissions) remains our top scorer with over 700 points; he continues to gain high numbers of points for his good articles on The X-Files, but also Millennium and other subjects. He has also gained points for a good topic, a featured list, multiple good article reviews and several did you knows. Pool E's Scotland Casliber (submissions) was second, thanks primarily to his biology articles, with Pool H's New York City Muboshgu (submissions) coming in third, with an impressive 46 did you knows, mostly on the subject of baseball. Casliber and Cwmhiraeth both scored over 600 points. Pools E and H proved our most successful, with each seeing 5 members qualify for round 3, while Pools C and D were the least, with each seeing only 3 reach round 3. However, it was Pool G which saw the lowest scoring, with a little under 400 points combined; Pool H, the highest scoring group, saw over triple that score.

65 points was the lowest qualifying score for round 3; significantly higher than the 11 required to enter round 2, and also higher than the 41 required to reach round 3 last year. However, in 2010, 100 points were needed to secure a place in round 3. 16 will progress to round 4. In round 3, 150 points was the 16th highest score, though, statistically, people tend to up their game a little in later rounds. Last year, 76 points secured a place, while in 2010, a massive 250 points were needed. Guessing how many points will be required is not easy. We still have not seen any featured portals or topics this year, but, on the subject of less common content types, a small correction needs to be made to the previous newsletter: File:Wacht am Rhein map (Opaque).svg, our first featured picture, was the work of both Vanuatu Matthewedwards (submissions) and United Kingdom Grandiose (submissions), the latter of whom has also gone on to score with File:Map of the Battle of Guam, 1944.svg. Bonus points also continue to roll in; this round, England Ealdgyth (submissions) earned triple points for her good articles on William the Conqueror and the Middle Ages, Casliber and Cwmhiraeth both earned triple points for their work on Western Jackdaw, now a good article, Michigan Dana Boomer (submissions) earned triple points for her work on lettuce and work by Bavaria Stone (submissions) to ready antimony for good article status earned him triple points. United Kingdom Jarry1250 (submissions) managed to expand Vitus Bering far enough for a did you know, which was also worth triple points. All of these highly important topics featured on 50 or more Wikipedias at the start of the year.

An article on the WikiCup in the Wikimedia Blog, "Improving Wikipedia with friendly competition", was posted at the end of April. This may be of interest to those who are signed up to this newsletter, as well as serving as another way to draw attention to our project. Also, we would again like to thank United Kingdom Jarry1250 (submissions) and Bavaria Stone (submissions), for continued help behind the scenes. As ever, if you are concerned that your nomination, be it at good article candidates, a featured process or anywhere else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. 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 (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 23:23, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Protection

[edit]

I believe you can now lift the protection of my userpage, based on this. Nevertheless, I would ask that if anyone still attempts to remove the text from my userpage, that they be blocked. Thank you. Cla68 (talk) 23:37, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

It's removed. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:41, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for your help. Cla68 (talk) 23:41, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:The_ed17/Archives/51&oldid=1258020268"