Jump to content

User:The ed17/Archives/63

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

USS Iowa turret explosion capitalization

[edit]

I would like to discuss the capitalization of "Navy" versus "navy". I'm very firmly in the "Navy" camp when speaking of a specific navy and just leaving off the first part of the formal name. The wiki style guide is ambigious at best on the subject so I would defer to every other style guide in the world (including NYT, the Navy themselves, etc). Is there a single place where things like this are discussed? It seems to be a running topic between various military page editors. I had no idea what I was stepping into, I just edited it because it grated on my eyes while reading the topic. And just for the record, I believe it was poor form to mark that as a minor edit. "A minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute." Surely you didn't think that was the case. Even if unaware of the running discussion on this topic (as I was) you should have known that since I had just changed it, by reverting it you were inviting a dispute. That couldn't possibly be a minor edit.--Kchinger (talk) 12:59, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Kchinger is absolutely right.
When the word navy refers to a specific navy, such as the US Navy or the Royal Navy, then the word navy becomes a proper noun (rather than a common noun) and therefore is correctly typed, printed, or written as Navy with an uppercase N – even where the adjectival prefix US is omitted.
An omission of the modifier US does not change the need to capitalize Navy – as long as Navy refers to a specific navy.
Best wishes to all from a former Naval officer and a submariner forever,
Doc.
DocRushing (talk) 14:26, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
I've added a section to the MOS talk page here if you'd like to discuss this further.--Kchinger (talk) 15:06, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, I've commented there. [natit citsejam] [klat] dE 17:12, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
[edit]

Aye there, 'The ed17', I'm a member of WikiProject Ships. To help naval historians here at Wikipedia in the effort of writing and citing naval history articles sometime ago I created the List of ships captured in the 19th century and Bibliography of early American naval history pages. Over the last year(+) I have been tracking down and including names of captured ships and naval history texts for inclusion in either of these articles. I like to think that I have included most captured ships (19th century) and most naval history texts (covering the 1700s-1800s) for inclusion in these articles, so if you know of any captured ships or naval history texts that are not included would you kindly include them, either on the page or the talk page of the appropriate article? Any help would be a big help and feedback is always welcomed. Thanx! -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:40, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi there, that's not my area of expertise but I do wish you luck on those ambitious but worthy projects! [natit citsejam] [klat] dE 00:25, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

[edit]

You know what at you know where. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:24, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

A request

[edit]

Hi Ed, I hope you don't mind me dropping you this note. I see several people have suggested that the Signpost publish a story on the issue of BP and other oil companies editing (or supplying approved drafts of) their own articles. I'm writing to ask that, if you do publish a story about this, you give the assignment to an editor who has not been involved in the paid-editor issue. The reason I ask this is that I was concerned to see Ocaasi present material in the Signpost's voice last year (for example here), even though he has been involved on one side of the debate.

Because PR editing has the potential to change the course of Wikipedia quite dramatically, I hope you agree that Signpost articles about it should be written by someone with no dog in the fight – unless the story is presented as a personal view, in which case personal views from both sides would hopefully be included. I know that everyone involved in the debate means well and wants the best for Wikipedia (as they see it), but with the best will in the world, it's probably impossible for someone who's involved to write about it neutrally.

Again, I hope you don't mind that I make this request. All the best, SlimVirgin (talk) 03:59, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi, we're still considering it, but if we decide to do it, it would probably be either me or Tony1. The other option is a series of op-eds (or one with multiple, competing authors), which would obviously be marked as opinion. Thanks, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 17:04, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Okay, many thanks, Ed. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:52, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Questions

[edit]

Hi Ed, did you get my email, and is The Signpost moving to a Thursday publication every week? Thanks, --Pine✉ 17:22, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, and I'm thinking of looking at how hard it would be to move to a Wednesday publishing date. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:39, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

GOCE April 2013 newsletter

[edit]
Guild of Copy Editors March 2013 backlog elimination drive wrap-up newsletter

We have completed our March backlog elimination drive.

The drive wrap-up newsletter is now ready for review.

– Your project coordinators: Torchiest, BDD, and Miniapolis

Sign up for the April blitz! To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 19:21, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 01 April 2013

[edit]

Signpost twitter account

[edit]

Hi Ed, I was wondering if you handled that account. I follow it, and its used well. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 02:12, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Nick :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:18, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

This Month in GLAM: March 2013

[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 12:07, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

[edit]

I feel like I always learn something new from the Signpost's coverage, even on topics I'm well-familiar with, and I'm not sure how often the people who make each issue come together hear this. Thanks for the IEG writeup in news and notes this week - the perspectives and coverage you've been bringing to this new program make me think about what we've been building in different ways that are useful and interesting! Siko (WMF) (talk) 20:40, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Siko! It's good to hear feedback every so often. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:42, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 08 April 2013

[edit]

Wikimedia Highlights from March 2013

[edit]
Highlights from the Wikimedia Foundation Report and the Wikimedia engineering report for March 2013, with a selection of other important events from the Wikimedia movement
About · Subscribe/unsubscribe · Distributed via Global message delivery, 00:01, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

[edit]
The Original Barnstar
Your work has really made Wikipedia better. Plcoopr (talk) 12:27, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

You've got mail!

[edit]
Hello. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 18:41, 15 April 2013 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 18:41, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Replied, thanks! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:49, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
More mail. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 22:53, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 April 2013

[edit]

Michigan State Trunkline Highway System

[edit]

Thanks for taking a look in on the article. The centennial of the system's creation is coming up here in a few weeks, so I'm a bit optimistic and anxious to see if we can't get the article successfully out of FAC in time to be a TFA on May 13 for that anniversary. Imzadi 1979 → 06:54, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Good luck! If you don't get enough reviews in a week or so, ping me and I'll go through it. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:04, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. The FAC has been open since the 9th and it's only really received one review and comments/supports from the ACR reviewers, so you might want to look in sooner rather than later if you're interested in reviewing it. Imzadi 1979 → 11:52, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Ping. I'm not sure it has had enough, and I'm not sure it hasn't, but another set of eyes can't hurt things. Imzadi 1979 → 07:01, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Your edit to USS Iowa turret explosion

[edit]

Hello! I changed all instances of "navy" to "Navy" in USS Iowa turret explosion, then noticed afterward you had previously undone a similar edit, giving the reason of "(undo - it's "U.S. Navy" or "navy")". This is incorrect according to Wikipedia's style guideline found here.

Formal names of military units, including armies, navies, air forces, fleets, regiments, battalions, companies, corps, and so forth, are proper nouns and should be capitalized. However, the words for types of military unit (army, navy, fleet, company, etc.) do not require capitalization if they do not appear in a proper name. Thus, the American army, but the United States Army.

Navy (short for the full proper name United States Navy), is a proper noun and thus requires capitalization :)

--CumbiaDude (talk) 23:28, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually, this is the current topic of a discussion on the talk page of that guidelines, and it looks like that is going against that view. ;-) Typical usage on Wikipedia and in the world is "navy", as far as I know. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:38, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
CumbiaDude, you're exactly right!  Hang in there, stick to your guns, and keep your powder dry.
Your corrections comply with a principle which has been settled, taught, learned, and practiced for many decades.
Simply stated, when the word navy clearly refers to a specific navy, such as the US Navy or the Royal Navy, even in the absence of a preceding adjectival expression, that word then and there functions as a proper noun, and it therefore requires an uppercase initial letter.
However, there are a few style books and a few house style sheets which defy the logic of the established decision rules for what's a proper noun and what's properly capitalized.
Further, there's also a small group of users at the Wikipedia who appear to be on a crusade to defy and oppose the accepted grammar rule and to follow the lead of the alternative opposing view – and to force that variant view into the Wikipedia MoS and therefore onto the rest of our part of the world.
Please note that most of those minority activists – the ones who seek to change the old rules – appear not to have the advantage of extensive qualifications (education, training, expertise, and experience away from the Wikipedia) in grammar, writing, rewriting, and proofreading.
One of them refers to the erroneous lowercase letters as "typical usage", and another calls it "standard English usage".
Do not believe them, because they're absolutely wrong on that point.
Besides, Theodore Bernstein, one of my heroes, a long-time and revered assistant managing editor and adjunct professor at Columbia University, has forcefully said that rarely can we find truth in grammar or anything else merely by counting a show of hands.
Again, CumbiaDude, hang in there!
As always, best wishes to all,
Doc.
DocRushing (talk) 01:20, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
I appreciate your opinion, but characterizing the Chicago Manual of Style as a minority activist is a bit much, I think... Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:00, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Well, Chicago might have great hot dogs, but I'd have to disagree with Chicago - abbreviating "United States Navy" as "navy" would be the same as abbreviating "Theodore Roosevelt" as "roosevelt", IMHO. It's still a proper noun, even in the shortened form. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:05, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Well, that's fair, we all have our own opinions ;-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:56, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
As I said above, there are, among others, several style books and several house style sheets which defy the logic of the established decision rules for what's a proper noun and what's properly capitalized.
The Chicago style is an example of that on this particular point; that is, on this point the Chicago style defies the logic of the established decision rules for what's a proper noun and what's properly capitalized.
Many years ago one of my professors expressed the view that some of the style books, some of the house style sheets, and some of the organizations go out of their way to attract attention to themselves by their deliberate nonconformance.
She also explained that some of the nonconformist tendencies (on the question of capitalization of proper nouns) appear to be grounded in part in typographic history – an attempt to simplify and speed up the old process of manual typesetting and, later, the use of Linotype and other such labor-intensive processes.
Nonetheless, proper nouns require uppercase initial letters, and to fail and refuse to capitalize them is to defy and ignore a clear and well established rule of grammar.
At the Wikipedia there is a small group of users who appear to be on a crusade to defy and oppose the accepted grammar rule, to follow the lead of the alternative opposing view, and to force that variant view into the Wikipedia MoS.
There's a simple question:   Do we prefer to follow an undeniably correct rule of grammar, or are we willing to follow the poor example of an ill-guided tendency?
In other words, shall we choose to follow those style books which respect and follow an established rule of grammar, or shall we choose to follow one or more other style books which defy and oppose a time-tested, time-proved, time-honored rule of grammar?
Shall we do it the right way, or shall we do it a wrong way and try to pretend that it's OK because someone else has done it wrong?
The proper way to resolve this matter is not to rely on personal opinions but rather on the clear and undeniable applicable rules of grammar.
Again, best wishes to all,
Doc.
DocRushing (talk) 06:15, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Chicago leans towards downcasing, although it acknowledges that usage varies widely. The modern style is the federal government, for example. How do you resolve the issue of both navies are purchasing the new vessels (e.g., the British and US navies)? Tony (talk) 12:07, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Tony:
I agree with the general tendency of the Chicago MoS toward downcasing, because I heartily agree that too many people in the US, while writing English, tend to use too many uppercase initial letters.
The overuse of capital initials results from a widespread difficulty in recognizing which words are proper nouns or adjectives, and which are common ones.
Yes, I too tend to downcase – but only in instances where particular nouns or adjectives do not function as proper ones.
Let's look at your examples:
The federal government (or a state government, county government, or city government) is absolutely correct, not only in a modern style but in a traditional one as well – because government is a common noun, and federal, state, county, and city in that context are common adjectives.
Further, strictly speaking, US government, with a lowercase g, also is correct – because there is no specific agency, organization, or institution bearing the official title of "US Government" or "United States Government".
Now the navies:  Both navies and the British and US navies are also both correct – because in both instances navies does not refer to either of the two specific navies in question.
On the other hand, however, if we write "both the Royal Navy and the US Navy", then in each instance Navy refers to a specific navy.
Consider these parallels:
I address my maternal parent as "Mother", because she is my mother; further, there are many other mothers who live on the same street.  [In these three instances only Mother as a name for a specific person is a proper noun, so only it gets a capital M; each of the other two is a common noun, so it does not get a capital M.]
One of my friends, Lieutenant Commander W.T. Door, is the executive officer of a submarine; he is a lieutenant commander in the US Navy; the welcome-aboard brochure identifies him as "LCdr. W.T. Door, USN, Executive Officer.  [In this first reference to my friend, his rank functions, along with his name, as a part of a proper-noun phrase and thus gets a cap L and a cap C, but the rank otherwise (as a lieutenant commander in the Navy) is merely a common-noun phrase and thus gets lowercase initials; likewise the term executive officer is a common-noun phrase unless it becomes directly tied to a specific person who occupies that position (identified by an official title).]
Well, I genuinely and sincerely hope that that helps.
Incidentally, most of my words above closely resemble the classroom discussions which took place while I was in the fourth grade (1949-50), when my schoolmates and I learned about capitalization.
I find it sad that nowadays so many of the teachers and many of the schools just no longer teach the fundamentals as well as in past years.
Before I retired from education (as a professor of business, including business communication), every year every incoming class of new students was in general slightly less well prepared than the one in the previous year.
Now, in my retirement, I serve as a volunteer instructor in a free GED course (which I created) in a community-service ministry at my church in a downtown location.
In that setting I repeatedly feel amazed and dismayed about the poor preparation of my students there; for example, most of them have great difficulty with the multiplication tables, which my peers and I learned in the third grade.
Oh, well; we try hard to do as well as we can with what we have.
If you have another question, please ask.
I'll gladly lend a hand.
Best wishes,
Doc.
DocRushing (talk) 18:38, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow all the forks of this discussion but I want to say that I agree with CumbiaDude. When the name of a particular navy such as the United States Navy is shortened to "the Navy" then "Navy" should be capitalized. --Pine✉ 20:44, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Dispatches

[edit]

It is possible that I could be lured into doing a Dispatches column for the Signpost, on no more than a monthly basis. Say, the first Signpost of each month. Among issues that I would like to air are: the failing peer review system; are "good articles" really any good?; infobox issues; notability issues – oh, I don't know, just about everything that's been topical/contentious in the six years I've been here. It would definitely only be monthly, and I'd do it for a short trial period (say 3 months) to see how I manage. The first would not be before first week in June. If any of this is of any use to you, please ping my talk and I will give the matter more serious thought. Brianboulton (talk) 23:21, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

m:Wikimedia exit interview/Sue Gardner

[edit]

Hi. Two related questions regarding m:Wikimedia exit interview/Sue Gardner:

  1. We're now soliciting questions for the exit interview. Could this solicitation be advertised in the Signpost?
  2. In a few months, when the interview is complete, would the Signpost have any interest in publishing it?

Apologies if there's a better forum I should be using for these questions. --MZMcBride (talk) 06:49, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

This is all very well, but does it have anything to do with the Signpost? I'm puzzled as to how this process could result in a tight, focused interview that would be of interest to Signpost readers. Tony (talk) 07:56, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
How about extracting the most interesting excerpts from the interview and republishing them? Nick-D (talk) 08:48, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Nick, that might deal with the bloat factor, but I was faced with that task for the Jan 2012 interview with Sue G, which originated in a crowd-sourced free-for-all question page. It was hell to do—took me ages, and constructing a logical flow of themes was really really challenging. And it risked offending people by ommision.

From a reader-interest perspective, the whole point of publishing in the SP is that the interview is new. The material would have been readable onwiki for ages. Hardly makes for good journalism. Are there solutions to these issues?

But perhaps the proposal is for a list of community suggestions for questions. ?? Tony (talk) 11:25, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

You're, uh, being a bit dramatic. :-)
The cross-over readership between a page on Meta-Wiki and the Signpost is pretty low. How many Signpost readers do you think have read m:User:Sue Gardner/Wikimedia Foundation Guiding Principles, for example?
The Signpost covers Wikipedia and Wikimedia. Sue Gardner is the outgoing executive director of the Wikimedia Foundation. I'm not sure you really need me to draw the line between the two to demonstrate relevance. And I think an exit interview (or excerpts) would be more interesting content than most of the recent op-eds. Just saying.
In any case, the two ideas, while related, are independent. If the Signpost can be used to gather better (broader) input for questions for the exit interview, great. If it also wants to re-use some of the content in a future piece, even better. If neither option is feasible, oh well! --MZMcBride (talk) 14:03, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
I'd be happy to add an "In brief" regarding the exit interview; that's no problem. While publishing the interview (or parts of it) is appealing and would have high reader interest, I can't commit to anything until I see the material we will have to work with. Thank you for the note, MZM! Much appreciated. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 17:22, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Going off the boil?

[edit]

Hi Ed, If you still fancy it for an Op Ed, User:WereSpielChequers/Going off the boil? is as finished as it will ever be. ϢereSpielChequers 22:42, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm certainly still interested! That's almost more of an investigative report, though, thanks to its length and in-depth assessment, if you think it would be better-titled as such. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:10, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXV, April 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) 15:13, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

In the media

[edit]

Reporting back to work ... Best, Andreas JN466 20:02, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

That's very good to hear, Andreas—thanks! :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:04, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 April 2013

[edit]

GOCE April 2013 newsletter

[edit]
Guild of Copy Editors April 2013 events newsletter

We finished the April blitz and are preparing to start our May backlog elimination drive.

The April 2013 events newsletter is now ready for review.

– Your project coordinators: Torchiest, BDD, and Miniapolis

Sign up for the May drive! To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 04:11, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes!

[edit]

If I was an Administrator on the English wikipedia, I'd like as not lick balls too mate! Lol! Take care, all the best. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.178.232.112 (talk) 06:46, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Hahahaha, alrighty then. How are you, and were you drunk? :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 12:24, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Signpost

[edit]

Ed, I am an avid Signpost-reader and was wondering what, if anything, I could help with to write it. I can't guarantee I'd be around every week for every issue, but it is something I would like to consistently devote some time to. Thanks. --Go Phightins! 01:33, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Phigtins, nice to meet you! We could use some help with "In the media", if you'd like to work with User:Jayen466 on weeks he is free or go it alone when he isn't. The basic format of the articles can be viewed in past ITMs, and there is also this on our resources page. Does that sound like something you'd be interested in? Thanks! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:37, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Well, I can't tell you right now if I am interested, because I literally just dozed off looking at the computer screen and am struggling to keep my eyes open to type this...I think that may be an indicator it's bed time for me :) ... I will look tomorrow. Thanks. Go Phightins! 03:39, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Sounds good. Sleep well :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:41, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
All right, sorry for the delayed response. The "In the media" section sounds like something I could work on. Would you give me a brief rundown of the structure of the Signpost as far as working procedures, deadlines, editing, etc.? Go Phightins! 19:02, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
No worries on the response time! I'm hoping to have three total contributors to the section, and you would be the second (I may have convinced a third; we shall see). So, on a typical week you would work by email with the other editors to determine who want to write it (or it can be a collaboration of all three). We start some of our sections online, but we're slowly moving to a practice of drafting the pages in Google Docs so that the news is 'news' when we publish. I'll leave that choice to you (when I publish, I copy the text on-wiki, and the attribution is given in the byline). Our nominal deadline is Sunday evening, but the typical working deadline that I'm trying to get back to is Tuesday morning UTC. I don't meddle much with my section writers unless you do something really crazy (e.g. reporting on the news shouldn't be written in an opinionated style ;-) ).
On the section itself, it has traditionally been one to three summaries of the most prominent news stories of the week, with others coming in an "In brief" section. If the article is particularly bad, though, I wouldn't have a problem with a critical interpretive article that examining the media piece's assertions and comparing them to the facts, backed up with links (links serve as our references in the Signpost). Is that comprehensive? I fear it's all a bit difficult to explain. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:14, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
OK. Sounds like something I am at least willing to give a try :) ... you said Jayen466 is already working on this section; how should I go about initiating contact? Go Phightins! 19:31, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
I've left a {{tb}} for him pointing to this section. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:36, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Go Phightins, your help would be welcome. I think the Signpost just went six weeks without ITM because I went on holiday ... Some notes:

  1. There is a useful automated RSS feed of Wikipedia news stories on the Wikipedia Review site: [1] Most of the news stories come up there.
  2. I sometimes drop links to news stories onto the ITM page as I become aware of them, just so I don't forget, and then write them up when I have time. Could I suggest you do that too? Then we have a rough idea of what each of is aiming to cover.
  3. Also keep an eye on the Suggestions page: [2] where Wikipedians may put links to articles they would like us to cover.

Best, Andreas JN466 22:15, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Watchlisted the suggestions page, bookmarked the RSS feed. Do you work in a sandbox, google docs, something else? Go Phightins! 01:20, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Jayen typically works on-wiki, but I'm hoping that I can convince you both to start working in a Google Doc. ;-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:44, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
I am up for a Google Doc if that will work for Jayen, but I guess my question is, does one simply type the wiki-markup into the Google doc (e.g., links using []) and then paste it into the wiki? Go Phightins! 02:13, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Ah, I see. I typically type it up on-wiki but copy/paste it to a Gdoc, with all of the markup. Then the only thing I need from you is the Gdoc location and permission to edit it, and I copy it in just before publishing. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:19, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
If it works for Jayen, it works for me. I will set up a Wikipedia Google Account so as not to conflict with my personal one. Go Phightins! 02:25, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Awesome. Glad to have you on board, Phightins (can I call you that? Or what do you typically go by?). Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:30, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Call me anything but late for dinner :) Phightins works, Go P, GP, or whatever else, just make sure that you tell me what it is you are going to call me so while skimming a page I don't miss it. I assume Ed is fine for you? Go Phightins! 02:36, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Sounds good, I'll probably go with GP most of the time (less typing!). Ed is fine. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:45, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Hey, I am new to Google Docs but willing to give it a go. I may need instructions. ;) Andreas JN466 04:00, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

You said today you could do with another hand, do you still need me? Keilana|Parlez ici 04:09, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

They're pretty simple to use, if you've used MS Word before, which I assume you have. ;-) The biggest thing (for me) is that you change the privacy settings so that I can view and edit them. @Keilana, if you still want to do it, both Jayen and Phigtins have said that they can't do it each week, so I don't think they'd reject a third hand. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 13:43, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Indeed: being able to take breaks without that meaning that there won't be an ITM at all would be very welcome. Andreas JN466 03:04, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Regarding Google Docs

[edit]

The only part that requires any more difficulty than simply working in a sandbox is getting connected. Basically, we all have to have Google accounts and then share the email addresses so we can be connected to allow all four of us to edit any given page by "sharing" it, but other than that, it is just like a Word Document that anyone who has permission can edit. Go Phightins! 19:34, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Just shoot me a wiki email and I'll be on board. :) Keilana|Parlez ici 19:44, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Ed, Keilana, and Jayen: You all have mail. Go Phightins! 21:32, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Yes, the initial setup can be annoying; I probably should have thought of that and just created one myself! My apologies, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:30, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
If sharing a gdoc, my advice is not to do it by generating an auto-email to the other person's gmail inbox. Just click on "change" in the share box, then "anyone with the link can view", then change that "can view" to "can edit". Then send them the link. Easy. Tony (talk) 01:54, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Image review for Saratoga

[edit]

Since you're already familiar with the images that I used on the Saratoga article, could you be so kind as to do a more formal image review whenever you have time? I think that's all that's left to do for promotion and it would be nice to put it to bed as well.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:56, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Sure! I'm in a GLAM conference right now, but I'll work on it when I can this afternoon. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 17:34, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
That was much easier than I thought -- done now! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 17:42, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Clarification wanted

[edit]

Thank you for your comments on my talk page. Please forgive me for requesting a clarification. I have avoided making edits to Military history articles and have confined my comments in this matter to the talk page of the person I have the dispute with, are these the disruptive edits you are referring to? If so please accept my apologies, but can someone please explain to Buckshot06, that discussing someones work on wikipedia without inviting them to take part in the discussion (As took place in February of 2012.) is not an act calculated to encourage co-operation or collaboration.Graham1973 (talk) 01:18, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

No, I just don't see why you're pursuing this dispute still, one year and two months after it happened. I think it's time to move on, no? Life is too short to carry on things like this. It is just a website, after all. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:44, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
I pursue it because on a website with anonymous users first impressions is everything and Buckshot06s actions back then tell me that they are uncooperative, unthinking and untrustworthy. Until they can prove otherwise or that they understand why what they did was wrong I will have to proceed on that assumption.Graham1973 (talk) 03:06, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Well, just be warned that proceeding on such a course may lead to you getting blocked. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:56, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:The_ed17/Archives/63&oldid=1083648890"