Line 709: | Line 709: | ||
:::# Majority vote is not consensus and a good admin would know that. |
:::# Majority vote is not consensus and a good admin would know that. |
||
:::--[[User:Surturz|Surturz]] ([[User talk:Surturz|talk]]) 11:45, 3 August 2011 (UTC) |
:::--[[User:Surturz|Surturz]] ([[User talk:Surturz|talk]]) 11:45, 3 August 2011 (UTC) |
||
::::That kind of page is routinely deleted when they're nominated for deletion. I opposed the deletion of Timeshift's page and voted to overturn the MfD closure in the deletion review, but it's clear to me that all the admins acted in good faith. Setting up a list of 'bad' admins is pretty unhelpful: if you really think that they violated policies you should be putting your money where your mouth is by taking this up at WP:AN or WP:ANI. All this kind of thing does is generate drama. [[User:Nick-D|Nick-D]] ([[User talk:Nick-D|talk]]) 12:14, 3 August 2011 (UTC) |
Revision as of 12:14, 3 August 2011
Military history WikiProject |
---|
Articles for review |
See the full list of open tasks |
The Bugle: Issue LXIII, May 2011
|
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/23/Nuvola_apps_edu_languages.svg/40px-Nuvola_apps_edu_languages.svg.png)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
SMS Zrinyi
Hey ed....I remember that you said that in Conway's, there was a section called "Austria-Hugary" that dealt with the ships from said nation. So...how would I go about adding that (and the author of the section) into the current citation on that article?
BTW, I can't seem to open the "Templates" button when editing articles....any ideas?
All the best,--White Shadows Stuck in square one 21:34, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
- Hey WS, Chicago does it like this. See Morgan, "Revolt of the Lash". If you have more than one chapter to cit, see all of the Conway's citations. If you use {{cite book}}, I believe you would use |chapter=Austria-Hungary, with |last=Sieche |first=Erwin and |editor1-last=Gardiner |editor1-first=Robert |editor2-last=Gray |editor2-first=Randal. That should produce Sieche, Erwin (1984). "Austria-Hungary". In Gardiner, Robert; Gray, Randal (eds.). Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships: 1906–1921. Annapolis: Naval Institute Press.
- I'll note that in proper style guides (e.g. MLA, Chicago, APA), the editor names should not be last, first... you see why I don't use the templates anymore. ;-) Regards, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:14, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
- Hey, sorry for the delay in responding. Thanks a lot Ed! When I get the chance, I'll try that. BTW, you make a good point about not using the templates. Perhaps we should bring this up somewhere? To try to change the way the Templates are structured?--White Shadows Stuck in square one 23:58, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- Hey, no big deal and anytime! I left a note at Template talk:Cite book, but I don't use them because they don't produce a real citation style... it's a mashup of APA with a couple other things. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:27, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- Alright. Anyway, I'll probably give you a ping again when I'm done, just to see if I did it correctly. (I also need to go through the other A-H BBs and fix them up to, before Buggie or I nominate another one for an ACR)--White Shadows Stuck in square one 00:35, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- Oh! One more thing, I guess it would be best to switch over to the proper style guide when nominating the article at FAC? Or would they let it slide considering that it's not standard in the templates?--White Shadows Stuck in square one 00:38, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- Haha, WS, it's fine to use the templates! They are fully accepted at FAC. I just choose to use Chicago because I'm a history major. You're allowed to use whatever style you want so long as it is consistent. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:00, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- Really? I'm going to major in History in College when I enter next year. I inserted what you showed me in the citation but it came out rather odd...where did I go wrong? (Sorry for all the questions, I'm feel like a new editor here!)--White Shadows Stuck in square one 01:02, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- Eh, I don't mind the questions! Link me to the article and I'll take a look after work... I have a 9pm to close shift tonight (=about four hours, which isn't worth it, but at least it's an atypical shift!) Where are you planning on attending college? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:23, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- Here you go. Thanks again. As for college...I'm still not sure. I want to attend UVA (I live in Virgina) but my father (my parents divorced when I was about 1) currently works as a Business Professor (Technically Marketing) at South Carolina so I may very well end up going there, considering that we get a rather decent discount. However, for my PhD, I want to attend UCLA (I have an aunt and cousins who live in LA so it's not that big of a deal) as they have one of the best History Programs in the nation among public colleges.--White Shadows Stuck in square one 01:28, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- Eh, I don't mind the questions! Link me to the article and I'll take a look after work... I have a 9pm to close shift tonight (=about four hours, which isn't worth it, but at least it's an atypical shift!) Where are you planning on attending college? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:23, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- Really? I'm going to major in History in College when I enter next year. I inserted what you showed me in the citation but it came out rather odd...where did I go wrong? (Sorry for all the questions, I'm feel like a new editor here!)--White Shadows Stuck in square one 01:02, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- Haha, WS, it's fine to use the templates! They are fully accepted at FAC. I just choose to use Chicago because I'm a history major. You're allowed to use whatever style you want so long as it is consistent. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:00, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- Oh! One more thing, I guess it would be best to switch over to the proper style guide when nominating the article at FAC? Or would they let it slide considering that it's not standard in the templates?--White Shadows Stuck in square one 00:38, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- Alright. Anyway, I'll probably give you a ping again when I'm done, just to see if I did it correctly. (I also need to go through the other A-H BBs and fix them up to, before Buggie or I nominate another one for an ACR)--White Shadows Stuck in square one 00:35, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- Hey, no big deal and anytime! I left a note at Template talk:Cite book, but I don't use them because they don't produce a real citation style... it's a mashup of APA with a couple other things. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:27, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- Hey, sorry for the delay in responding. Thanks a lot Ed! When I get the chance, I'll try that. BTW, you make a good point about not using the templates. Perhaps we should bring this up somewhere? To try to change the way the Templates are structured?--White Shadows Stuck in square one 23:58, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- You do make a point. I will likely go there for my Bachelor's degree. Anyway, in other news, thanks for fixing the citation. I found this edit especially funny! Now all that's left if I'm not mistaken (which I usually am), is fixing the issue regarding citations and footnotes. The first footnote, while correct, is technically original research. There is no source that I know of that states that while Zrinyi was launched after HMS Dreadnought, she is still a pre-Dreadnought battleship. Is it acceptable to remove the citation altogether? By reading the article, one would know that Zrinyi is a PD and that she was launched in 1910...--White Shadows Stuck in square one 19:05, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- Aside from the first footnote, these are the last two outstanding issues:
- This is not clear: Zrínyi was powered by two-shaft four-cylinder vertical triple expansion engines rated at 19,800 indicated horsepower and a top speed of 20.5 knots (38.0 km/h; 23.6 mph). The engine(s) drove the propeller shafts, right? Or did they have shafts of their own? The engines don't have a top speed. They gave the ship a top speed so you need to add a verb.
How many boilers of what type? You need to provide this to support the infobox, with appropriate links.
To be totally honest, I really do not know how to go about fixing this. I don't quite understand the first one, and I cannot find anything about the second.--White Shadows Stuck in square one 00:22, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
- Re footnote, it's your choice but I think I did the same thing here (note N9). The engines powered propellers that could drive the ship through the water at a maximum of 20.5 knots (38.0 km/h; 23.6 mph). That's a little thing I picked up over time. :-) In Minas Geraes-class battleship, I used the sentence "Eighteen boilers provided power to the engines, which in turn rotated the two three-bladed propellers with 23,500 shaft horsepower." Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:38, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 6 June 2011
- Board elections: Time to vote
- News and notes: Board resolution on controversial content; WMF Summer of Research; indigenous workshop; brief news
- Recent research: Various metrics of quality and trust; leadership; nerd stereotypes
- WikiProject report: Make your own book with Wikiproject Wikipedia-Books
- Featured content: The best of the week
- Arbitration report: Two cases pending resolution; temporary desysop; dashes/hyphens update
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
My RfA
I just wanted to take a minute to thank you very much for supporting me in my recent RfA. Even though it was unsuccessful, I appreciate your trust. With much gratitude, jsfouche ☽☾Talk 02:18, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
- You are very welcome – good luck in any future attempts. I'm sure you'll pass then. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:14, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
The above image used in Operation Strikeback is a candidate for speedy deletion.Marcd30319 (talk) 12:53, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
- Never mind, Ed17. The photo has been deleted without even the courtesy of discussion. Talk about speedy! Marcd30319 (talk) 13:27, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
- Hi Marc, hope you're still doing well! Speedy deletions are for uncontroversial calls and are assumed to not need discussion. In this case, the image wasn't necessarily in the public domain – as the nominator put it: "Stars and Stripes is only partially funded by the DoD - their website says "Stories and photos by Stars and Stripes staffers are copyrighted, and may not be reprinted or used without permission."" He appears to be correct in this assessment, although not under G12 but F9. Apologies! Do you know of/can you find any other images that would have been taken by a federal government employee? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:14, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
DYK for South American dreadnought race
- Congrats on yet another DYK entry. Shame you couldn't get it in a day sooner—June 11 is Navy Day in Brazil, you know ;) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 03:56, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks muchly. I suppose I could have asked for the 11th, but it's too late now. :-) Regarding [1], would you like to fix the translation at Tenente revolts then? I'm pretty sure that's where I copied it from... Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:13, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- Sure. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 17:47, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks muchly. I suppose I could have asked for the 11th, but it's too late now. :-) Regarding [1], would you like to fix the translation at Tenente revolts then? I'm pretty sure that's where I copied it from... Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:13, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
South American dreadnought race
Hey, Ed, what is left to have South American dreadnought race nominated for Featured article? --Lecen (talk) 00:24, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- Lecen! I hope you're still well, and I'm glad to see you back. Right now the article is going through a Milhist A-class review, and I will probably nominate it at FAC soon after it passes (assuming it does). What are you working on? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:45, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- Got tired of those royals' articles and now I'm trying to come back by writing about Brazil's greatest soldier: Luís Alves de Lima e Silva, Duke of Caxias. I don't have good quality books about that dreadnought race, but only a few magazine articles, as you know. However, I'm going after a decent photo of the Baron of Rio Branco that may be added to the article. --Lecen (talk) 01:50, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- That one is looking good so far – nice work! I don't have any good books for you either, although I can tell you that the companion volume to Latin America's Wars was pretty good, so the 1791–1899 volume might help you a bit. If you find any more journal articles, feel free to send them my way. ;-) Do you have Jstor? I found a couple good journal articles that may interest you. Good luck with the photo, and thanks! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:04, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- Yes! Please, send them to me! --Lecen (talk) 20:49, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
- That one is looking good so far – nice work! I don't have any good books for you either, although I can tell you that the companion volume to Latin America's Wars was pretty good, so the 1791–1899 volume might help you a bit. If you find any more journal articles, feel free to send them my way. ;-) Do you have Jstor? I found a couple good journal articles that may interest you. Good luck with the photo, and thanks! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:04, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- Got tired of those royals' articles and now I'm trying to come back by writing about Brazil's greatest soldier: Luís Alves de Lima e Silva, Duke of Caxias. I don't have good quality books about that dreadnought race, but only a few magazine articles, as you know. However, I'm going after a decent photo of the Baron of Rio Branco that may be added to the article. --Lecen (talk) 01:50, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
ITNC
Not a major surprise. As you've not commented on the discussion, perhaps you should close it instead. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 02:32, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for the note. I restored the {archive} tags. It was a completely unproductive discussion – no consensus will result from the discussion, and the race has started anyway. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:43, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- What a piss take that really is. The final shame of ITN/C. Losing the argument? Don't want to play anymore? Then take your ball home and archive the discussion! Claim that it is unproductive, even though other people were still discussing right up to that point, and even though if no admin with any sense ever turned up, it would have been moot in 12 hours anyway! Jesus Christ. This fucking site. Unfuckingbelievable. MickMacNee (talk) 02:48, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- Get a grip and drop the stick. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 02:51, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- Losing the argument? I didn't take part in it, and I don't really care about the outcome. All I saw was a good cut-off of unproductive yet contentious and heated discussion, and I complimented Passerby on it. Then you reverted, so I re-reverted. On a related note, Mick, I mean this in the best way possible, but take a short break from the computer... go somewhere quiet and fish, or play some tennis, or do anything that'll get your mind off things. You're really taking some of these discussions way too personally. I mean, is there really a big difference between posting a minor blurb on a website now or twelve hours from now? Does it really matter in the grand scheme of life? Your friend, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:57, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- No big difference at all. It's already well and truly ruined my weekend. You're forgetting of course it won't even go up when it finishes, becuase I'm not going to waste my time on it if I cannot further expose the farce that causes it to appear five hours late when nobody really gives a crap anymore, and 365 apparently takes a week to write the summaries so that's out too, and none of the other ITN opposers really give a shit whether it goes up after either, not enough to do any actual work except to give their 2c of varying degrees of knowledge of ITN or the event, or of anything infact. It's already rewarded Kevin for the disgraceful tactic of torpedoing nominations based on mythical discussions he's never going to start, just for a bit of mindless BURO. It's already ensured SP can do whatever he did today rather than continue his 'if it was updated' stories while I wasted it arguing in a discussion that he was going to ensure never finished anyway. It's rewarded 365 because he's managed to get me reported to ANI for 'though crime' and then fuck off while I have to put up with the likes of RD232 doing his innocent passer by act and the likes of Bjmullen POV pushing on the very same day he acts the victim in there. I shall have to be content with the fact that the point you actually cut it off at, is rather embarassing to the only person who was actually trying to make any serious defence of the opposing argument, in this supposed unimportant issue. So unimportant, it's been emphatically 'won' in one way, but not the other. MickMacNee (talk) 03:24, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- Losing the argument? I didn't take part in it, and I don't really care about the outcome. All I saw was a good cut-off of unproductive yet contentious and heated discussion, and I complimented Passerby on it. Then you reverted, so I re-reverted. On a related note, Mick, I mean this in the best way possible, but take a short break from the computer... go somewhere quiet and fish, or play some tennis, or do anything that'll get your mind off things. You're really taking some of these discussions way too personally. I mean, is there really a big difference between posting a minor blurb on a website now or twelve hours from now? Does it really matter in the grand scheme of life? Your friend, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:57, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- Get a grip and drop the stick. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 02:51, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- What a piss take that really is. The final shame of ITN/C. Losing the argument? Don't want to play anymore? Then take your ball home and archive the discussion! Claim that it is unproductive, even though other people were still discussing right up to that point, and even though if no admin with any sense ever turned up, it would have been moot in 12 hours anyway! Jesus Christ. This fucking site. Unfuckingbelievable. MickMacNee (talk) 02:48, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 13 June 2011
- News and notes: Wikipedians 90% male and largely altruist; 800 public policy students add 8.8 million bytes; brief news
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Aircraft
- Featured content: Featured lists hit the main page
- Arbitration report: More workshop proposals in Tree shaping case; further votes in PD of other case
- Technology report: 1.18 extension bundling; mobile testers needed; brief news
Re. Minas Geraes
Don't worry.. :). Thank you by the nice article. Leandromartinez (talk) 07:32, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- Wow, what a nice job (South American dreadnought race)! We don't have anything similar about this issue at pt.wiki, what a shame... We will appreciate if you could create a stub :) About the title, i'm not sure about, but Dreadnought = Encouraçado? Thanks! Leandromartinez (talk) 08:12, 16 June 2011 (UTC) PS: Sorry by my bad english.
- Thanks. Well, i think Corrida armamentista sul-americana dos encouraçados seems better... The portuguese language it's a little crazy, the grammar, a nightmare. :) Leandromartinez (talk) 09:48, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Problem with Talk page edits
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/23/Nuvola_apps_edu_languages.svg/40px-Nuvola_apps_edu_languages.svg.png)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Hi, Ed! Could you set up the categories for these articles' Talk page? Thanks!Marcd30319 (talk) 14:14, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
- Hi Marc! I'll get to it tonight after work. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:31, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
- And it's done! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 08:52, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks, Ed! How about Operation Longstep, too?Marcd30319 (talk) 15:56, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
- Yup, but before I rate it, can you expand on who 'won' and who 'lost'? You say that the Blues landed troops but not what the Greens did about it, if anything. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:52, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
- Done!Marcd30319 (talk) 12:28, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
- Okay, it's assessed! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:34, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
- Done!Marcd30319 (talk) 12:28, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
- Yup, but before I rate it, can you expand on who 'won' and who 'lost'? You say that the Blues landed troops but not what the Greens did about it, if anything. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:52, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks, Ed! How about Operation Longstep, too?Marcd30319 (talk) 15:56, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
- And it's done! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 08:52, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Pe-8 photo
You may have noticed that I've got somebody trying to delete File:PetlyakovPe-8.jpg for lacking a source, when a source is not required under the NFUR. Can you take a look at this and see if there's anything else I need to do to stop this process?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:47, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
- I did. Could you contact a Commons admin to see what the original source was? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 07:43, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
I'd like to hear a few suggestions
As you are well aware, I was blocked yesterday. Once you have some time, please take a careful read on this thread. According to the other editor: "Do you accept placing the alternative forms in a footnote as a compromise? Or do you insist that they be placed in parentheses in the first line of the lead?"
When I asked if this rule was supposed to be taken by all other articles on royals, such as Franz Joseph I of Austria, Nicholas II of Russia and John II of France, he said that no, only Teresa Cristina of the Two Sicilies is supposed to follow this rule he created from his mind. In case you don't remember, he is the very same editor who gave me a huge headache on Princess Maria Amélia of Brazil that led Dank to intervene. He also went after me on another article I have just recently nominated: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Afonso, Prince Imperial of Brazil/archive1.
For some reason that I'm not aware, he is against alternative forms of names in any article about royals which I work on, but not on any other. Is that a huge coincidence?
What makes me more sad is that he and I are treated as the same by administrators, as we were both spoiled children fighting over a toy. I tried to warn them that this guy is stalking and harassing me but all I heard was: "that's not our problem". And I was even blocked!
What am I supposed to do?! --Lecen (talk) 17:27, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
- Hey Lecen, I have work in 25 minutes so I can't respond very well at the moment, but my quick advice is to hold on. If we can get an RfC together and organized, we can let a wider body of editors decide the issue, which can then be enforced in FAC and other places (assuming we can't find a compromise before that). We'll work through this, alright? :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:40, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
- Don't worry about it. I don't want you to get involved. I'm going to wait for other editors to express their point of view. i just wanted to let you know how arbitrary things are. The good news are that I just bought a book solely about the dreadnought arms race. I'm going to read it and help you out with that article. --Lecen (talk) 00:07, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
- That's mainly what I was going to try and help with – I did not plan on jumping into the debate and rekindling all the fires! Unfortunately you will see arbitrary decisions at times because people who have followed the disputes, like me, are considered to be too involved to take any administrator actions. Re arms race, I'd hug you but you're a few too many miles away. ;-) Thanks very much – I definitely appreciate it. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:50, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
- Don't worry about it. I don't want you to get involved. I'm going to wait for other editors to express their point of view. i just wanted to let you know how arbitrary things are. The good news are that I just bought a book solely about the dreadnought arms race. I'm going to read it and help you out with that article. --Lecen (talk) 00:07, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
- The detail in the third paragraph of Lecen's post is incorrect. I have already said that I have no problem with alternative names in leads on multiple occasions e.g. [2][3]. I would like to request that Lecen restricts himself from talking about me on any user talk pages, and I will reciprocate. His misrepresentation of my opinions over multiple pages is unhelpful and divisive. DrKiernan (talk) 08:05, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Ed, Brazilian battleship Riachuelo (1883) and Brazilian battleship Aquidabã are regarded as late ironclad ships or as pre-dreadnoughts? --Lecen (talk) 12:38, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
- I notived that most Japanese warships of the late 19th Century were acquired in foreign shipyards. When Japan began building its own ships? --Lecen (talk) 01:11, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
I like to make a few remarks about Teresa Cristina's article, if you don't mind. You're losing your time with the farce back there. That's one pointless discussion, since the final result has been decided regardless of any discussion. Having said that, now I'd like to tell you that it makes no sense to add "Theresa Christina" as an alternative spelling. That was never under discussion. This "Theresa Christina" as an alternative spelling that you find there is nothing more than simply her name as it was written in the 19th century and as how many historians call her. Now, what was really the problem in the article? I just wanted to add a translation (or even a possible translation) to her name from Portuguese to English. That's all. Pedro II means "Peter II" in English. Afonso means "Alphonse". Maria means "Mary". Etc, etc, etc... The names "Theresa Christina" and "Therese Christine" are just anglicized forms of her name. Please, do not confuse this English name Theresa Christina with the "Theresa Christina" (yes, it's the same spelling) used in several sources that it's as how her name was written in 19th century Portuguese. Why I wanted to add "Theresa Christina" (as I also added "Peter II" to Pedro II of Brazil)? Just so that Brazilian royals' articles could have the same standard as other articles such as Franz Joseph I of Austria and Ludwig III of Bavaria. Both have their names are in their native languages (German), but an anglicized form can be seen in parantheses at the beginning of the lead ("Francis Joseph I" and "Louis III"), as in any other article about a royal in Wikipedia. That's all I wanted to do with articles about Brazilian royals, that is, to follow the same standard. Please tell me if I'm not being able to be clear enough, because unfortunately, this is the feeling I have. --Lecen (talk) 13:36, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
- Well, it is an alternate spelling that readers will find in sources... I'm not confusing the two, it's simply a matter of practicality. On the matter of an English translation, could "Theresa Christine" function as the English translation instead? So the lead could be "Dona[A] Teresa Cristina (Portuguese, English: Theresa Christine)[B]" or just "English:"? The [B] would explain the differences in Portuguese orthography, similar to Minas Geraes-class battleship. Maybe? (trying to find a compromise here that will be acceptable to both of you so you and Kiernan can go your separate ways!) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:06, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
- This reminds me of the Judgment of Solomon. You can't simply cut the baby in two pieces to please both parties. What if there were 3,4 or 5 editors with different views? So far no one has answered me why Teresa Cristina's article is the only in Wikipedia where the subject's name is not allowed to have its name translated to English. Nonetheless, this is something that you should not worry about it. You have more to do and I'll open a RFC to deal with it later. However, I'd like to thank you for having tried (and I know you did your best) to at least resolve the problem. You're a good person and I admire that. --Lecen (talk) 16:27, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
- Am I really speaking Greek there? I must improve my English at all costs... I want to add an Anglicized form of her name regardless of the fact that is or not a single book which does. They keep checking the Google books but that's not the point. In fact, nowdays when some dispute must be resolved in Wikipedia, all user rely on "Google books hits". Makes no sense, but that's how it is. What I do want is to keep the articles about Brazilian royals in the same standard as all other articles about royals. Be sincere, is it so hard to understand? If yes, could you exlain me the correct way to say it in English? --Lecen (talk) 11:51, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
- I think their argument is that you'd be able to find a translated name for the other royals in sources, but the same doesn't apply to Teresa Cristina. The problem is that if no sources use the alternate name you desire, their argument is the only one that holds water based on WP's policies (WP:V trumps naming guidelines). :/ FWIW, I think they have a point with "Therese Christine" – Therese isn't a very common name in English and looks more like a French translation. "Theresa Christina" is both an alternate name (old Portuguese) and an English translation, and I hope we can find a good/better way to include it. I think a lot of the problem here is that other royals have clearly-established translations (Pedro -> Peter, for instance) whereas Teresa is used in English and has no real translation except to alternative forms of the word. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 10:02, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
re: Racing dreadnoughts
Hi Ed, I'll get onto it now. You'll be entertained to see that there's a blizzard warning for the Australian Capital Territory where I live! Nick-D (talk) 08:31, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 20 June 2011
- News and notes: WMF Board election results; Indian campus ambassadors gear up; Wikimedia UK plans; Malayalam Wikisource CD; brief news
- WikiProject report: The Elemental WikiProject
- Featured content: The best of the week
- Arbitration report: One case comes to a close; initiator of a new case blocked as sockpuppet
Dapi89
Re: this comment you made; With respect, I do not find your argument compelling. Allow me to rephrase, and treat this as if we were referring to a well intentioned new editor who doesn't see that something is obviously vandalism by our standards "the vandalism was in the article for months. A few more days could have kept a valuable contributor on Wikipedia". I make no distinction between new editors, admins, or arbcom members. I look at the facts of the case, and unless someone is not in good standing treat all as the same. Facts:
- Dapi89 reverted the edits of two editors a total of three times, two with abusive edit summaries; "don't be silly","this is now vandalism","not good enough"
- Both editors had cautioned Dapi89 about the nature of his edits [4][5].
- Dapi89's response to one of them was "don't you dare" [6]
You say we shouldn't template the regulars. Yet, the templates are there to clearly communicate with agreed upon wording what the issue at hand is. So, we're not supposed to give them agreed upon wording because they're experienced and because it's somehow hostile, while it's ok to template newcomers because they're not experienced and it's ok to be hostile to them? If experience counts for anything here, it's that Dapi89 (who has previously been blocked for edit warring) knew well what the consequences of edit warring were. It wasn't a spat with a single editor, it wasn't a content dispute, it was his willful ignorance of NFCC policy, edit warring policy, and dispute resolution policy. Treating this situation in the way that it was is entirely routine and normal. A person engaging in edit warring while knowingly breaching policy will get blocked. That anybody involved in this is somehow responsible for his departure is improper. It was his choice to depart Wikipedia over something he knew well was improper on his part. I don't want to lose him from this project. He's done a lot of good work. But, if he feels it necessary to leave because he got upset over his willful ignorance and willingness to edit war, then so be it. I thank him for his contributions, and wish him well in future endeavors. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:25, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
- You're very wrong, and I'm appalled that this experience is considered "routine and normal." Slapping a template on Dapi's page that calls him a new user (which, by the way, he didn't even realize was a template), and then to reply with 'it's a template, GOFIXIT' is impersonal, cold, and doesn't address the root of the issue. It was clear that Dapi did not understand why the image was being removed, and while Beetstra did make an attempt at a personal comment, Dapi reverted one minute after that (did he not view the image beforehand?). Without waiting any longer, Beetstra blocked. In short: an overly harsh and stringent enforcing of the rules drove a valuable editor off the project. Please, examine your methods and NFUR interactions before this happens again. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:15, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
- I fully expect that editors who edit war in ignorance of WP:NFCC policy when directly told multiple times will find themselves blocked. In fact, I will ask for such people to be blocked. If you feel this is improper behavior, and remain appalled, then I recommend bringing it to the attention of WP:AN/I. I'm surprised that an administrator would find it acceptable that an experienced editor, who knows full well the edit warring policy, and should be permitted to continue with his edit war in violation of multiple policies. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:36, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Re: this comment. To expand, if Dapi wants to leave the project over something as minor as this altercation, that's his business. I don't feel any culpability in this, nor should Δ or Beetstra. If someone self immolates themselves because you brought them up short on a blatant violation of our policies, that doesn't mean we should change our policies or refuse to tell people they're in violation and when they continue to violate it block them. There's a reason we have the block button. There's a reason we have the {{unblock}} template too. He could very easily have made such a request acknowledging he was edit warring, assuring he would not do it again and would honor NFCC policy, and it would have been reviewed and most likely he would have been unblocked within a few hours if not minutes. I'm not terribly concerned that he's decided to get even angrier over this and decided to leave. If someone is that easy to agitate over something so blatant, ...well, such actions speak for themselves. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:49, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
- Hold up. Experienced editor != familiar with every policy, let alone NFCC. I only have a knowledge of it because I forced myself to read pages on it back when I was trying to find the copyright status on some image I wanted to use in an article. Appalled was a rather strong word that I used in the heat of the moment, but I still have serious disagreements with how this was approached. An editor was templated but obviously didn't understand what the problem was. There was an attempt at a personal message explaining the situation, which I thanked Beetstra for, but it happened one minute before the last revert, so I doubt he read the message before reverting. Nonetheless he was blocked soon after for two weeks.
- There's a reason we have a protect button too. I don't think Dappi understood the point you were all getting at, and even if he did after Beetstra's message, he was blocked so quickly that he never was given a chance to understand. Perhaps educating these editors in the ways of NFCC (as I can tell you that many don't know much if anything about it) rather than dropping heavy-handed templates and blocks on them would result in less work for you guys down the road? Serious thoughts here, no sarcasm. I'm not going to ANI with this because I believe all of you were acting in good faith – I'd just like you to see the other side of the fence too. Also, FWIW, given some of the topics Dapi wrote on, I'm pretty sure he's weathered worse. I don't know why this pushed him over the edge, but it did. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:17, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
- Hold up nothing. He was edit warring, and he knew it. Never given a chance to understand? He never gave himself a chance to understand. He just continued edit warring. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:51, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
- He reverted three times before being given an adequate explanation for the image's removal – he was just following WP:BRD. Obviously that shouldn't apply in this situation, but how was he to know? He probably thought Δ was the one edit-warring! (hence my comment above about educating editors about NFCC... completely separate from our disagreement here, I really hope you take that idea on, because that can only lead to an easier time for all NFCC patrollers!) I firmly believe that the image could have been quickly removed after a short discussion that resulted in no blocks or hard feelings, and I would have supported a block in this instance if he had ignored a 'real' message given to him before we reached the edit warring stage. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:57, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Military history sources question
Would it be ok to leave what is already there in Military history of the Russian Empire intact, and refer to third and fourth sources for the remainder of the article? Looking back over what I've read so far, mostly it is the details that are different. ResMar 18:54, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
- I'd add as many cites as you can from as many varied works as possible to prove that you've done an adequate amount of research for such a large-scale article, but that's just me. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:51, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
- I now have a third reference, but I can't really add anything else of the half-books from Google Books. Might be able to go library browsing, but I don't know about that. ResMar 04:30, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah, when I'm not at college, my local library is mostly useless: it's too small. Having said that, I'd recommend looking into your state's inter-library loan system. You can normally acquire any book from any library in the state, so you way be able to get a really good reference (for a month-ish, at least!) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 07:43, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- I now have a third reference, but I can't really add anything else of the half-books from Google Books. Might be able to go library browsing, but I don't know about that. ResMar 04:30, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- Found my card. How long do these transfers take? I'm leaving for vacation in 7 days. :/ Anyway, I've requested this bunch. Should be enough, I think. I'll take a break and edit some other things on the interm. Thanks for the help! ResMar 02:54, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
- Inter-library loan can be amazing. It certainly allowed me to write a college paper on the Marian reforms! Depends on the mail system. I've found that some libraries get them in the mail on the next business day, while some others take a little bit of time. Good luck! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:22, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Mapping the Russian Fleet
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/49/Mail-message-new.svg/40px-Mail-message-new.svg.png)
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
from John Eight Thirty-two (talk) 15:56, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 27 June 2011
- WikiProject report: The Continuous Convention: WikiProject Comics
- Featured content: The best of the week
- Arbitration report: Proposed decision for Tree shaping case
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
Disambig
Hello
Usually I just translate from en.wiki to pl.wiki articles from Category:United States Navy ship names but today I was doing some fixes in en.wiki. And I have problems with couple articles:
Two entries (USS and USS) Belet, Kirwin, Rednour, Ruchamkin, Tollberg, Yokes
Two entries (USS and non USS): Baton Rouge (disambiguation), Bering Strait (disambiguation), Coos Bay (disambiguation), Cook Inlet (disambiguation), Rockaway, Unimak, Yakutat
In my opinion (I translate more than 1000 such articles from en to pl.wiki) that first group for sure should be moved to seperate articles USS XXX. Also second part (even if that second name is not USS) was usually moved to USS XXX (I have seen many such articles).
Can you do that? My english is not so good when I am trying to write, so I don`t want make articles with errors. PMG (talk) 07:46, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- Also RV Thomas G. Thompson and USNS Thomas G. Thompson are the same. PMG (talk) 08:14, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- Wait, so you want to move the disambiguation pages? I.e. Belet to USS Belet? I don't think that will work because "Belet" etc. don't just apply to ships... Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 10:03, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- No no. What I want is
- Take Belet,
- Move
- *USS ''Belet'' (DE-599), a United States Navy destroyer escort converted during construction into the high-speed transport [[USS Belet (APD-109)|USS ''Belet'' (APD-109)]]
- *[[USS Belet (APD-109)|USS ''Belet'' (APD-109)]], a United States Navy high-speed transport in commission from 1945 to 1946
- to USS Belet Example lest say USS Tonawanda
- Leave in Belet note something like Leyden (disambiguation): USS Leyden, the name of more than one United States Navy ship
- No no. What I want is
- Wait, so you want to move the disambiguation pages? I.e. Belet to USS Belet? I don't think that will work because "Belet" etc. don't just apply to ships... Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 10:03, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
PMG (talk) 10:59, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- Oh, I see. I don't think so – it's done that way to provide consistency, so all of the US Navy articles have the symbol at the end. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:10, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
- Why not? On en.wiki there is more than 1500 articles like this, and only this what I put here are made by diffrent rule. For me its strange. PMG (talk) 15:36, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
- Oh, I see. I don't think so – it's done that way to provide consistency, so all of the US Navy articles have the symbol at the end. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:10, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Congratulations again!
![]() |
The Military history A-Class medal with oak leaves | |
For your outstanding work on on Minas Geraes-class battleship, Brazilian battleship São Paulo and South American dreadnought race, all of which were promoted to A-class between January and June 2011. On behalf of the coordinators, EyeSerenetalk 07:24, 29 June 2011 (UTC) |
- Thanks ES! It's great to see you back again. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:10, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
- Cheers Ed, it's good to be back. I'm still going to be on and off for a while, but should be gradually spinning back up to speed :) EyeSerenetalk 14:49, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
- Hey, any activity is good as far as I'm concerned. Also, this is a rather random thought, but you should try to make it across the pond for Wikimania 2012. I know that Cam and I will be there, and I'm hoping that we can get a little gathering of Milhisters together for a drink and many good memories. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:18, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
I don't think the venue for 2012 is settled yet, is it?[edit] I'm clearly still not up to speed! Actually I'm kind of waiting 'till it comes to London, though when that will be... :) EyeSerenetalk 15:56, 30 June 2011 (UTC)- I think it was decided in April... nice one. :P I'm just ecstatic that I can actually attend... a college student's budget does not include flying to Israel etc.! Alright then, it was worth a shot. Maybe it'll be in London in a couple years and I'll have to money to attend. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:57, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
- Hey, any activity is good as far as I'm concerned. Also, this is a rather random thought, but you should try to make it across the pond for Wikimania 2012. I know that Cam and I will be there, and I'm hoping that we can get a little gathering of Milhisters together for a drink and many good memories. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:18, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
- Cheers Ed, it's good to be back. I'm still going to be on and off for a while, but should be gradually spinning back up to speed :) EyeSerenetalk 14:49, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
On an unrelated note, would you close any of the discussions at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Wikipedia talk:Notability (video games)#Proposal 2 and Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (icons)? Perhaps Wikipedia talk:Notability (video games)#Proposal 2 and/or Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Page mover if you don't want to do too much reading? If you don't have the time or inclination, then no worries. Thank you for your work. Cunard (talk) 09:26, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
- Done, thanks for the note. I'll try to take a look at the latter two after work, so roughly 20 hours (sleep+food+work) :-) I'm involved with the icon RfCs, given that I write ship articles that use them and I think I supported one or both. The NFCC RfC appears to have ended in May? Regards,Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:41, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you for making my suggested changes!
The NFC debate was recently archived by ClueBot III (talk · contribs), which modified the AN link. Despite its being in the archives, it can still be closed. I would move it back to Wikipedia talk:Non-free content in wait for a proper closure, but Wikipedia talk:Non-free content is long enough as it is. I agree with your recusals from the Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (icons) RfCs since you have a strong opinion about those issues.
Thank you for pledging to look at the other two discussions later. :) Best, Cunard (talk) 02:00, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
- I closed both of them. I took a look at the NFCC one again, but I saw editors I recently got into a spat with at User talk:Dapi89 and elsewhere, so I'd rather not close it. :-) At least 2/5 are closed though! Regards, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 08:28, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for closing the discussions! A lot of progress has been made today with unclosed RfCs. I agree with your recusing from closing the NFCC one. This will avoid those editors' questioning your impartiality which could harm the validity of a close. Cunard (talk) 19:23, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
- You're welcome. Let me know if there are others in the future and I'll try to close them. :-) Re NFCC, exactly, I don't want to go through the effort of closing it just to have it questioned by everyone! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:57, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you for the offer to close discussions in the future. So that you don't get bogged down with requests and then get sick of seeing my signature :), I'll post RfCs at AN first, and if no admin responds for a while, I'll contact you. Best, Cunard (talk) 21:18, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
- You're welcome. Let me know if there are others in the future and I'll try to close them. :-) Re NFCC, exactly, I don't want to go through the effort of closing it just to have it questioned by everyone! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:57, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for closing the discussions! A lot of progress has been made today with unclosed RfCs. I agree with your recusing from closing the NFCC one. This will avoid those editors' questioning your impartiality which could harm the validity of a close. Cunard (talk) 19:23, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
- I closed both of them. I took a look at the NFCC one again, but I saw editors I recently got into a spat with at User talk:Dapi89 and elsewhere, so I'd rather not close it. :-) At least 2/5 are closed though! Regards, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 08:28, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you for making my suggested changes!
WikiCup 2011 June newsletter
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cd/Trophy.png)
We are half way through 2011, and entering the penultimate round of this year's WikiCup; the semi-finals are upon us! Points scored in the interim (29/30 June) may be counted towards next round, but please do not update your submissions' pages until the next round has begun. 16 contestants remain, and all have shown dedication to the project to reach this far. Our round leader was Casliber (submissions) who, among other things, successfully passed three articles through featured article candidates and claimed an impressive 29 articles at Did You Know, scoring 555 points. Casliber led pool D. Pool A was led by
Wizardman (submissions), claiming points for a featured article, a featured list and seven good article reviews, while pool C was led by
Eisfbnore (submissions), who claimed for two good articles, ten articles at Did You Know and four good article reviews. They scored 154 and 118 respectively. Pool B was by far our most competitive pool; six of the eight competitors made it through to round 4, with all of them scoring over 100 points. The pool was led by
Hurricanehink (submissions), who claimed for, among other things, three featured articles and five good articles. In addition to the four pool leaders, 12 others (the four second places, and the 8 next highest overall) make up our final 16. The lowest scorer who reached round 4 scored 76 points; a significant increase on the 41 needed to reach round 3. Eight of our semi-finalists scored at least twice as much as this.
No points were awarded this round for featured pictures, good topics or In the News, and no points have been awarded in the whole competition for featured topics, featured portals or featured sounds. Instead, the highest percentage of points has come from good articles. Featured articles, despite their high point cost, are low in number, and so, overall, share a comparable number of points with Did You Know, which are high in number but low in cost. A comparatively small but still considerable number of points come from featured lists and good article reviews, rounding out this round's overall scores.
We would again like to thank Jarry1250 (submissions) and
Stone (submissions) for invaluable background work, as well as all of those helping to provide reviews for the articles listed on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Please do keep using it, and please do help by providing reviews for the articles listed there. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews generally at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup.
Two final notes: Firstly, please remember to state your participation in the WikiCup when nominating articles at FAC. Finally, some WikiCup-related statistics can be seen here and here, for those interested, though it appears that neither are completely accurate at this time. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 23:41, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Triple Crown nomination
Hi The ed17, it has been nearly a month since I wrote to you regarding your TC nomination. I'm not sure if you are still keen to pursue this. You need to provide evidence to support your nom. I understand if you are busy and do not have the time to do this. I'm just letting you know that I will clear the nom on 6 July 2011 (1 month since original nomination), if no action is taken to move it forward. When you have the time, you can renominate it again. Thanks and best wishes. – SMasters (talk) 07:40, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for reminding me, I'll try to get to it asap, but if I don't, I'm fine with you removing it. Regards, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:12, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Russian Empire (again)
Just a spotcheck, I've added a lot more sources to the article, do you think that the sourcing, as is, is suitable? Those books are taking forever to arrive, unfortunately. There are a few topics that are, so far, only covered in Stone, for instance the underrated Münnich. ResMar 02:53, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
- Also, there's a Military history of [x] during World War II for all of the major powers, but none for Russia! I seen an opportunity here ;) ResMar 03:12, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
- Much better. I'd prefer at least one more book that focuses on the entire military history of Russia (to ensure you get a balanced perspective), though. Re WWII, good god, g'luck. You will have a lot of source discrepancies with communist histories vs. western histories vs. revisionist histories vs. modern scholarly works. I'd recommend a healthy dose of explanatory notes for the differences, similar to what I did in Brazilian cruiser Bahia#Loss except much more complex. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:32, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, the best reference is in central storage :/. As for WWII, now that I have this system worked out, I can just get a stack of books together and pile through it; although you're right, it'll probably be harder then I thought it would. But the article still deserves to exist, so...ResMar 04:36, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
- Wow, the cheapest I found online for that book was $75. All but one were over $100. Do any other NY libraries have it? Like I said, good luck with the WWII article. The only other advice I have is to try to get references from Russia and the West that also go from the Cold War to today. The CW, or more specifically anti-Communism, tended to influence many historians during that time. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:24, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, the best reference is in central storage :/. As for WWII, now that I have this system worked out, I can just get a stack of books together and pile through it; although you're right, it'll probably be harder then I thought it would. But the article still deserves to exist, so...ResMar 04:36, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
- Much better. I'd prefer at least one more book that focuses on the entire military history of Russia (to ensure you get a balanced perspective), though. Re WWII, good god, g'luck. You will have a lot of source discrepancies with communist histories vs. western histories vs. revisionist histories vs. modern scholarly works. I'd recommend a healthy dose of explanatory notes for the differences, similar to what I did in Brazilian cruiser Bahia#Loss except much more complex. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:32, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Congratulations
![]() |
The WikiChevrons | |
The WikiChevrons are hereby bestowed upon The_ed17 for his efforts in the June 2011 Military History monthly article writing Contest, placing equal first with a total of 21 points from one article. Well done! Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 16:35, 2 July 2011 (UTC) |
- Thanks Rupert, much appreciated. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:24, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Arizona
Ed, we need to standardize our formatting for refs and citations. All the journals cited are going to need place of publication and publisher. Since we have no authors with multiple books in our refs, I see no need to provide a title with each cite and am just using author, p. #. I just got Stillwell from ILL and am reminded why I'm not so fond of Friedman's books. Anyways, I wanted to ask how you want to handle the modernizations? I tend to put them in chronological order like I did with the Renown and Repulse articles, but I've also placed them in the basic descriptive paragraphs as appropriate. What do you think?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:30, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not bothered by author, page#, I'm just used to going by Chicago style. All my history professors required it for my papers in the last three semesters and I got in the habit of writing out the citations. Whichever way you want is fine by me. Stillwell provides a lot of information we're not going to use, but it's certainly a bit more interesting than Friedman's design-oriented histories :-) I usually put modernizations in chronological order and save the dirty details for the class article, so the ship articles are focused on the service history and the class articles are focused on the design history. So yes, chronological is fine with me haha Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 07:39, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- I think that JSTOR has access to these two articles that we probably need to reference: John F. De Virgilio. Seven Seconds to Infamy, Naval Institute Proceedings, 123(12) Dec. 97, pp. 62-65 and Rodgaard, John, et al. Death of the Arizona, Naval History 15(6) Dec. 01, pp. 22-28. Email copies to me if you can get them, if not let me know and we can figure out how else to get them.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:46, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
- NMU's site seems to be broken at the moment, but I think that's because they've overhauled the whole library's site. From memory they have old Proceedings in print form, so I should be able to get it assuming it's not in storage. I don't think they'll have the other one, but again, that's from memory – I'll try again tomorrow or Monday (I'm still in Boston and I'm flying back tomorrow!) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 15:59, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
- No hurries, I'm not exactly working at frentic pace myself.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:16, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
- NMU's site seems to be broken at the moment, but I think that's because they've overhauled the whole library's site. From memory they have old Proceedings in print form, so I should be able to get it assuming it's not in storage. I don't think they'll have the other one, but again, that's from memory – I'll try again tomorrow or Monday (I'm still in Boston and I'm flying back tomorrow!) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 15:59, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
- I think that JSTOR has access to these two articles that we probably need to reference: John F. De Virgilio. Seven Seconds to Infamy, Naval Institute Proceedings, 123(12) Dec. 97, pp. 62-65 and Rodgaard, John, et al. Death of the Arizona, Naval History 15(6) Dec. 01, pp. 22-28. Email copies to me if you can get them, if not let me know and we can figure out how else to get them.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:46, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Interested in your thoughts. - Dank (push to talk) 16:12, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
This Month in GLAM: June 2011
|
List of battlecruisers of Japan
Hello
Right now I am translating List of battlecruisers of Japan and I have many problem with guns and other stuff what use "Convert" template. For example in Amagi there is info that main guns have 410 mm, and in "Amagi" there is info that they have 406 mm. Probably something is wrong with that template, but I don`t know how to fix it. It`s strange that this article is featured list - for sure nobody from Europe (cm\mm country) was in creation of that article.
I see this error many, many time on en.wiki ships. It`s very annoying. 100 mm or 102 mm, 406 or 410 mm, and so on.PMG (talk) 15:41, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
- Those are rounding errors. The template will round off itself to the number of digits in the input. For inch measurements that typically means 1 or 2 digits, thus 4 inches is converted to 100 mm rather than 102 mm and 12 inches to 300 mm rather than 305 mm. The thing to do is to force the template not to round at all by adding "|0" to it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:17, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks Sturm, that's exactly why it's wrong. I'm not a huge fan of the convert template. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:26, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
- Its possible to change this using bot? Let`s say "change in Category:ships every convert template where you have mm or cm inside" + do list with all changes (list of diffs) and give it to check fo human.
- And I am really suprised that article with such errors can be featured. For me as a cm/mm citizen this is such errors as lets say "ship have 8 guns cal. 410 mm" vs. "ship have 8 guns cal. 406 mm" is very big error. And if its additionaly with "ref" is "wrong error" :). PMG (talk) 10:26, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
- I doubt a bot could fix these as the template works just fine for measurements like 3 inches (76mm), etc. And the whole issues is also complicated because many guns have nominal calibers that differ from the real size of the shells. Forex German 28 cm guns are really 28.3 cm in diameter while their 15 cm guns are really 14.91 cm. As in most things Wiki, if you've identified what you think is a problem, then it's up to you to fix it, plus whoever else you can persuade to work with you.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 10:51, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
- So maybe use it for special values? For example this 4 or 16 inches? I am quite sure that every "convert" template with 4 and 16 inch value in Ships category should be 102/406 mm not 100/410 mm. And if somebody already put that convert template then its not special case as you say with that German guns. PMG (talk) 21:06, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
- I doubt a bot could fix these as the template works just fine for measurements like 3 inches (76mm), etc. And the whole issues is also complicated because many guns have nominal calibers that differ from the real size of the shells. Forex German 28 cm guns are really 28.3 cm in diameter while their 15 cm guns are really 14.91 cm. As in most things Wiki, if you've identified what you think is a problem, then it's up to you to fix it, plus whoever else you can persuade to work with you.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 10:51, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks Sturm, that's exactly why it's wrong. I'm not a huge fan of the convert template. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:26, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
List of battlecruisers of Germany
List of battlecruisers of Germany - in "key" paragraph there is no "Fate" description. PMG (talk) 17:56, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
- "The five remaining battlecruisers—Von der Tann, Moltke, Seydlitz, Derfflinger, and Hindenburg—were interned with the bulk of the German fleet at Scapa Flow following the end of the war and subsequently scuttled by their crews in 1919" <-- I think that's their fate? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:26, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
- No, no. Look - List_of_battlecruisers_of_Japan#Key there is "Fate". List_of_battlecruisers_of_Germany#Key is not. But in next tables there is "Fate" part (List_of_battlecruisers_of_Germany#SMS_Von_der_Tann). So in my opinion "Key" part (legend of table) of article should have the same parameters as in Japan article. I won`t add this because my pl->en skills are not so good as en->pl, and thats why I want avoid adding anything more than interwiki and categories to en.wiki. PMG (talk) 10:20, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Book reviews
Hi Ed, Adding links to relevant book reviews published elsewhere is a great idea. I've just added another one and will include this in the future. Nick-D (talk) 01:51, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
- I'm glad you like it, I thought about it today and hoped you wouldn't mind me adding it without your consent. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:26, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 4 July 2011
- News and notes: Picture of the Year 2010; data challenge; brief news
- WikiProject report: The Star-Spangled WikiProject
- Featured content: Two newly promoted portals
- Arbitration report: Arb resigns while mailing list leaks continue; Motion re: admin
WPUS A Class guidelines
I just wanted to let you know that as far as the A class standards for articles WPUS already accepts the criteria used by WPMILHIST. --Kumioko (talk) 16:54, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
- Okay thanks, I'll keep a lookout for US articles that are A-class in Milhist. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:29, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Japan BC
Hello
Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Operation_Majestic_Titan#Japan_BC - maybe you know answer? PMG (talk) 14:57, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
![]() |
The Writer's Barnstar |
You damn content editors... – GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:04, 9 July 2011 (UTC) |
Quick Message
Stick your nose out of it, I wasnt insulting him i was responding to what he said, Theres no point of you making the situation worse. Goldblooded (talk) 19:12, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
- Feel free to not take my advice – that's your prerogative, of course. Just know that we're all trying to help, yet you're not listening. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:14, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Well next time dont bother ive already been spat on by several users and admins on here. Goldblooded (talk) 19:47, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Revert at User:Chzz
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bb/Kingkongedo38.jpg)
Reverting a user's edit to their own userpage? --The Σ talkcontribs 19:05, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
Well he always his sticking his nose in things and interfering with other peoples business, as i have learnt. Just revert the edit its their talkpage the owner should do whatever they want with it. Goldblooded (talk) 20:05, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
- Um... is there a more civilised way to say that? --The Σ talkcontribs 23:48, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
- Long story short, Chzz and I were both at the Wikipedia in Higher Education Summit. He borrowed my computer, forgot I was the one logged in, and reverted something on his user page. Don't worry, I already yelled at him for it. ;-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 07:58, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
- OMAI sockpuppeting. sonia♫ 15:48, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
- I couldn't do anything about it, the revert had already gone through before I knew what was happening! I should sue... ;-) I will personally slap anyone who mentions NLT Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 15:50, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
- Honestly, I sat at a table with the two of them, Ed and Chzz, and I couldn't tell one from the other, except that Ed was wearing a hoodie. Drmies (talk) 18:55, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
- FWIW, I already offered to block the both of them for sockpuppetry :D – GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:35, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
- Gorilla, since I saw you without the King Kong suit on you have lost all authority with me. I still love you for your charm, of course. Drmies (talk) 20:26, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
- FWIW, I already offered to block the both of them for sockpuppetry :D – GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:35, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
- Honestly, I sat at a table with the two of them, Ed and Chzz, and I couldn't tell one from the other, except that Ed was wearing a hoodie. Drmies (talk) 18:55, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
- I couldn't do anything about it, the revert had already gone through before I knew what was happening! I should sue... ;-) I will personally slap anyone who mentions NLT Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 15:50, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
- OMAI sockpuppeting. sonia♫ 15:48, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
- Long story short, Chzz and I were both at the Wikipedia in Higher Education Summit. He borrowed my computer, forgot I was the one logged in, and reverted something on his user page. Don't worry, I already yelled at him for it. ;-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 07:58, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
- Drmies, stop lying. He had a few more wrinkles and a much heavier accent. Gorilla, I still find it hard to believe you aren't a 40-year old, 300-pound man with pizza stains on his stomach and a sticky keyboard. ;-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:29, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
- Like! Besides, now that we have discovered her wit and charm, we will never be able to view her as a gorilla again. I guess she should rename herself to "CharmfulWarfare" or something of the like. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:47, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
- "Charmful"? I believe the word is "charming", my dear... As for the rest of it, maybe I am a 40-year-old, 300-pound man cleverly disguised as a young girl... – GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:56, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
- Why are we dividing the line between male/female her? Obviously she's transgender. Duh. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:49, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
- If I'm transgender, then I guess we'll need 89.5 guys and 9.5 girls around to complete the demographic. This complicates matters... – GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:09, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
- Given my height, I probably count as the .5 of a girl. sonia♫ 21:10, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
- Or we recruit another transgender individual to balance the demographic? Or was that too simple of a solution? ;) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:57, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
- Given my height, I probably count as the .5 of a girl. sonia♫ 21:10, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
- If I'm transgender, then I guess we'll need 89.5 guys and 9.5 girls around to complete the demographic. This complicates matters... – GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:09, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
- Why are we dividing the line between male/female her? Obviously she's transgender. Duh. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:49, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
- "Charmful"? I believe the word is "charming", my dear... As for the rest of it, maybe I am a 40-year-old, 300-pound man cleverly disguised as a young girl... – GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:56, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
- Like! Besides, now that we have discovered her wit and charm, we will never be able to view her as a gorilla again. I guess she should rename herself to "CharmfulWarfare" or something of the like. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:47, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/86/Heres_a_bunny_with_waffle.png/200px-Heres_a_bunny_with_waffle.png)
After a long, complicated series of cocktails in Cheers, there is little chance of a coherent reply from me. So, here's a picture instead. Chzz ► 17:18, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
- So, verdict? Is it as good as the bar from the show? – GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:09, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
- Chzz, you were that inebriated by 1pm?! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:57, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
- It was a long night... Chzz ► 04:55, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
- Understandable then. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:18, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
- So you did go to it! Did you go to the original bar or imitation? Next yeara, excluding the gorilla, we should all go barhopping during Wikimania. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:22, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
- Understandable then. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:18, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
- It was a long night... Chzz ► 04:55, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
- Chzz, you were that inebriated by 1pm?! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:57, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
A kitten for you!
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/dc/Young_cats.jpg/150px-Young_cats.jpg)
They can be friends.
Chlopeck (talk) 19:40, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
Like Thanks very much! Let me know if you need any help in getting your article to FA! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 07:59, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Hello Ed
Ed, it was a pleasure meeting you in Boston, and good work ignoring all rules regarding Quran miracle. I look forward to collaborating with you on the rapid expansion of Wikipedia in Higher Education. Cullen328 (talk) 14:41, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
- Likewise. I feel like Quran miracle will be the first thing we talk about if we meet again in the future. ;-) Hope to see you at Wikimania 2012! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 15:36, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
- They tried again with Quran numeric miracle but that didn't last long. It seems that sockpuppets and or meatpuppets who believe in this miracle are now being born. Getting on a plane for home in a few minutes. Cullen328 (talk) 18:45, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
- Oh, they tried again? I'm sorry I missed the party. Happy trails, Cullen, and please give my regards to Mrs. Cullen--do tell her I respect her for sticking it out with you and even accompanying you to that geek conference! ;) Drmies (talk) 18:50, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
- I'm sure you all saw this, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Quran Information. I was about to go ahead and start blocking when I saw that an SPI had been opened--an open and shut case, of course. Drmies (talk) 18:53, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
- It's like playing whack-a-mole...! Hope you had a safe trip, Cullen. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:29, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
- We arrived home OK, Ed, but the flight had terrifying moments, which I discussed on Drmies talk page. Cullen328 (talk) 14:47, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
- I read about it – I'm very glad you made it home safe. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:57, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
- We arrived home OK, Ed, but the flight had terrifying moments, which I discussed on Drmies talk page. Cullen328 (talk) 14:47, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
- It's like playing whack-a-mole...! Hope you had a safe trip, Cullen. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:29, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
- They tried again with Quran numeric miracle but that didn't last long. It seems that sockpuppets and or meatpuppets who believe in this miracle are now being born. Getting on a plane for home in a few minutes. Cullen328 (talk) 18:45, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
War and poetry
Voila. Drmies (talk) 18:06, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
- I think I have a source on that somewhere... Ryan's The Longest Day, perhaps? Nice additions though, that's a very interesting topic. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:29, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
- Yes it is. I thought it today. Did you listen to the poem? Like it's straight out of the movie (which, in the motherland, is on TV every year, early June--you can guess why). If you go through my edits, you'll see at least a few references to that flick. Hint: it has to do with categories. That should narrow it down. Drmies (talk) 02:08, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
- I read it, but I can't find it online. It wouldn't surprise me to learn that there is an easily-viewable video somewhere that I completely missed, though. Re references in cats, if that's what entertains you, keep up the cleverness. ;-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:49, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
- Whenever I added categories, I used to type "Pluskat" in my edit summary. Drmies (talk) 16:20, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
- You know you're a geek when... Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:57, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
- Whenever I added categories, I used to type "Pluskat" in my edit summary. Drmies (talk) 16:20, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
- I read it, but I can't find it online. It wouldn't surprise me to learn that there is an easily-viewable video somewhere that I completely missed, though. Re references in cats, if that's what entertains you, keep up the cleverness. ;-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:49, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
- Yes it is. I thought it today. Did you listen to the poem? Like it's straight out of the movie (which, in the motherland, is on TV every year, early June--you can guess why). If you go through my edits, you'll see at least a few references to that flick. Hint: it has to do with categories. That should narrow it down. Drmies (talk) 02:08, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
RfCs
You offered above to close RfCs. I have posted several RfCs at AN (see the first three sections). If you could close one or a few of the RfCs, I'd be grateful. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:52, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
- I definitely missed this message. I will take a look either tomorrow morning or night (aka before or after work). Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:49, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
- It seems that you can't close most of the RfCs since you've either participated in them (Talk:Main Page/Request for comment: minimum prep-time for blurbs), they've been recently closed (Wikipedia talk:Edit warring#RfC on proposed new 3RR exemption), or they are not ready for closure (Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/dash drafting).
However, some of the proposals at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Account security remain open and can be closed, such as "#Require more complex passwords" and "#Notify users via email when someone tries to log into their account with the wrong password". Best, Cunard (talk) 07:41, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
- Yup, that's what I found when I went through them. I took care of the two you linked, but how about the "subjects of commentary" RFC? There's consensus in the first section, but the other threads explore many other alternatives and don't really have a consensus. As such, I'd lean no consensus but I'd appreciate a second view on it from you. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 08:21, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you for closing the two from the account security proposals. My reading of the RfC (after a superficial skim) is that in the first section, most people are in agreement with SlimVirgin's proposal, while the rest of the RfC is general discussion and alternate proposals that have failed to achieve consensus. Cunard (talk) 18:13, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
- Hmm, okay, I'll think this over and close it tonight. Thanks Cunard! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:40, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
- After thinking about it and nearly forgetting, I decided your ideas were close to reality than my initial thoughts. There is a clear consensus to remove it in the first section, and the remainder of the discussions should be treated separately from that. Thanks for giving your input! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 10:01, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
- Hmm, okay, I'll think this over and close it tonight. Thanks Cunard! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:40, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you for closing the two from the account security proposals. My reading of the RfC (after a superficial skim) is that in the first section, most people are in agreement with SlimVirgin's proposal, while the rest of the RfC is general discussion and alternate proposals that have failed to achieve consensus. Cunard (talk) 18:13, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
- Yup, that's what I found when I went through them. I took care of the two you linked, but how about the "subjects of commentary" RFC? There's consensus in the first section, but the other threads explore many other alternatives and don't really have a consensus. As such, I'd lean no consensus but I'd appreciate a second view on it from you. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 08:21, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
- It seems that you can't close most of the RfCs since you've either participated in them (Talk:Main Page/Request for comment: minimum prep-time for blurbs), they've been recently closed (Wikipedia talk:Edit warring#RfC on proposed new 3RR exemption), or they are not ready for closure (Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/dash drafting).
The Signpost: 11 July 2011
- From the editor: Stepping down
- Higher education summit: Wikipedia in Higher Education Summit recap
- In the news: Britannica and Wikipedia compared; Putin award criticized; possible journalistic sockpuppeting
- WikiProject report: Listening to WikiProject Albums
- Featured content: The best of the week
- Arbitration report: Tree shaping case comes to a close
- Technology report: WMF works on its release strategy; secure server problems
Sukhoi Su-37
I've read your message, and thought, shouldn't that be the whole point, keeping the project's ambiance non-serious? If we take the project seriously, it'll be easier to burn out. Anyway, the Sukhoi Su-35 is almost complete, and now I'm working on the Sukhoi Su-37. I really think the Su-37, along with the Su-33, Su-34 and Su-35, reach FA statuses. After the Su-37, I'll work on the Su-34. If only I can promote the Su-27 to GA, and create a Featured Topic. Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 05:23, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
By the way, I'm in the CUP, so if somehow I pull this off and promote all of them to FA, oh geez, so many points. I'll be more proud of these articles than the fail A330. Because you're a judge, I'd like to ask, how many points typically does the winner score? Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 05:26, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
- Like I implicitly stated, that opinion is not shared by everyone. Good luck! It's a very noble project to undertake. :-) I can't answer that because the points have changed from the previous years and participation varies from year-to-year. Sorry! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:31, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
- There', Sukhoi Su-37 is almost done. Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 06:00, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
- Looks good! I still wish they had put it into production though... it'd be hard to top an aircraft with the nickname 'Terminator'. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:57, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
- There', Sukhoi Su-37 is almost done. Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 06:00, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Possibly unfree File:Scharnhorst guns.jpg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Scharnhorst guns.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Denniss (talk) 09:01, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Glorious photo
Your attention is drawn to Commons:Deletion requests/File:HMS Glorious last picture.jpg. Not sure what to do here.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:03, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
- The NHHC states that any image they have is PD, so I don't think that's an issue. The bigger problem is that I can't find the image on history.navy.mil, which is weird considering we even have an identifying number. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:40, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Milhist task force expansion
Hi Ed :) Per this discussion the South American task force, of which you are a coordinator, has now been expanded to cover Central America as well. The new task force can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Central and South American military history task force. I've left a redirect at the old title but you may wish to update your watchlist accordingly. Best, EyeSerenetalk 17:00, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
- Hi ES! Thanks for the note, I've added the new page to my watchlist. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:21, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
- Actually the watch feature moved with the page when you moved it, but no harm done! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:22, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
- Cool, I didn't know it did that... EyeSerenetalk 08:36, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
- Neither did I. ;-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:40, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
- Cool, I didn't know it did that... EyeSerenetalk 08:36, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
- Actually the watch feature moved with the page when you moved it, but no harm done! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:22, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Removal
Hello. I notice that you removed a comment that I placed on Brad101's talk page: [7]. I am trying to be courteous and assuming good faith, but I believe your edit was wrong. Please do not do anything like that again. Bulldog talk da contribs go rando 05:58, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
- Hiya Bulldog, you need to see WP:REMOVED. Brad is well within his 'rights' to remove your comment. Please don't insist on restoring it; not everyone is a fan of Wikilove. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:40, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
- I thought that Brad was being rude by removing my comments. Sorry. Bulldog talk da contribs go rando 06:23, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
RfC close at WP:NFC
Hi. I note in closing the recent RfC at WP:NFC, you have removed the words "As subjects of commentary" from NFCI #8. diff.
NFCI is intended to be a whitelist of uses that will in general almost always satisfy the WP:NFC requirements.
The effect of your change is therefore to whitelist any use of "Images with iconic status or historical importance" in all circumstances.
That is a huge step in a policy with legal considerations; and I'm not sure that it is actually where the discussion at WT:NFC had moved to.
Can I ask: was this really the implication that you intended in making this change? And do you really think the RfC expressed consensus support for such a position? Jheald (talk) 10:14, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, it was what I intended and yes, I realize what that changes policy-wise. No, I didn't say I thought it was the best idea. However, there was a clear consensus for removing the wording, and absolutely no consensus for any replacement in the subsequent sections. For better or worse, that's how Wikipedia works. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 10:19, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
- The discussion in the latter sections was ongoing and though it did not amount to concluding an alternative wording, it clearly did conclude that merely removing the phrase was unsatisfactory, for exactly the reasons Jheald listed. This does not change policy on the matter- the policy is and was the NFCC, not the NFCI- but it does mean that, now, the guideline is inconsistent with policy. That's a poor close whether or not a lot of people voted in support of it. In any case, I have started a new section to continue the discussion; clearly, the NFCI entry as it was was unsatisfactory. That much is clear from the RfC. But that does not mean that we should change it to something else unsatisfactory, shrug our shoulders and hope nothing bad happens. J Milburn (talk) 11:12, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
- Heh, well my reading was that people wanted the removal of the phrase, and the discussion beneath involved a smaller number of participants who couldn't decide what to replace it with. I'm fully supportive of any effort to find a replacement (and in retrospect, I should have archived only the first section) and hope you can find a solution; as I said, I don't like the current wording any more than you do, but maybe that should be a talk reserved for the people who supported the original proposal. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:49, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
- I believe you assessed the consensus correctly, though the consensus may have been wrong and undesirable. A difficult closure, Ed. One I'm glad I didn't have to make. Thank you for your bravery and willingness to close this RfC! Best, Cunard (talk) 01:20, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
- Heh, well my reading was that people wanted the removal of the phrase, and the discussion beneath involved a smaller number of participants who couldn't decide what to replace it with. I'm fully supportive of any effort to find a replacement (and in retrospect, I should have archived only the first section) and hope you can find a solution; as I said, I don't like the current wording any more than you do, but maybe that should be a talk reserved for the people who supported the original proposal. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:49, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
- The discussion in the latter sections was ongoing and though it did not amount to concluding an alternative wording, it clearly did conclude that merely removing the phrase was unsatisfactory, for exactly the reasons Jheald listed. This does not change policy on the matter- the policy is and was the NFCC, not the NFCI- but it does mean that, now, the guideline is inconsistent with policy. That's a poor close whether or not a lot of people voted in support of it. In any case, I have started a new section to continue the discussion; clearly, the NFCI entry as it was was unsatisfactory. That much is clear from the RfC. But that does not mean that we should change it to something else unsatisfactory, shrug our shoulders and hope nothing bad happens. J Milburn (talk) 11:12, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
An exciting opportunity
...to get out and learn something more. Voila! Drmies (talk) 18:14, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
- That early medieval warfare one looks really fun, but the problem is that I'm not a graduate student about to receive a master's degree. ;-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:49, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
- Well, get on it then! Drmies (talk) 20:52, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Help me out here, Ed. I don't understand the basics--or the article isn't very well written. Is Jyoti the name of a ship? the name of a class of ships? both? are all four called Jyoti? Should the article be INS Jyoti, with a related article Komandarm Fedko class? This is too military for me. Thanks, on behalf of the Indian Navy, Drmies (talk) 20:44, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
- I think it's fixed now. I'm guessing the original Soviet ship was named "Komandarm Fedko", but I can't find anything on the civilian ships. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:19, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Milhist FA, A-Class and Peer Reviews Apr–Jun 2011
![]() |
The Content Review Medal of Merit | |
By order of the Military history WikiProject coordinators, for your devoted work on the WikiProject's Peer, A-Class and Featured Article reviews for the period Apr–Jun 2011, I am delighted to award you this Content Review Medal. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:06, 16 July 2011 (UTC) |
- Thanks Aussie! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:55, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue LXIV, June 2011
|
The Signpost: 18 July 2011
- In the news: Fine art; surreptitious sanitation; the politics of kyriarchic marginalization; brief news
- WikiProject report: Earn $$$ free pharm4cy WORK FROM HOME replica watches ViAgRa!!!
- Featured content: Historic last launch of the Space Shuttle Endeavour; Teddy Roosevelt's threat to behead official; 18th-century London sex manual
- Arbitration report: Motion passed to amend 2008 case: topic ban and reminder
- Technology report: Code Review backlog almost zero; What is: Subversion?; brief news
Would you mind taking a look at this article, presently at FAC and make sure I haven't misused any military terms? Many thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:51, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
- Looks good to me, Wehwalt. Nice article. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 17:51, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
- Many thanks on both counts.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:40, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
![]() |
The Civility Barnstar |
Thank you for your support in my block inquiry , i appreciate it and i hope i will be able to continue to improve and contribute to wikipedia. Goldblooded (talk) 21:25, 23 July 2011 (UTC) |
Thanks...
...for keeping my talk clear. IDK who that IP was; random weirdness - cheers. Chzz ► 00:30, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
- Anytime Chzz. It wasn't even vandalism really, so I didn't bother to leave a message on the IP's talk. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:34, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Banned contributor on my talk page
Thanks. :) He's restored it, and I've archived it in place. I won't be responding to him any further. I'm going to be traveling (though I won't be completely out of touch) but am perfectly happy for you to RBI and/or semi-protect as seems necessary. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:58, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
- Well, I've already started doing that haha. Safe travels! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:44, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 25 July 2011
- Wikimedian in Residence interview: Wikimedian in Residence on Open Science: an interview with Daniel Mietchen
- Recent research: Talk page interactions; Wikipedia at the Open Knowledge Conference; Summer of Research
- WikiProject report: Musing with WikiProject Philosophy
- Featured content: The best of the week
- Arbitration report: New case opened; hyphens and dashes update; motion
- Technology report: Protocol-relative URLs; GSoC updates; bad news for SMW fans; brief news
arizona = walkway around the pilot house?
- See User talk:Dominic. – Ling.Nut 08:44, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for the barnstar, and you're welcome for the help. I'm hoping to get more active September/October-ish, and if I am able to do so, I'm leaning toward making MILHIST my new home for a while. Will probably start out on on U.S. Civil War battles, but would be willing to work on other things if it seems like a good topic. Cheers! – Ling.Nut 11:47, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
- Me loves people who check their facts. I can't promise I'll be able to do anything, but I will definitely keep you in mind. Excellent work on the verification of naval images, BTW. – Ling.Nut 08:58, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for the barnstar, and you're welcome for the help. I'm hoping to get more active September/October-ish, and if I am able to do so, I'm leaning toward making MILHIST my new home for a while. Will probably start out on on U.S. Civil War battles, but would be willing to work on other things if it seems like a good topic. Cheers! – Ling.Nut 11:47, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
NARA uploads
Since you have contact info, could you pass on to the NARA uploader that the photo in File:Eskimos harpooning a whale, Point Barrow, Alaska, 1935 - NARA - 531123.tif does not match its title. It's in the Signal Corps set. Thanks, Dankarl (talk) 09:59, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
- User:Dominic is the Wikipedian-in-Residence at NARA; I'll point him to this post. It looks like the image should be this one, but I can't locate what the title of the image actually uploaded is (it's not located here, and various Google searches for "Stanley Morgan 1935" and/or "Eskimo holding gun" haven't turned anything up). Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 10:11, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
- Oops, note that this is also being handled at Commons here Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 10:16, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5d/Indianapolis_%28Heavy_CA35%29%2C_Aerial%2C_Starboard_Bow%2C_Underway_-_NARA_-_513030.tif/lossy-page1-220px-Indianapolis_%28Heavy_CA35%29%2C_Aerial%2C_Starboard_Bow%2C_Underway_-_NARA_-_513030.tif.jpg)
- Ed - I've asked a similar question here. Parsecboy (talk) 15:13, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
- Yup, I already found that and let Dominic know. :-) I'm in email contact with Dom, and hopefully we'll get one set up soon. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 15:19, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
- Great, thanks. Congratulations and thanks to all for uploading this great set of images. JustSomePics (talk) 15:36, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
- There's something like 123,000 in all, so I'm hoping more ship images are forthcoming! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 15:39, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
- Great, thanks. Congratulations and thanks to all for uploading this great set of images. JustSomePics (talk) 15:36, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
- Yup, I already found that and let Dominic know. :-) I'm in email contact with Dom, and hopefully we'll get one set up soon. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 15:19, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
- Ed - I've asked a similar question here. Parsecboy (talk) 15:13, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Point Park Civic Center edits
Can you explain why you reverted all my edits to Point Park Civic Center? I know its Today's Featured Article, but there are parts of it that are missing citations and there are weasel words in the lead section (that aren't elaborated upon in the prose). I don't think we should treat it any differently than a regular article just because it's on the main page. I wasn't trying to "tag bomb" it; I was simply trying notify other editors that there are issues that should be taken care of, seeing how it is Today's Featured Article. Also, you removed my tags, but not that tags left there by other editors, which does not make any sense. –Dream out loud (talk) 16:14, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you for your dedication, but you don't tagbomb a TFA for the same reason you can't AFD a TFA – it doesn't look good to our readers. You don't purposely dirty the welcome mat you put out for visitors, do you? :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 16:46, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
- No, that wasn't my intention. I was simply adding to the tags that were already present because the article has issues which need to be fixed. There's no reason to treat it differently than any other article. You can't compare tagging an article to and AFD, those are two completely different things. If you feel the need to remove the tags I added, why don't you go ahead and just remove all the tags in the article while you're at it. No reason to just take out mine. Let's just make everyone think there are no issues with this article at all, so when it's no longer a TFA, it will sit in the same condition. Or do you want to redecorate it with tags tomorrow? The point, this article needs work, and there is a no better time than right now to take care of it, but removing the tags is only counterproductive. –Dream out loud (talk) 17:10, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, there actually is a reason: "You don't purposely dirty the welcome mat you put out for visitors, do you?" And yes, I'd much rather put the tags on tomorrow, but most preferably I'd wait until it's entirely off the main page (four days) and FAR it. The problem here is that the article should not have been selected for TFA in this state, but now that is has been, I'm not going to decorate the top article on one of the world's top websites with tags. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 17:33, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
- Well said.--Peter cohen (talk) 22:34, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
- I agree the article should not have been selected for TFA. But you still didn't respond to the statement I made twice already. I want to know why you only felt the need to remove my tags, but not the ones added there only a few hours beforehand by other editors. –Dream out loud (talk) 23:05, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
The other tags?I didn't see them at the time, my bad. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:57, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
- I agree the article should not have been selected for TFA. But you still didn't respond to the statement I made twice already. I want to know why you only felt the need to remove my tags, but not the ones added there only a few hours beforehand by other editors. –Dream out loud (talk) 23:05, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
- Well said.--Peter cohen (talk) 22:34, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, there actually is a reason: "You don't purposely dirty the welcome mat you put out for visitors, do you?" And yes, I'd much rather put the tags on tomorrow, but most preferably I'd wait until it's entirely off the main page (four days) and FAR it. The problem here is that the article should not have been selected for TFA in this state, but now that is has been, I'm not going to decorate the top article on one of the world's top websites with tags. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 17:33, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
- No, that wasn't my intention. I was simply adding to the tags that were already present because the article has issues which need to be fixed. There's no reason to treat it differently than any other article. You can't compare tagging an article to and AFD, those are two completely different things. If you feel the need to remove the tags I added, why don't you go ahead and just remove all the tags in the article while you're at it. No reason to just take out mine. Let's just make everyone think there are no issues with this article at all, so when it's no longer a TFA, it will sit in the same condition. Or do you want to redecorate it with tags tomorrow? The point, this article needs work, and there is a no better time than right now to take care of it, but removing the tags is only counterproductive. –Dream out loud (talk) 17:10, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Ambassador Program: assessment drive
Even though it's been quiet on-wiki, the Wikipedia Ambassador Program has been busy over the last few months getting ready for the next term. We're heading toward over 80 classes in the US, across all disciplines. You'll see courses start popping up here, and this time we want to match one or more Online Ambassadors to each class based on interest or expertise in the subject matter. If you see a class that you're interested, please contact the professor and/or me; the sooner the Ambassadors and professors get in communication, the better things go. Look for more in the coming weeks about next term.
In the meantime, with a little help I've identified all the articles students did significant work on in the last term. Many of the articles have never been assessed, or have ratings that are out of date from before the students improved them. Please help assess them! Pick a class, or just a few articles, and give them a rating (and add a relevant WikiProject banner if there isn't one), and then update the list of articles.
Once we have updated assessments for all these articles, we can get a better idea of how quality varied from course to course, and which approaches to running Wikipedia assignments and managing courses are most effective.
--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 17:30, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Re:Got a question for you
Great image, got a lot of potential. Could maybe do with a little bit of restoration (the scratch on the left, for instance) but that's not really my area- we've been a little starved of images like this of late, so people may lap it up, or may be able to offer some advice on what needs to be done. Alternatively, if you don't want to just jump straight in there, there's picture peer review. J Milburn (talk) 18:15, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
By popular demand, error reporting is here! I'm just letting you know personally since you've been involved in one of the threads related to errors encountered in the NARA catalog. If you can add error reports to that page from now on, we'll have an easier time relaying them to the NARA digital description staff, and we'll be able to track our progress. Let me know if you have any problems using the page; I already added one report as an example. Providing corrections for mistakes in the online catalog is one of the best ways we can show demonstrable benefits to the institution, and you'll be helping all the other users of the archives, so it's really useful. Thanks! Dominic·t 23:37, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Tosa class battleship
Hello
I translate Tosa class battleship to pl.wiki and go to GA. Problem is that what exactly was name of class.
On en.wiki is mess
Tosa class (加賀型戦艦, Kaga-gata Senkan
On de.wiki is one name
Tosa-Klasse {{lang|ja-Hani|加賀型戦艦}}, Tosa-gata senkan
So it was Tosa or Kaga class? PMG (talk) 11:08, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
- It should be the Tosa class, but there may be variance in a few sources because Kaga was launched first. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:26, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Hyphens again
There's a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(ships)#Punctuation_and_ship_classes that I think you should know about. Yours, Shem (talk) 20:32, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
National Maritime Museum Warship Histories project is go!
Hello! I'm very pleased to say that the collaboration with the National Maritime Museum which I mentioned earlier in the year is going ahead. They have put a load of their data on Royal Navy warships up on their website. Please do drop by Wikipedia:GLAM/NMM to find out more, start work, and/or help suggest ways of moving forward. :-) The Land (talk) 12:28, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
O-class battlecruiser
I also translate O-class battlecruiser and go to GA. Question is why bold part is in quotation marks - its something special in this words? Because in my opinion reference at end will be ok.
By 1940, project drawings for the three battlecruisers were complete. They were reviewed by both Hitler and Admiral Raeder, both of whom approved. However, outside of "initial procurement of materials and the issuance of some procurement orders",[4] the ships' keels were never laid.[4]
PMG (talk) 18:51, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
- Because it's a direct quote from the source. You can of course rewrite it so it doesn't require an immediate attribution. Parsecboy (talk) 18:54, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you - I rewrite article in pl.wiki. PMG (talk) 20:47, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
WikiCup 2011 July newsletter
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cd/Trophy.png)
We are half way through the penultimate round of this year's WikiCup; there is less than a month to go before we have our final 8. Our pool leaders are Adabow (submissions) (Pool A, 189 points) and
PresN (submissions) (Pool B, 165 points). The number of points required to reach the next round is not clear at this time; there are some users who still do not have any recorded points. Please remember to update your submissions' pages promptly. In addition, congratulations to PresN, who scored the first featured topic points in the competition for his work on Thatgamecompany related articles. Most points this round generally have, so far, come from good articles, with only one featured article (White-bellied Sea Eagle, from
Casliber (submissions)) and two featured lists (Hugo Award for Best Graphic Story, from PresN and Grammy Award for Best Native American Music Album, from
Another Believer (submissions)). Points for Did You Know and good article reviews round out the scoring. No points have been awarded for In the News, good topics or featured pictures this round, and no points for featured sounds or portals have been awarded in the entire competition. On an unrelated note, preparation will be beginning soon for next year's WikiCup- watch this space!
There is little else to be said beyond the usual. Please list anything you need reviewing on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews, so others following the WikiCup can help, and please do help if you can by providing reviews for the articles listed there. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews generally at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup- points are, of course, offered for reviews at GAC. Two final notes: Firstly, please remember to state your participation in the WikiCup when nominating articles at FAC. Finally, some WikiCup-related statistics can be seen here and here. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 11:45, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 01 August 2011
- In the news: Consensus of Wikipedia authors questioned about Shakespeare authorship; 10 biggest edit wars on Wikipedia; brief news
- Research interview: The Huggle Experiment: interview with the research team
- WikiProject report: Little Project, Big Heart — WikiProject Croatia
- Featured content: Featured pictures is back in town
- Arbitration report: Proposed decision submitted for one case
- Technology report: Developers descend on Haifa; wikitech-l discussions; brief news
Deletion of my userspace subpage
You are off my christmas card list. --Surturz (talk) 08:29, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Ed, can I ask you to reconsider this deletion? There was nothing in the page that could be construed as an attack, and it certainly doesn't fit the criteria at WP:G10. If you feel this userpage is inappropriate, I think an MfD would be the appropriate forum to seek deletion. -- Lear's Fool 08:48, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
- Indeed, hardly an attack page though it could be seen as uncivil but deleting it as WP:G10 when it isn't and without any MfD is rather poor use of Admin tools. Bidgee (talk) 11:11, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
- I do see where you two are coming from, but I respectfully disagree. From G10: "material intended purely to harass or intimidate a person" ; from WP:ATP: "exists primarily to disparage or threaten its subject" or "... keeping a 'list of enemies' or 'list of everything bad user:XXX did' on your user space is neither constructive nor appropriate." Using "attack page" in the summary was a poor choice of words, but even if there are no explicit attacks, gathering a list of Timeshift's perceived 'enemies' violates the spirit of both pages. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 11:44, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
- There was nothing in the page that threatened, disparaged or harrassed anyone; it looks more like a simple list of administrators that Surturz has had dealings with. Orderinchaos (who was on the list) has been a vocal supporter of Timeshift through this whole affair. The G10 criterion doesn't cover this page, it should have been taken to an MfD instead. -- Lear's Fool 13:30, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
- Huh? Orderinchaos was not on the page; it was Timotheus Canens, GW, and you. It was meant as a list of admins who had taken actions or made comments supportive of the deletion of his userpage. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:21, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
- There was nothing in the page that threatened, disparaged or harrassed anyone; it looks more like a simple list of administrators that Surturz has had dealings with. Orderinchaos (who was on the list) has been a vocal supporter of Timeshift through this whole affair. The G10 criterion doesn't cover this page, it should have been taken to an MfD instead. -- Lear's Fool 13:30, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
- I do see where you two are coming from, but I respectfully disagree. From G10: "material intended purely to harass or intimidate a person" ; from WP:ATP: "exists primarily to disparage or threaten its subject" or "... keeping a 'list of enemies' or 'list of everything bad user:XXX did' on your user space is neither constructive nor appropriate." Using "attack page" in the summary was a poor choice of words, but even if there are no explicit attacks, gathering a list of Timeshift's perceived 'enemies' violates the spirit of both pages. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 11:44, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
- Spare me the crocodile tears. All the deletion does is prove that admins are using their bit to silence dissent over Shifty's userpage. The previous MfD had no consensus, yet cons for delete was claimed by the closing admin. There was no cons for the DRV yet the deletion stood. If Ed was ignorant of the Diogenes reference and construed it as an attack, perhaps he should spend more time in article space. If I start a page intended to allow non-admins to keep admins honest, how is that harmful to the project? How are non-admins meant to build consensus to recall an admin if they are not allowed to keep userpages of grievances? In deleting my subpage, The_ed17 is encouraging off-WP politicking and sock/meatpuppetry. --Surturz (talk) 14:11, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
- You're basing your entire premise on a perceived power relationship between admins and non-admins that just isn't there. If you need to 'keep an admin honest', bring it to a noticeboard. There's no need, nor benefit to the project, to keep a list around to use as a gavel. In addition, the MfD was brought to DRV, where the result was endorsed. Unfortunately for y'all, a majority in the community believes that the userpage was inappropriate, so you need to drop that stick and back away from the horse carcass. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:21, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
- I am re-creating the AdminWatch page. Unilateral non-WP:CONS admin deletes should be non-controversial. It clearly isn't from the posts above. Raise an MfD if you dare. (I inform you of this before re-creating the page as there is an instruction on the re-creation page to do so)
- User talk:Cunard threatens two users with re-nominations for deletion. Why not propose an MfD for his page while you are at it?
- There is indeed a power imbalance issue that concerns non-admins as per the perennial proposals Wikipedia:Perennial_proposals#Reconfirm_administrators and Wikipedia:Perennial_proposals#It_should_be_easier_to_remove_adminship. I would have thought your action in deleting my userspace subpage is evidence enough that admins are not accountable to non-admins.
- Majority vote is not consensus and a good admin would know that.
- --Surturz (talk) 11:45, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
- You're basing your entire premise on a perceived power relationship between admins and non-admins that just isn't there. If you need to 'keep an admin honest', bring it to a noticeboard. There's no need, nor benefit to the project, to keep a list around to use as a gavel. In addition, the MfD was brought to DRV, where the result was endorsed. Unfortunately for y'all, a majority in the community believes that the userpage was inappropriate, so you need to drop that stick and back away from the horse carcass. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:21, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
- That kind of page is routinely deleted when they're nominated for deletion. I opposed the deletion of Timeshift's page and voted to overturn the MfD closure in the deletion review, but it's clear to me that all the admins acted in good faith. Setting up a list of 'bad' admins is pretty unhelpful: if you really think that they violated policies you should be putting your money where your mouth is by taking this up at WP:AN or WP:ANI. All this kind of thing does is generate drama. Nick-D (talk) 12:14, 3 August 2011 (UTC)