Jump to content

User:The ed17/Archives/60

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Congratulations

[edit]
The WikiProject Barnstar
I am delighted to present you with this WikiProject Barnstar in recognition of your extensive contributions to the Military history WikiProject, as evidenced by your being nominated for the 2012 "Military historian of the year" award. We're grateful for your efforts, and look forward to seeing more of your excellent work in the coming year! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:10, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Ian, though if I read it right I (justifiably) came in last... ;-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:15, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
  • I didn't even come in the running, so you're not last :-) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:36, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
  • True. Hopefully that didn't come across as me complaining—I was certainly honored to even be nominated! Perhaps you'll be nominated next year if/when you put the film article (and more?) through Milhist's review process. Maybe I'll even nominate you myself if that happens. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:28, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm just hoping that I still have time to edit. I want to be done in three semesters, so next "summer" is crunch time. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:29, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Ach. Good luck with that. It took me 4.5 years; I assume you'll be there for less than that. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 10:11, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Master's or bachelour's? ;) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:42, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Mine was a bachelor's (no 'u', you silly British English people). I assume you'd be there for less, for either degree. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:03, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
  • British? Oh no, try the red-shirted horsemen of the hockey apocalypse... and a team which hasn't won a Cup since 1993. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:51, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
  • That's okay, I can write American English when I want have to. I'm gonna start compiling the data later today, for our write-up — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:47, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Let me know if I can help somehow! I'll be out for the next several hours—New Year celebrations!—but can assist tomorrow. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:50, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Nah, it's okay. Enjoy your night... and say hello to the ball in Times Square for me. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:54, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Ah, interesting to hear, we didn't have that back in Windsor. I've never been to northern Michigan... furthest west I made it was to the Silversides in Muskegon while still in cub scouts. Happy new year! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:57, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Hah, funny, my brother just spent two weeks in Muskegon over Christmas break! The Upper Peninsula is a beautiful place, if you ever get a chance to visit it. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 10:11, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do... we might go back in 2014, so... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:53, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 starting soon

[edit]

Hi there; you're receiving this message because you have previously shown interest in the WikiCup. This is just to remind you that the 2013 WikiCup will be starting on 1 January, and that signups will remain open throughout January. Old and new Wikipedians and WikiCup participants are warmly invited to take part in this year's competition. (Though, as a note to the more experienced participants, there have been a few small rules changes in the last few months.) If you have already signed up, let this be a reminder; you will receive a message with your submissions' page soon. Please direct any questions to the WikiCup talk page. Thanks! J Milburn 19:16, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013

[edit]

Ok, I'm getting stuff ready for next year's competition. Seems to get later and later every year... I'm up to my eyeballs in stuff right now; I'll try to be around as much as possible, but I can't make too many promises. Interesting question: How do we treat featured picture sets? In principle, each picture in the set has to meet the criteria, and we certainly award points for each DYK in a hook, but it means that something like this could be a real game winner. I'd be inclined to say that each picture promoted is worth the points, but wanted to run it past you. J Milburn (talk) 20:07, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I think awarding points for each picture is the only way we can do it... they restored each picture, so they should get points for them. It may be a gamewinner, but they're putting the work in, so I don't think we can really take points away. :/ Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 10:11, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

GOCE 2012 Annual Report

[edit]
Guild of Copy Editors 2012 Annual Report

The GOCE has wrapped up another successful year of operations!

Our 2012 Annual Report is now ready for review.

– Your project coordinators: Torchiest, BDD, and Miniapolis

Sign up for the January drive! To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 00:16, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Flags for Wikicup

[edit]

Hello,

Can I use this image as my flag? - File:Sheldon's apartment flag.svg.

I would really like to.

Thanks, TheOriginalSoni (talk) 09:41, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

P.S. What exactly are the rules for FP? If I nominate any picture for FP and it passes, do I get the points for that? And do those nominations have to be for enWiki? Or can those be the nominations for commons too? TheOriginalSoni (talk) 09:41, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Merger of Split trail

[edit]

It is suggested to merge Split trail with Gun mount or Limbers and caissons, which is where the current Gun carriage redirects. I have written a suggestion on the Talk:Gun mount page for consideration by the military history project coordinators. Please advise, as I am willing to do the work.

Buster40004 Talk 04:14, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 December 2012

[edit]

A barnstar for you!

[edit]
The Original Barnstar
Great editorial in today's Signpost. Thanks. from Surturz (talk) 10:01, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks very much! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 10:06, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
I like the line "Wikipedia is what we, the community, make of it". As someone who tried to help in the TFA process, I am less happy with the general summary "the nomination process has been disrupted with personal disputes, sockpuppetry, and gladiatorial nastiness", whatever the latter term may mean. Perhaps a show shows? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:22, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm a little scratching my head at that one. I haven't seen anyone using socks to affect an outcome. Otherwise it seems like a fine article, but if there are no specific WP:SOCK incidents, it might be better to omit the term. Though I gather you went to some trouble to seek a phrase that would pass muster :).--Wehwalt (talk) 11:05, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry for the delay; I typed a response last night but apparently didn't save it. The sockpuppeting is a general reference to the Rlvese/PumpkinSky, Jack Merridew, and Mattisse/MathewTownsend disruption, though I appreciate that you may feel differently about all of that. 'Gladiatorial nastiness' was meant more at FAC discussions than TFA, Gerda. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 08:03, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
  • For Psky, he was ultimately accepted back into the community and given a clean start. Jack was too, but he blew it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:18, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
  • For Psky, I was mainly thinking of the FA director RfC, before he was identified as Rlvese. Let's not go into Jack; he and I didn't see eye to eye. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 08:24, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
  • For PumpkinSky, you mention one incidence in February 2012, and may want to check his contributions to WP:TFAR after the TFA director stopped contributing in September 2012. I will not "go into" Jack, because that was before my time here (as Mattisse). You may want to check the contributions of Br'er Rabbit during the same period (summary), - I found them constructive. The same goes for MathewTownsend. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:10, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Re:Clarification Request

[edit]

Happy New Year, Ed. I am interested in the controversy over the flags you mentioned, as I hadn't heard anything about any controversy, and i would like to learn more about it. Could you expand on the controversy, or provide a link for me to read up on it? TomStar81 (Talk) 07:51, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Hey Tom, Happy New Year to you too! This should help you out. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 07:53, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
I see. Sad, but I suppose it had to be done. At any rate, thanks for the link and the subsequent explanation. I appreciate it. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:46, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

bullshit from an old fart...

[edit]

Hey Ed, I saw recently that you did really good in graduating and so forth. Congrats. To be honest, it kinda surprised me a bit because I was getting the impression that you were a bit of an old man. No offense intended, it's just that there's a sense of maturity in your work that belies your youth. I was particularly impressed with how you dealt with a problematic editor recently, and wanted to say kudos to you for that. I don't want to go into details for obvious reasons, but I do applaud you for remaining calm in the face of difficult circumstances. You do impress young man. — Ched :  ?  09:18, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Ched, that means a lot. Thankfully I don't deal with many problematic editors, but I have great admiration for those who do, particularly in our ridiculously high-conflict areas (arbitration enforcement comes to mind). Also, if you want to see immaturity from me, take a look at my 2008 or 2009 edits. ;-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 10:05, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Naaa ... you do damned good work Ed. You've got a good head on your shoulders. I agree that AE is a really tough area though. — Ched :  ?  10:21, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Ched. I contribute where I can! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:54, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Huh, I thought that name on the Wikicup sounded familiar; I was also surprised when we met at Wikimania to discover the SignPost editor was so young. Some serious hat-tipping is in order for 21 FAs sir.

PS - I'm the PR guy you previously worked with on a SignPost op-ed a long time ago (if you remember me) but I changed my name to protect my identity. CorporateM (Talk) 18:11, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I had a lot of help with those 21 FAs, so don't give me all the credit... plus, I am now saddled with literal pounds of battleship books, so I'm not sure if it was my best choice. ;-) I still watch your talk page, so I saw the name changes. This name is much better than 'minion', by the way! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:54, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
So creepy when I find out someone I haven't talked to has been watching me all along :-D CorporateM (Talk) 22:38, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

[edit]
Best wishes for the New Year!
Wishing you and yours a joyous, healthful, and productive 2013!

Please accept a belated thank you for the well wishes upon my retirement as FAC delegate, and apologies for the false alarm of my first—and hopefully last—retirement; the well wishes extended me were most kind, but I decided to return, re-committed, when another blocked sock was revealed as one of the factors aggravating the FA pages this year.

Maintaining standards in featured content requires vigilance, dedication and knowledge of people like you, who are needed; reviews are always welcome at FAC, FAR and TFA requests. Somehow, somehow we never ever seem to do nothin' completely nice and easy, but here's hoping that 2013 will see a peaceful road ahead and a return to the quality and comaraderie that defines the FA process, with the help of many dedicated Wikipedians!

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:29, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

New Education Program course

[edit]

Hi Ed, Would you be willing to be Online Ambassador for a course at University of Michigan? I took the GLAM Wikipedia training, and I am working with my Campus Ambassador, but it's my first time doing a Wikipedia project and it's a large class (100+ students). They won't be writing articles, just editing. I'm hoping to keep the assignments manageable. Having an OA available would be a great help. Here's the course page (just started) and my brief proposal. Thanks! Cleeder (talk) 17:19, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Chris, I've added myself as an online ambassador. I've taken the liberty of adding resources to the class page, which I hope will help you and/or your students. Let me know if I can help in any other ways, whether through here or email, and your students may feel free to do the same! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:44, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Ed! I appreciate the help. The assignments won't start until the end of January, so I'll be working on getting things together until then. Cleeder (talk) 22:05, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Sounds good. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:13, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Scheina lookup?

[edit]

Do you have ready access to a copy of Scheina, Latin America: A Naval History? I need to see what page 39 says about a Haitian purchase of a captured Confederate ironclad in 1869. If not, I'll get it on ILL, but if you've got it handy...

All it says on Atlanta is "In the meantime, Haiti's government added to its fleet. The former USS Pequot was purchased and renamed the Terreur. And the old ironclad USS Atlanta was bought wfor $160,000 in gold only to be lost with all hand off Cape Hatteras in December 1869." Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:24, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 07 January 2013

[edit]

This Month in GLAM: December 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 11:44, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

MHS meetup 1/12/13

[edit]

We hope you can make it to the MHS Wikipedia Day meetup on Saturday at 12:30! If you're driving, tell the parking attendant that you're with Wikipedia and they'll have you sign in for free parking. When you get in the building, there will be signs directing you to the Irvine Room (1st floor, past the cafe). Meet us there to pick up your free lunch vouchers. We hope to see you Saturday! More info here Mhsrc (talk) 21:22, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder. It's a possibility, but I have to decide if I'm really up for a seven-hour drive there and seven-hour drive back. ;-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:26, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

HMS Tiger FAC

[edit]

Can you see if there's anything further that I need to do regarding your comments?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:37, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Done, sorry for the delay. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 17:36, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Strongly worded suggestion

[edit]

Previous Signpost op-eds have had a disclaimer up at the very top that made the authorship clear and also clearly stated that the opinion in the op-ed did not necessarily reflect that of the Signpost as a whole. In the strongest possible way, I urge you to bring that back for future op-eds, and consider retroactively adding it onto the op-eds that have already run. Please. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:22, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it was missed in the last two op-eds, but is added now. Thanks, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:28, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Database reports/Transplanted user templates

[edit]

please avoid using personal templates in articlespace. if you would like a feature added to {{blockquote}}, then just ask on the talk page. thank you. Frietjes (talk) 20:10, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, okay. That's something I didn't know was a problem. Thanks for letting me know. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:15, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

So you know...

[edit]

...if you're ever after anything, I should be good for at least another year (and, if all goes to plan, many years to come...) J Milburn (talk) 21:28, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll let you know! I'm hoping to have it again this fall, assuming they admit me, so we'll see. Thanks J, and good luck with philosophy. Definitely not for me! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:38, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Good luck there, and I can understand about the philosophy. Half of my (literary studies) class doesn't understand the scope of ontology and epistemology, which is... rather basic. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:51, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Grammar question

[edit]

Hi Mr. Ed(itor), as Drmies is "morally bound not to enter military matters", could you tell me which is correct, Prof. Brig. Gen. or Brig. Gen. Prof.? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:31, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Ah, typical Drmies, shirking his duties. Is "professor" a common prefix in WP articles? You should be able to get away with "Brigadier General Raden Panji Nugroho Notosusanto (15 July 1930 – 3 June 1985) was an Indonesian short story writer and a military historian at the University of Indonesia." (or "...and a professor of history at the University of Indonesia.", but the first one is more descriptive while conveying the same information) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:45, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Except for the bolding... I guess that's a doable workaround, although I'm going to keep Prof. in the infobox. Academics can be so irritated when we drop any of their degrees (and in Indonesia you'll end up with Prof. dr. (name), S.S., M. Hum or some ridiculous list like that. Add the honourifics like "hajji" and Raden Mas for Javanese nobility and you'll end up with ledes which are half honourifics. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:08, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Raden Panji is a title, however, and thus should not. Nugroho's name, definitely. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:34, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks! Shame you don't speak Indonesian... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:49, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Not enough naval history for me. ;-) However, if you ever want to do a Dutch ship that served in the NEI, like HNLMS De Ruyter (1935), I could certainly help (at the least, I have the Profile Warship article listed at the bottom there). Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:09, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Shame nothing here would interest you then. As for ships... I don't think I've ever done one. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:24, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Indonesia Calling doesn't look too bad, but I wouldn't have the first clue how to write a film article. Ships are normally pretty nice—all you need is a straight history. Design -> Construction -> Service -> Loss/disposal. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:58, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
  • If you're used to it, films can be a breeze (plot, production, themes/techniques, release/reception, legacy). This soon-to-be FAC killed me though. Darah dan Doa wasn't too bad (just finished watching it). Terrible quality though... although considering the source... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:01, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Ah, somewhat similar to a novel. I did one of those in 2008, but that failed two or three(?) FACs. Not enough sources out there. I should buy the annotated edition and finally finish that article... tangent though. A 1950 film, directed by a guy doing his third film, with relatively unknown actors? Yeah, I could see why the film would look poor today. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 10:14, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Not just that (although some angles are pretty good), but the preservation. There's no such thing as a 1939 Indonesian film stored well, not like The Wizard of Oz... most are in terrible shape. Lewat Djam Malam took quite a bit of funding to restore and the result was far from perfect (but a lot better than the YouTube stream... good thing D&D is PD here) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:35, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
As a side note, I'd strongly suggest cutting back on the block quotes at the novel's article. That topic is another one of my haunts, although I've been less successful. I think my best so far is Belenggu, which still needs work (I'm sitting on like 4 more sources and I haven't found the urge to use em). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:36, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Ah, okay. A 1950 film is PD? Was it never copyrighted? And yes, I'm well aware that I loved block quotes in 2008! I have just never gotten around to fixing the article. I have found snippets of it everywhere on the web, though. I keep finding online articles saying that 125,000 copies of the book were sold in its first month in print (which, considering that I doubt anyone else has read Other Worlds: The Fantasy Genre, is definitely taken from the WP article), but never anything about its overall circulation number, which is something I've always looked for. Damn though, Belenggu is an excellent article. Much better than my effort. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 11:16, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
  • The film? PD in Indonesia. The title screen, {{PD-text}}. Dr. B. is bemused as well. I noticed that the internet loves our efforts... although I've only found people discussing one of my articles once, so far, not long after 1740 Batavia massacre was TFA. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:21, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Ah, okay. I don't often find it either; my subject area of late, South American dreadnoughts, is probably around as popular as your Indonesian films. I see Sword discussed sometimes, but mainly the only glimpses I get are random links on shipnerd forums. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 11:35, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

    • Shipnerd forums, eh? I'd find myself about as lost as you would in a discussion of the works of D. Djajakusuma. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:44, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
      • I do Google searches on my articles occasionally, with -wikipedia in the search bar, but those are all that turn up. Yes, I would too, considering that it is a redlink. ;-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan]
        • Epic fail on my part... spelling!!!!! Max Tera's got me distracted. Odd how one can have a career that long and have next to no internet presence. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:59, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
          • It happens! My ships tend to have careers of 40+ years and are almost completely uncovered on the internet... it's scary really—we have access to so much information, yet so much is still missing. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 13:56, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
            • Especially for non-American or British ships, I guess. Our coverage of Japanese and German ships seems pretty good though. Our coverage of Indonesian ships? Terrible (random one, doesn't even mention any Indonesian service) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:09, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
              • Yeah, American and British ships are covered all over. The Japanese get some attention because of WWII, and the German ships were almost exclusively done by one editor who has an obsession with them. Indonesian ships ... well, you see how well they've been done. Claud Jones is a symptom of copying from DANFS, which typically has no information on foreign service, or hasn't been updated in decades. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:58, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
                • Ah, public domain sources. Yet another thing Indonesian ships lack... any federal government with a copyright notice is copyrighted, if not then it's PD. But mostly they add the notices. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:08, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

350,000th article

[edit]

Hi, if you're covering the "news & notes" section, Wikispecies reached 350,000 articles, with Tetramorium alpestre being the 350,000th. If you're writing that section, please pass this information to the editor covering that section. OhanaUnitedTalk page 03:30, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, we will put this in an "In brief" this week. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 11:34, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah...

[edit]

Who knows how that happened ;) Parsecboy (talk) 13:49, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Hehe, you know... if that article had such a simple error, what else have you screwed up? ;-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 14:52, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
I shudder to think about it. Parsecboy (talk) 15:12, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassadors update

[edit]

Hi! You're getting this message because you are or have been a Wikipedia Ambassador. A new term is beginning for the United States and Canada Education Programs, and I wanted to give you an update on some important new information if you're interested in continuing your work this term as a Wikipedia Ambassador.

You may have heard a reference to a transition the education program is going through. This is the last term that the Wikimedia Foundation will directly run the U.S. and Canada programs; beginning in June, a proposed thematic organization is likely to take over organizing the program. You can read more about the proposal here.

Another major change in the program will take effect immediately. Beginning this term, a new MediaWiki education extension will replace all course pages and Ambassador lists. (See Wikipedia:Course pages and Help:Education Program extension for more details.) Included in the extension are online volunteer and campus volunteer user rights, which let you create and edit course pages and sign up as an ambassador for a particular course.

If you would like to continue serving as a Wikipedia Ambassador — even if you do not support a class this term — you must create an ambassador profile. If you're no longer interested in being a Wikipedia Ambassador, you don't need to do anything.

Please do these steps as soon as possible

First, you need the relevant user rights for Online and/or Campus Ambassadors. (If you are an admin, you can grant the rights yourself, for you as well as other ambassadors.) Just post your rights request here, and we'll get you set up as quickly as possible.

Once you've got the ambassador rights, please set up at a Campus and/or Online Ambassador profile. You can do so at:

Going forward, the lists of Ambassadors at Special:CampusAmbassadors and Special:OnlineAmbassadors will be the official roster of who is an active Ambassador. If you would like to be an Ambassador but not ready to serve this term, you can un-check the option in your profile to publicly list it (which will remove your profile from the list).

After that, you can sign on to support courses. The list of courses will be at Special:Courses. (By default, this lists "Current" courses, but you can change the Status filter to "Planned" to see courses for this term that haven't reached their listed start date yet.)

As this is the first term we have used the extension, we know there will be some bugs, and we know the feature set is not as rich as it could be. (A big wave of improvements is already in the pipeline. And if you know MediaWiki and could help with code review, we'd love to have your help!) Please reach out to me (Sage Ross) with any complaints, bug reports, and feature suggestions. The basic features of the extension are documented at Wikipedia:Course pages, and you can see a tutorial for setting up and using them here.

Communication and keeping up to date

In the past, the Education Program has had a pretty fragmented set of communication channels. We're trying to fix that. These are the recommended places to discuss and stay up-to-date on the education program:

  1. The education noticeboard has become the main on-wiki location for discussion of the Education Program. You can post there about broad education program issues as well as issues with individual courses.
  2. The Ambassadors Announce email list is a very low-traffic announcements list of important information all Ambassadors need to be aware of. We encourage all Ambassadors (and other interested Wikipedians) to subscribe to the list; follow the instructions on the link to add your email address.
  3. If you use IRC regularly, or need to try to reach someone immediately, the #wikipedia-en-ambassadors connect IRC channel is the place to find me and fellow Ambassadors.
Ambassador training and resources

We now have an online training for Ambassadors, which is intended to be both an orientation about the Wikipedia Ambassador role for newcomers and the manual for how to do the role. (There are parallel trainings for students and for educators as well.)

Please go through the training if you feel like you need a refresher on how a typical class is supposed to go and where the Ambassadors fit in, or if you want to review and help improve it. If there's something you'd like to see added, or other suggestions you have for it, feel free to edit the training and/or leave feedback. A primer on setting up and using course pages is included in the educators' training.

The Resources page of the training is the main place for Ambassador-related resources. If there's something you think is important as a resource that's not on there, please add it.

Finally, whether or not you work with any classes this term, I encourage you to post entries to the Trophy Case whenever you see excellent work from students or if you have great examples from past semesters. And, as always, let students (and other editors!) know when they do things well; a little WikiLove goes a long way!

--Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 20:42, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikicup question

[edit]

Hi there. I'd like to receive Wikicup credit for Template:Did you know nominations/Püssi, however the DYK is being held, for obvious reasons, until April 1. Normally participants get credit when the items hit the main page, however I don't know how long my Wikicup run will last, so I'd like to get it in now. Is that okay? Sven Manguard Wha? 05:57, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I believe this is specifically left up to the judges... and personally, I think this could be okay, but I'm going to leave a {{tb}} for the other judge (J Milburn) to be sure. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:16, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
I think the precedent for this is that you have to wait. Having a look through the archives, I found this and I'm sure that there is another one closer to this situation somewhere (Ed, can you remember any cases where we did allow it?). The trouble is that if we allow your particular nomination on the day it is approved, it's hard to see why we wouldn't allow any other nomination on the day it is approved, and that would be a very big change. Sven, I'd tentatively say that, even if you stopped editing Wikipedia tomorrow, you'd make it until 1 April with your current score. Further, if needed, I'd be happy to call the existence of this article a good tie-breaker, if a tie-breaker is needed at the end of this round. J Milburn (talk) 09:15, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
I don't remember a situation that we did, but I also didn't remember anytime we had to deny them, so those kind of canceled each other out. :-) That's a good compromise, J. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:40, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Works for me. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:41, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 January 2013

[edit]

Not uninteresting

[edit]

Hi Ed,

I published the long List of ships of the Chilean Navy. 500 ships are included there, all kind of ships. I have thought a long time whether its significance. In the list are 7,4 tons boats as well as 47,000 t tranporter!. But 500 isn't sooooo much, in my old laptop the table works very quickly and it is very interesting to find in one page all relevant names, types, shipyards, navies and years together. If you have time you can take a look there and improve the "introduction". --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 19:49, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Whoo, that's a beastly list! Nice work. Might I suggest dividing it by era, or at least by century, to make sorting the table easier? I don't think we need comparisons between battleships and sail-rigged brigantines. ;-) Otherwise I really like it. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:43, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

GOCE mid-drive newsletter, January 2013

[edit]
Guild of Copy Editors January 2013 backlog elimination drive mid-drive newsletter

We are halfway through our January backlog elimination drive.

The mid-drive newsletter is now ready for review.

– Your project coordinators: Torchiest, BDD, and Miniapolis

Sign up for the January drive! To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 00:21, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiCup#DYK=7?

[edit]

Fiddly little issue- seemingly an honest mistake because of an ambiguity which was my fault. Could you check what I've said and let us know if you think it's fair? J Milburn (talk) 16:04, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

To keep you up to date...

[edit]

I have removed Rahuljain2307 from the WikiCup. The user promoted their own good article nomination using a sockpuppet, and may well end up blocked. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Suresh Elangovan. J Milburn (talk) 15:08, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Erk. Some people forget that it's a friendly competition... Let me know if you need any help at any point. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:19, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia tools in the Signpost -- article about SuggestBot?

[edit]

Hi, I've been in touch with EpochFail, he asked me if I could get a Signpost article written about SuggestBot, similar to the one he wrote about Snuggle. Now I've gotten a draft ready, so I thought it was time to get in touch. Since I've never written for the Signpost before, I do not know the process, and I'm sure there's plenty of improvements that can be made to my draft. Please let me know how to go from here. Regards, Nettrom (talk) 17:31, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Thought I'd ping you about this. Any thoughts? Regards, Nettrom (talk) 15:55, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Wow, I completely missed this. My apologies. I'm going to ping Jarry1250, the editor who does our tech report, into this conversation, and he'll decide if and/or how he would want to cover this. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:02, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
No worries! Thanks for following up on this, I'll get in touch with Jarry1250 if necessary. Cheers, Nettrom (talk) 14:51, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

2013-01-21 Arb report

[edit]

I have gone to the extreme step of placing the {{Courtesy blanked}} template on the page Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2013-01-21/Arbitration report. I find it appalling that that such a one sided piece could be written. To be clear, I don't know any of the users involved in the case, nor have I read the case itself, but the Signpost cannot be in the business of assigning blame and guilt to named parties while a case is ongoing. It is precisely this staggering absence of basic journalistic integrity that is the reason why I opposed putting the Signpost on the main page in the recent RfC. As a former Signpost contributor, I urge you to take action on this issue, and insure that Signpost articles are neutral. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:24, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

It was not my intention to take sides, I wrote the article based on observation (as I usually do) and not with malicious intent. Please understand that I meant no harm, nor did I have any intention of discrediting the Signpost. I will rewrite it accordingly. I will take more care to ensure the neutrality of what are particularly contentious statements and do well to avoid such kerfuffles. My sincerest apologies. James (T • C) • 10:27am • 23:27, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. I'm glad you stepped up and decided to handle this. Just remember that it is important to represent both sides, or all sides when there are more than two. The signpost has a readership of 1,500 people, including many of the project's most influential editors. Fairness is paramount. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:45, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for bringing this up, Sven. I fully believe that James mean no ill intent here, and I continue to have full confidence in his authorship of the arbitration report. As for the Signpost as a whole, I obviously disagree with your characterization. While I don't think we have a professional level of journalistic integrity (because we are volunteers without pay or specific training), I do think we have a sufficiently high enough level to hold up to scrutiny—at the least, similar to any other Wikipedia article. Whether that is enough for the Signpost's inclusion in the toolbar is something for the community to decide. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:20, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
I just wish these things didn't happen so often. And it's not all one specific writer either. There's an op-ed section, and you do letters from the editor. Other than that, taking sides or voicing opinions strong enough that it makes the reporting non-neutral is not something that should be happening in a paper, even by volunteers. NPOV is a core tenant of article writing, everyone contributing to the Signpost should know how to pull it off. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:14, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Main page appearance: dreadnought

[edit]

This is a note to let the main editors of dreadnought know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on January 29, 2013. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/January 29, 2013. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director Raul654 (talk · contribs) or his delegates Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), Gimmetoo (talk · contribs), and Bencherlite (talk · contribs), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you can change it—following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. The blurb as it stands now is below:

USS Texas (BB-35)

The dreadnought was the predominant type of battleship in the early 20th century. The first of the kind, the Royal Navy's Dreadnought, had such an impact when launched in 1906 that similar subsequent battleships were referred to as "dreadnoughts". Her design had two revolutionary features: an "all-big-gun" armament scheme and steam turbine propulsion. The arrival of the dreadnoughts renewed the naval arms race, principally between the United Kingdom and Germany, as the new warships became a symbol of national power. The concept of an all-big-gun ship had been in development for several years before Dreadnought's construction. The Imperial Japanese Navy had begun work on an all-big-gun battleship in 1904, but finished the ship as a pre-dreadnought; the United States Navy was also building all-big-gun battleships (USS Texas pictured). Technical development continued rapidly through the dreadnought era and within ten years, new battleships outclassed Dreadnought herself. Most of the original dreadnoughts were scrapped after the end of World War I under the terms of the Washington Naval Treaty. Only one battle—the Battle of Jutland—was fought between large dreadnought fleets. (Full article...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

  • Congratulations, Ed! Drmies (talk) 21:12, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Thanks, but I've only made a ton of tweaks to the article—credit for the hard parts go to The Land. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:22, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXII, January 2013

[edit]
Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:03, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 January 2013

[edit]

Signpost contributions

[edit]

Hi Ed, thanks for the invite to contribute to a multiple-POVs op-ed on paid editing. I'd be up for that if the others are. The first priority however to me would be to get a piece on Dirk's project on paid editing going.

For background on this community-funded project, see http://blog.wikimedia.org/2013/01/23/german-community-project-about-paid-editing-starts/

Dirk asked me yesterday on de:WP how best to approach the Signpost, and I have pointed him to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom#Proposals

I've also been bold and started an "In the media" piece. There hasn't been one yet this year, and there's been quite a lot of coverage this month. Please let me know whether what I've got so far looks okay: Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2013-01-28/In_the_media. Best, Andreas JN466 04:24, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I'd rather wait for something to happen than writing a full story on it now. We put a sentence in our 2012 recap, and that's all the news there is to report right now; we devoted a lot of coverage to the topic during last year as well. However, if we could get a two-part op-ed series, with one pro-paid and one anti-paid editing installment, I'd be happy to run them. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:15, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

"top of the page"

[edit]

Interesting, did you see how his tits were all anti-Meh last year? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:42, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Drmies: a walking contradiction. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 14:01, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Meaning of the abbreviation HNLMS

[edit]

Hello The ed17. Since you're mentioned at User talk:Drmies I imagine you're following the creation of these submarine articles. Currently our article on HNLMS O 15 has no definition of the abbreviation 'HNLMS.' Surely Wikipedia will not subject readers to undefined abbreviations? What would you think of a change in the opening sentence:

O 15 was a O 12-class submarine of the Royal Netherlands Navy to to
HNLMS O 15 was a O 12-class submarine of the Royal Netherlands Navy.

Incidentally one of our articles on the Dutch military in the time of WWII suggests that it was very backward: "Of all the major participants they were by far the most poorly equipped, not even attaining World War I standards." However the submarines seem to have done all right. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 17:25, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, as a general rule, we don't typically define ship prefixes in articles because they're so common and rather outside the topic. That's why USS, HMS, SS, RMS, etc. are all typically unlinked. And yes, that article has it right. While I'm not very knowledgeable about their army, up until about 1937 their navy was based around two pre-WWI cruisers (designed in 1913) at a time when 1920s cruisers were considered obsolete, and their air force had few fighters... which were of types like the Brewster F2A Buffalo and hopelessly outclassed by the Japanese. They did have plans to modernize, like the Design 1047 battlecruiser, but most came far too late (they managed to produce a couple cruisers, see 1 and 2, and a couple destroyers shortly before the war began). Aside from those, the only relatively modern component of their armed forces was the submarine squadrons, which were produced throughout the 1930s. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 17:38, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Bad practice vs bad secondary source (reference)

[edit]

I find ignoring the facts that everyone can see, and deleting the Wikimedia Foundation's section altogether, extremely bad practice since the facts about German WP chapter spending donors' money for traveling to pop concerts is on the German chapter's wiki page here for everyone to see. Especially because, as explained on the FDC portal here, apparently the Foundation has no mechanism to revise bad decisions made by the chapters, which may prove to be extremely bad for the Foundation's reputation in a long term. --DancingPhilosopher my talk 09:33, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

  • If it resulted in pictures like File:Mira Luoti - Ilosaarirock 2012.jpg I might have to write the Chapter a cheque myself. Photographs are a necessary part of building the encyclopedia, and pop concerts are places for great photography if you can get the equipment (and people who know how to use it) on site. We're missing images for numerous celebrities, and if we're getting good quality images with the funds it's a valid use. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:47, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
    • As I said in the edit summary, I have no problem with the existence of a section on how and where the WMF's money is spent. However, the reference given, "Wikipedia doesn't need your money - so why does it keep pestering you?," is rife with factual problems—see the Signpost's "In the media" from 31 December 2012. As an aside, what Crisco says above is correct, but doubly so for the German Wikipedia, whose copyright guidelines are extremely strict because of the copyright law of Germany. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 15:10, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
      • Good write-up Ed, missed that one. I must say, I'm impressed the Indian contributors have agreements with certain websites. I'd "kill" to get free images of the subjects I write about. — Crisco 1492 (talk)15:24, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
        • You should contact your national archives sometime! I got PD photos of Chilean battleship Almirante Latorre by requesting all the images the US Navy had of the ship. They sent me photocopies with tiny images, but I was able to compare them to others online and find which ones were PD. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 15:35, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
          • Well, doubt they'd have images of Gita Gutawa (who is in England right now...) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:40, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
            • Could you email Sony Music Indonesia for a publicity still? I'd assume they would agree, considering the boost a WP article can be... Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 15:55, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
              • Good idea, surprised I haven't tried that yet. Mind you, SMI =/= SM international, so they may be hard headed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:30, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Please see this. What does it tell you? It tells me that some things should be given money first, and the photos, valid in themselves, can not be the top priority no matter how valid they are in themselves, they are to be considered not in a vacuum, but in context of more important things that need the money first. --DancingPhilosopher my talk 16:46, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
      • Alas, let me repeat what I said above. I have no problem with the existence of a spending section, but quality references need to be used, not some terribly researched Register piece that is rife with factual problems. Regards, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:00, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks!

[edit]

Thanks for taking the time to post on the user pages for the students on my Wikipedia course page. I appreciate it! It's a big class (100+) so please don't feel you have to do it for everyone! Keeping my fingers crossed that the class experience goes well and they gain an appreciation for Wikipedia editing (they're not writing articles though!). Cleeder (talk) 18:25, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikimedia Highlights from December 2012

[edit]
Highlights from the Wikimedia Foundation Report and the Wikimedia engineering report for December 2012, with a selection of other important events from the Wikimedia movement
About · Subscribe/unsubscribe · Distributed via Global message delivery, 08:20, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Signpost question

[edit]

Has anyone called dibs on writing about how (knock on wood) this will be the first ever month without an unsuccessful RFA? And, if not, would the Signpost be interested in such an article? I'd obviously make it about statistical trends and RFA reform and the like, rather than the merits of any specific candidates. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 00:30, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

  • (talk page stalker) I thought last August was a particularly good month for RFAs. And didn't someone just fail disastrously, like with 30% or something? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:32, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I think that was in December, Crisco. Pink, no one has called dibs on it, but we ran a story on RfA reform last week (see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2013-01-21/News and notes, "Requests for adminship reform moves forward"). I'll include this in this week's "In brief", but I wouldn't want to cover the topic in a feature story for at least a few weeks. Regards, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 10:56, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Will do. If it's of any interest, September was the only other month in Wikipedia history that had a shot at this, simply because its only RFA was SNOWed out less than 24 hours in. Here at least we have a few successful ones. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 11:16, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I seem to have counted my chickens a little too early with the current RFA. I double checked and didn't see any others. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:24, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
  • FYI, I meant next week's in brief, when January is over. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 16:35, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Arb report

[edit]

Ah, shoot, missed something. As far as I know, Doncram has never been banned, just blocked. This is an important distinction, and should be fixed asap. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:15, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

No worries, I've fixed it. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 16:22, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Gracias. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:38, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 January 2013

[edit]

Newsletter

[edit]

I've actually started to write it in advance for a change, as I intend to every month. If there's anything you'd like to add... J Milburn (talk) 22:51, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Hehe, I love the end to it. Is the "large number of scorers" also more than last year? What would the cutoff be in terms of the number of points? Otherwise it looks good to me! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:32, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Argentine–Chilean naval arms race

[edit]

I've begun the GA review for Argentine–Chilean naval arms race. Looks pretty much ready to go, but I'd like to get your thoughts on a few points. Take a look at the review page when you get a chance, and thanks for your work on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:36, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi and thanks! I'm already replying. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 14:38, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Colon usage in Star Trek films

[edit]

Hello, I saw you closed the discussion I just started on colon usage. I would like to understand why, since you didn't provide any explanation. While adding a colon was previously discussed in the first page of the archive, I didn't see any discussion of consistency with other page titles, and nobody asked whether the other pages needed to be renamed.

Perhaps there is a consensus on this question, but so far each of the 3 replies that my message has received happened to present a different solution as self-evident (they roughly correspond to the 3 solutions I outlined in my message). --Minordeifyme (talk) 16:06, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

A colon will not be added to that page, and that talk page is not the place to discuss moving the other Star Trek movies. Apologies, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 16:23, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
So the preferred procedure would be a move request for Star Trek: Generations? --Minordeifyme (talk) 16:46, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Yes, for that specific page, or a generalized discussion on WT:STARTREK could also suffice. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 16:52, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

New section

[edit]

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Plcoopr (talk • contribs)

Replying on your talk page. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 17:32, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

[edit]

Thanks for the welcome!

Satassi (talk) 17:53, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Replying on your talk page! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:00, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:The_ed17/Archives/60&oldid=1089740893"