User:The ed17/Archives/17

Voorhis
Plainly Voorhis broke his "self imposed silence" now and then. Like in 1958 and 1962. Bullock tries to justify him saying that as head of the Cooperative League, he had to maintain his silence. But it is fascinating to watch anger and resentment eat away at this almost saintlike guy over time, til he writes that bitter book in 1972. I do have the paperback, it is almost unreadable, though part of it is because we don't care about detailed analyses of random Nixon policies today.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:46, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, apparently. Even if I agree with that it is "almost unreadable", I still feel kinda sorry for him... Cheers, — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  23:58, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * So do I, really. Rarely do people's lives have such clearly defined turning points as the South Pasadena debate.  I wonder how many times he went back and said "I should have"?  Plainly, it embittered his life.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:00, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't even want to think about that. So many things could have been different for him had that debate gone the other way. — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  03:19, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Check out this hilarious email I got earlier today...
...from some nutjob who apparently thinks he can hack a steward account:
 * Tonight, you’re all gonna be a part of a social experiment. Through the magic of hacking skills and steward powers, I’m ready right now to blow your minds sky high. Anyone attempts to block me or revert, you all get desysopped.


 * Each of you has a button to block another editor. At midnight, I desysop and block you all. If, however, one of you indefinitely blocks as many constructive editors as you can, I’ll let that admin keep their admin powers. So, who’s it gonna be? Wikipedia’s most-wanted scumbag collection or the sweet and innocent contributors? You choose. Oh, and you might wanna decide quickly because the other administrators may not be quite so noble. — The Joker

What a raving lunatic :D Apparently he has a taste for theatrics...Parsecboy (talk) 17:48, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Ummm. That is certainly one of the odder things I have seen as of late. :-) I hope no one fell for it... — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  20:54, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, apparently he sent them from various accounts to more or less every admin on Wiki (there's 1,600 or so...someone has no life). It was discussed on AN and AN/I, and apparently the checkusers are hammering the accounts as they pop up.
 * Oh, and get to work :P Parsecboy (talk) 21:08, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * WOW. Who would waste their time emailing that crap to 1600 people? Pleh...
 * Already done as I got your message :P — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  21:10, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, and apparently some non-admins got it too. It was probably script assisted, but still, that's a long time.
 * Hey, my reminder was at 21:08, you didn't reassess it until 21:09. What were you waiting for, Christmas? :P Parsecboy (talk) 21:13, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I got the same email on my wiki-email. Bizarre, to say the least. Cam (Chat) 06:20, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

But why would you even take the time to write the bloody script? People these days... :/ Maybe. Or maybe I was using preview to ensure that it was right. :P — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  21:18, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I know, right? Like I said, some people have no life.
 * Sounds like an excuse to me...if you were half the wiki-editor your record of FAs and other work implies that you are, you wouldn't need preview :P Parsecboy (talk) 21:37, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and re: the O class; I'm in the process of adding the technical details from Groner's, but if you've got stuff from Garzke&Dulin, feel free to work it in too. If there are any discrepancies (which there probably will be, considering the official documents had 6 years of war to be disrupted/lost/etc. in), we can probably just work them both in, like we did for the build time estimates. Parsecboy (talk) 22:40, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Also, we're past the 5x expansion for DYK now, so whenever you want to nominate it. I'd do it, but I'm usually pretty terrible at writing hooks :D Parsecboy (talk) 23:46, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey, even the greatest need help at times. :P
 * Sounds good.
 * I'll nominate it when it is mostly done&mdash;I don't want to nom a half-finished article :) — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  03:22, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Hey, Ed, can you do me a huge favor? As you know, SMS Von der Tann is going up on the main page tonight. The problem for me is, my sister is getting married today, and I don't know how long the reception and all that will last. So if you're on, would you mind watchlisting it for me? Thanks a ton. Parsecboy (talk) 13:30, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


 * This is unrelated, but check this out: a picture of To g sa after her launching. I wonder if we can figure out the copyright status of it and put it in the article? Parsecboy (talk) 14:55, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Watchlisted, although I don't know how much I'll be on during that time... Leave a message at WT:MHCOORD too :) Well, there's commons:Template:PD-Japan-oldphoto, but we'd have to prove that it was published prior to 1956... — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  19:41, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Your talk page archives
This definitely doesn't look right, and I thought you would be interested. I also left a message for Werdna to alert him. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 18:38, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I commented on Werdna's talk page and am removing the automatic archiving for now. — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  20:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I saw this link on Werdna's talk page and I think I've found your solution...
 * would be the correct line to put in, I think. Note   rather than just  .  [[Sam Korn ]] (smoddy) 09:12, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I see. :-) Thank you very much! — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  20:59, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I see. :-) Thank you very much! — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  20:59, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

WikiCup Newsletter XVIII
Delivered for the WikiCup by The  Helpful  Bot  at 14:43, 31 May 2009 (UTC). To report errors leave at message here.


 * Good luck in Round III. Cam (Chat) 20:31, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you, but I don't think that I will make it no matter how much luck I have. :-) — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  05:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Request for help
Ed: I am working away on the AOT article. I noticed that the "Army of the Cumberland" page has a redirect from the shell "Department of the Cumberland" page. Could you please help me create a similar redirect page for "Department of the Tennesee" -- or help me figute out how to do it. Thank you. Hartfelt (talk) 22:19, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Ed: I figured it out and took care of it.  Thanks.  Hartfelt (talk) 12:00, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Ed: Just wanted to let you know that I have posted a request for A-Class review for the AOT article. Thanks for the link and for your help with the article. This is my first such process, and I will be interested to see how it goes. Hartfelt (talk) 12:48, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Good luck! I will review it if/when I have the time :-) — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  13:22, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

bah

 * Haha well, you had a good run :))) — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  13:22, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: Help
Seems to have resolved itself. Cla68 had the link. TomStar81 (Talk) 12:48, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep :) Thanks! — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  13:22, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Bismarck class
I'm afraid we've got trouble brewing: here and. Since it's about what Garzke and Dulin classify the Scharnhorsts as, I was wondering if you had the time to take a peek at it. Let's hopefully defuse this before we get an edit war. Parsecboy (talk) 12:56, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Here we go... :/ Parsecboy (talk) 13:09, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I've changed it to include no classification and asked in the edit summary for anyone wanting to change it to go to the talk page... Re G&D: they classify them as BC, and have a quote somewhere as to why. I'll check for it later today (have to go to work). —  Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  13:21, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * That works for me. On an unrelated note, do you have any further comments at the Moltke class' FAC? Parsecboy (talk) 16:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * G&D, p. 130: "Even though the German Navy regarded the Scharnhorst and Gneisenau as battleships, they were, in a sense, battlecruisers with heavy protection, high speed, and medium-caliber guns, a development of the Deutschland-class armored ships and a transitional type with a design constrained by technical limitations and political considerations."
 * Nope :) I'll support it now. — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  18:53, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: US 41
I was wondering if you have any more comments for the FAC. If you do, please feel free to add them. Thanks for your reviews. Imzadi1979 (talk) 13:28, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

File:'Around the World Submerged by Edward L Beach.jpg
Hi, ed! It seems that Ww2censor is at it again. My understanding is that book covers are considered okay for non-free fair use. Please advise.Marcd30319 (talk) 17:06, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

History of the United Kingdom during World War I
As the intersection between the CE people and the military history people, would you mind having a look at this one? Its definiencies lie in the brilliant prose area, I think, and I would appreciate the outside help. No problems if you can't, I gather you're a busy person. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 16:16, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Ha. It's a pretty lonely intersection :)
 * I'm really sorry, but there is absolutely no way I will be able to get to that... Perhaps you could try WP:MHL instead? — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  21:41, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure, no problem. Thanks anyway, - Jarry1250 (t, c) 08:11, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XXXIX (May 2009)
The May 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 04:07, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Invitation
You are cordially invited to join the South Dakota-class battleship working group, if you feel you would like to. MBK has joined, and I feel you could make a great addition to our team as well. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:05, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the invite! I have joined and will help out where I can. I may take on USS Massachusetts (BB-59); I'm kind of interested in her duel with FRENCH BATTLESHIP Jean Bart. :-) — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  20:11, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Around the World Submerged
Please review and comment regarding the article as well as comment on the DTYK nomination page by User:Rjanag}Dana. Thank you.Marcd30319 (talk) 19:55, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I deleted the damned article, and given the general bureauratic bull, I give up.Marcd30319 (talk) 22:59, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, I can't delete the damn thing, so I guess I will just give up. Thanks for you help, Ed17, but when some ignorant idiot questions the sigificance of either the Triton circumnavigation or Captain Edward L. Beach, then it is time to pack it in. I see so much crap that gets a pass. I plan to make no further conributions here. Life is to damn short to put up with this bureaucratic bull. Marcd30319 (talk) 23:10, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You have an email regarding this... — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  02:04, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Coord graphic
Discussion started. Cla68 (talk) 06:02, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Alright. Will keep an eye on it over the coming days. — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  06:09, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

History of the United Kingdom during World War I
Hi I have replied to some of you objections at WikiProject Military history/Assessment/History of the United Kingdom during World War I would you mind having a look. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:29, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

GA review on BatDiv9
Hey Ed, I've just finished addressing the comments you made on the GA review. I've made changes in response to most of your points, and tried to explain my reasoning on the few where I don't agree with you. So anyways, I await your response! Thanks, Jrt989 (talk) 01:34, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Am replying now. Don't apologize for not agreeing! The point of a GA review isn't for you to blindly accept all of my recommendations, you know; you are allowed to resist. ;-) — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  01:50, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey just a heads-up: I've addressed your latest round of comments on the GA review page.  No need to respond quickly though if you're busy -- I understand it may be awhile before Belhalla and Simon Harley respond. Jrt989 (talk) 20:32, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I've replied; we'll wait a few days for Bellhalla and Simon, and if they haven't commented, I'll pass it, as I think it is GA-quality. The reason I asked for them to comment is so that more eyes get on the article so that it is (a) better and (b) an easier time for you at the A and FAC levels (if you take the article that far). — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  21:01, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Hey Ed, I've responded again on the review page. Sorry it took awhile, I've been busy with other stuff.  If my answer to your one remaining point is satisfactory, how do you feel about passing it? Jrt989 (talk) 01:01, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Ed, thanks a lot for doing the review and for the WikiChevrons!! It's both my first GA and my first award, so I very much appreciate it. Best, Jrt989 (talk) 02:27, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi
Hi Ed. It's been a long time since we last spoke. How are you doing? I was shocked to see Miss Pianista go... but of course real life has to take priority. Anyway, I'll see you around.  Oliver Fury, Esq. message  •  contributions  23:43, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Hiya Ollie. Only a short time haha :-) Hope RL is treating you well. How did your exams go?
 * I too was shocked; it was right out of the blue with no warning... hopefully she emails me; I'll have to check it when I'm next on (short on time at the moment). Cheers dude, — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  02:08, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Exams are on at the moment, till the end of June... :( These are for university, so I've got to do well! Cheers!  Oliver Fury, Esq. message  •  contributions  02:16, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Ed... and whoever comes here now :) Looks like tough times huh? And some things seem to have changed around here too.  C h a m a l  talk 02:44, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Whoops, forgot to reply to this yesterday; I looked at it, then went and did other stuff. :-/ Sorry 'bout that...
 * (@ Ollie) - Wowie, good luck there. Study hard! :)
 * (@ Chamal) - CHAMAL! Had me scared for a little bit that you wouldn't be back when your enforcer ended and yet you weren't here! No real new TPS'ers outside of and (I think?) . Not too tough times, but definitely things have changed... —  Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  20:02, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Ed, what happened to your signature?! I've had this one for over half an year now... I'm just trying to find things to say! I'm still working (very, very slowly) on Transport in Buckinghamshire. A few days ago I realised that I had missed something out which I know little about, but I'm sure a bit of research will help :)
 * Having you noticed that I've started to use emoticons- a friend 'introduced' me, and I'm hooked! I'll see you around.  Oliver Fury, Esq. message  •  contributions  00:41, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I decided that it was time for a change. :-) The basic version of my old sig had been there since November, and the cursive-y stuff was starting to annoy me. Hey, there is no time limit for when you have to finish it!
 * Haha I actually hadn't. I use them so much that I kind of glossed over them in your original message! See ya dude, — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  00:50, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe I should my sig. I was obsessed with Blackadder when I designed that, the esquire part coming from one of Rowan Atkinson's characters. The rest is obvious!
 * The article's getting there slowly but steadily! I've come some time coming up (I'm not going to jail!) so I'll have a go then. Thanks.  Oliver Fury, Esq. message  •  contributions  01:04, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * O_O wait, what? "I'm not going to jail!"?!? — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  01:33, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I was imitating the phrase 'doing time' to mean serving a prison sentence. Are my puns so awful that they cannot be understood? Oh no!
 * Why, were you worried that you'd given your email address to a axe-murderer?!  Oliver Fury, Esq. message  •  contributions  01:51, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * LOL. The pun was a little obscured, and so I took it seriously :) No, I wasn't worried; I was just curious as to what you had been accused of...you wouldn't be on a computer if it was really serious! — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  01:55, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

AOT article
Ed, Thank you for support A class. I have to say I have been surprised that there is so little interest in the article. What happens if a worthy article (as I believe this is) just fails to draw much comment? Hartfelt (talk) 00:26, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You are welcome. :) Well...it will just sit there. :-/ Having said that, it's rather (very) odd for a nomination to sit there for that length of time with that few of comments; I'm sure that someone will come along and review it soon. Cheers, — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  00:32, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Minas Gerais
I'll take a look as soon as I can. EyeSerene talk 07:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much! — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  13:22, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey Ed, I searched just using "Mians geraes" (with the quotes) and battleship in Google Books. If I wish to restrict the publications to those printed 1922 or earlier, I add "date:1850-1922" (without quotes) to the search field. It was a bit of luck to find Bell's book (since it is a 2003 book, hence searching without a date restricted search) with those mutineer photos though (and to have it stated the photo was published in 1910). Jappalang (talk) 05:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not at my PC with my graphics editor till several hours later, but I will see what I can do. Jappalang (talk) 06:27, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, have a look. Jappalang (talk) 11:40, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I have added:
 * File:Sailors of Minas Geraes.jpg
 * File:Sailors taking coal aboard Minas Geraes.jpg
 * File:Minas Geraes coaling.jpg
 * File:Minas Geraes' gunner.jpg
 * File:Main deck of Minas Geraes.jpg
 * File:Deck scene aboard Minas Geraes.jpg
 * You might want to have a look at them, although I think at most maybe one of them would be worth adding to the article. Jappalang (talk) 14:54, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow. I'm going to have to make a cheatsheet on "how/where to look for images" based on all the stuff you've showed me or done for this article. :-) I never thought of the LOC...
 * On to responding: the new image looks great; thanks a bunch!
 * The images are great, although I agree that not all should go in. I'll look into adding the coaling one and one of the deck scenes. Cheers! — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  00:04, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Regarding Shipbucket, I do not see their terms as releasing their drawings for "free" use. Rather, they agree to the concept of fair use, i.e. as long as you credit the proper authors (and Shipbucket), they would not prosecute for violations of copyright or such.  However, this means their images would have to comply with WP:NFCC for fair-use on Wikipedia.  Jappalang (talk) 03:47, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Gotcha; didn't think so, but wanted to check. Thanks! — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  03:50, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Women waving farewell
Hi Ed, While the caption to the photo in the AWM's database does indeed say that the women are 'waving', they don't actually appear to be doing so. Only two of the women are doing anything with their hands: the one on the left seems to be holding binoculars and the one second from the right is holding her hat. As such, I think that just 'farewell' is more accurate. What do you think? Nick-D (talk) 02:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey Nick. That makes sense, but "Five women farewell a troop ship [...]" just doesn't sound right to me. Is it proper English? — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  02:48, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Maybe they "bid farewell to a troop ship" ? Parsecboy (talk) 02:56, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Wow, that was a simple solution. This is why I need copyeditors for the articles I write. :-) Thanks Parsec! — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  02:57, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * No problems...sometimes you just have a flash of genius :D Parsecboy (talk) 03:07, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Haha I wish I could have those :) — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  03:16, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, there's a reason I'm an admin :P While I'm here, I was wondering if it was worth mentioning in your "Design 150" article that the German H44 class BBs were designed to mount 50.8cm guns (in the footnote in the intro). It might be something worth comparing. Parsecboy (talk) 03:32, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

(out) - yes it would. :) I'll add it tomorrow; I'm off to bed (work at 7am). Question: do you think this is a 20mm gun on top of the superfiring turret? File:Deck scene aboard Minas Geraes.jpg. Since that is a photo of the stern, and so the superfiring turret is 'X' turret, a 20 mm gun would mean that the photos were post-19350-ish. — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  03:49, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Or is that a 3-pounder gun, meaning it was before 1921? — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  04:13, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * It looks to be a 3-pounder; it has the same conical shield as this 3-pdr. Also, the diameter the barrel is far too wide to be only 20mm. Also, there's a casemate gun on the left side; the article states that the ship lost all but 4 of these guns (but not which ones), so it's probable that this photo is pre-refit. Parsecboy (talk) 11:29, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh, good catch on the casemate gun; it kind of conclusively proves that. Thanks! :) — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  21:26, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

(od) That's a good solution. Thanks also for your MOS editing. Nick-D (talk) 07:10, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Territorial changes of Poland
I was wondering if you could help me out. I'm trying to improve the Territorial changes of Poland and I think I've got it sourced pretty well but I need a good copy editor to go over it. I'd do it myself but most of the grammar mistakes are my doing. Its a big article but any help would be appreciated!!!! -- Esemono (talk) 09:47, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * With my current on-wiki projects, including a FAC, I won't be able to get to this. Apologies, — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  21:25, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

WikiCup Newsletter XIX and XX
Delivered by The  Helpful  Bot  at 22:03, 13 June 2009 (UTC) for the WikiCup. To report errors, please leave a message on the talk page.

Amazing Race Wikipedia
Hello, The ed17. Welcome to the Amazing Race Wikipedia. In your travels, you will encounter two types of tasks. In a Detour, you have a choice between two tasks. Both of you must work together on this. In a Roadblock, one team member must work on a task alone. Your Amazing Race Wikipedia submissions page is located here. Enjoy the competition! Best, and. 19:57, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:FOUR
Thanks for the latest WP:FOUR nomination. We would like each nominator to review a nomination by someone else to try to keep the backlog down. If you get a chance please review one of the other nominations.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:21, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Wiki-Jutland
''Whoo! And, just saying here...my pre-dreadnought, dreadnought, super-dreadnought and large cruisers would swoop in during the middle of the battle between you two and be the overall victor.'' ;) — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  03:11, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Not if my tomahawks and harpoons have anything to say about it. And remeber, my rpv's wouldnot show up well on your radar systems. :-) TomStar81 (Talk) 03:29, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Not that Connecticut or Minas Geraes would have radars! Perhaps we should limit this to their WWII (or in Connecticut's case, WWI) configuration to be fair :))) — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  03:32, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok, but I still have bigger guns :) And radars. And speed. And several admirals of outstanding virtue in command :) TomStar81 (Talk) 03:35, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Hopefully, Cam's Yamato's willhave hurt you enough for me to win. Otherwise, yes, I lose. Unless I magically spawn Design A-150 battleships... ;) — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  03:39, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I've got a better idea: since we are both sailing from America lets unite and take on the Yamatos together, then we can die with honor knowing we were felled by a Superior foe. Or, alternatively, we can all agree to work together against the aircraft carrier articles and thus unite against a common foe ;) TomStar81 (Talk) 03:43, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I am so linking this thread to a RL friend who calls me a ship nerd. Maralia (talk) 03:45, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Be prepared to tell your friend that our guns rose the occasion and that in the end we all went down togather :) TomStar81 (Talk) 03:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

(out, ) I love your second idea, Tom. The question, of course, is whether just we vandalize the carrier articles or you delete them. ;) Or we could just rewrite HMS Glorious (77) and expound upon how she was sunk by GERMAN WARSHIP Scharnhorst... Ignoring the later sinking of JAPANESE BATTLESHIP Yamato, of course. Her sinking was a fluke, of course. :) Thanks Maralia. Hopefully the RL friend becomes a ship nerd too (I mean, come on&mdash;how are they not awesome?) — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  03:55, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * YES!!! Death the carriers. And the helo assult carriers (but not the aircraft themselves, I need those to spot with). TomStar81 (Talk) 03:57, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Seaplane carriers are alright, as they give good spotting. But the aircraft carriers and aircraft have got to go, IMO. By the way, tying this into reality&mdash;how in the world are helicopter assault carriers > battleships for fire support stuff? It's only a bit easier to shoot down a heli than a 16" shell. — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  04:03, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Its simply really: The helicopters only command an eight digit cost number, while the shells command a nine digit cost number. Thus, from a certain view point (by which I mean the 'lets not get it right to the first time' view point) its better to use air power than the guns. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:24, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * ...so it looks better until a war. That's when everyone starts screaming about the military's KIA. :/ YOu know, if a battleship is too expensive in the Navy's eyes, why don't we just be like the British in WWII and construct something like a Roberts-class monitor? — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  01:51, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That's what the Zumwalts are supposed to do. But they're about $3.3 billion or so apiece. It only cost half a million to recommission Iowa back in the 80s. I say bring back Iowa and Wisconsin and save a few billion dollars :D Parsecboy (talk) 01:51, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Bah, the Zumwalt's. A design that is trying to deal with too many things in one hull, in my opinion. I think we should (a) bring back Iowa and Wisconsin until (b) we build a Dunkerque-class battleship-style battlecruiser, with missiles aft and six 8 or 12" guns forward. Functional, can 'fly the flag' abroad, and can be a nice help in any land battles fought near a shore. Sure, it'll be expensive, but if you design the ship so that it will last... — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  02:06, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Operation Majestic Titan
I have officially created the page User:TomStar81/Operation Majestic Titan, which outlines the basic goal I have of getting all the US battleship articles up to FA. Its still a draft (a few things will be added along the way), but I have a question for you. Out of curiosity, would be interested in becoming an 'adviser' such as it were for the op? You, MBK, and Climie.ca have been a part of this longer than anyone else I can think of, and I could use a few extra people to keep tabs on and aid any newcomers to the op as we go along. If you decide you would like to assist in that capacity I would be happy to name you one of the people to whom others may addressed questions or ask for help from. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:45, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course I will! Thank you for the honor :) — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  05:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I think we've all signed on now, little did we know that we just committed for the next few years to finish it ... 73 ships (I include the USS Maine (ACR-1) and USS Texas (1892)), 20-30 class articles, 20+ weaponry articles, etc. -MBK004 05:39, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, well just imagine the feeling that we will have when it's finished. :) I hope we get more editors on board to write the articles though; I'm not looking forward to writing 20+ FAs! — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  05:42, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I know, the feeling will be amazing, plus the credibility boost in historical circles would be purely amazing. As for the writing of FAs, you may want to see my response on his talk page about that. -MBK004 05:46, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, if we were the best milhist resource before, what about... maybe we'll get interviewed for The New York Times ;-) — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  05:56, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

(od) We have a long way to go before anyone gets interviewed by the New York Times, but that could happen if we do this right :) Once I firm up the OMT page a little more I intend to dop messages on the three projects mentioned to see if anyone has an interest in joining. I think some people (Bellhalla, for example) may help without joining, which will lighten the load a little too. At any rate, thanks for agreeing to help; goodness knows we are going to need a lot of help to get this thing done :) TomStar81 (Talk) 14:12, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll be around to help as well. My sources for American BBs are somewhat limited, but I have a few that could be useful. Parsecboy (talk) 14:36, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, that we do Tom. :) And no, thank you for getting the ball rolling!
 * Thanks Parsec! :) — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  00:09, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

How to file complaint against an editor
How can I file a complaint against an article editor?IronShip (talk) 04:09, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * There isn't a specific spot I can point you to until I know the nature of the dispute. Who and where are you having trouble? — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  04:14, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

MBK accused me of BB35 vandalism. I posted the specifics in the BB35 discussion IronShip (talk) 04:58, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. I actually remember seeing MBK's revert there; I agreed with it then because I had no idea that the Navy had changed Texas' DANFS entry. Without you adding separate citations, I (and I'm sure MBK) thought that the current cited source there (DANFS) didn't agree with it. It's not common for that to be changed! With the benefit of hindsight, you did the right thing, although you might consider leaving a note on the talk page that the DANFS entry was altered so you are changing the article to reflect that. As we all know of the updates now, feel free to add those corrections back in. Thanks for you efforts and cheers, — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  17:17, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Novels - Coordinator
As of March 5, there should have been an election for the position of Coordinator, a position you share with Kevinalewis. The project seems to be slowly dying, so I think we need to see what we can do to revive it. In my opinion, the place to start would be to elect a Coordinator (a position I do not want to undertake, just to clarify), then revive the newsletter. If either you or Kevinalewis would be willing to show me the ropes, I would be more than willing to help write (and distribute) as much of the newsletter as required, as I have a lot of free time on my hands for a couple of months. Regards, Alan16 (talk) 19:22, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi! Yes, there should have been, but Kevin and I decided not to hold one. "Talk between Kevinalewis and the_ed17, the two project coordinators, has led to us deciding to suspend elections for coordinators indefinitely. With the exceedingly low amount of participation in the last elections (five total votes), we do not feel that it is worth it to try to set up another election." (WikiProject Novels/Outreach/Newsletter March 2009)
 * If Kevin wants to be the coord of NOVELS, he can have it; I haven't done anything there in ages&mdash;even stuff I said I would do, like putting together a project A-class review. Having said that, I'm willing to help out with the newsletter. What I did when I put the March '09 one together was copy the format of WikiProject Novels/Outreach/Newsletter November 2008 and downsize it for what I wanted to put in it (not a lot).
 * It's nice to see someone taking interest in NOVELS again. Thanks and cheers, — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  19:53, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I've decided that I'll jump straight in, I've been updating the Project News and Member News. Stuff on Peer Reviews, and From the Outreach Department I can have a stab at. Any information for including for sections like Collaboration and Debates would be useful, as well as any other information. This weekend I don't intend on doing much else apart from staying in and watching the golf (UP Open), so I could have a go at having something readable by Sunday evening. Also, for the Project News section, I was thinking that we could try and have an election for Coordinator, and we can see what the response is - I hope that if we can make sure people know we can increase last times turnout (5 votes...) . I realise this will require having to do some editing to other parts of the Project. If you think this is a good idea, your thoughts and help doing the necessary edits would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Alan16 (talk) 20:29, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Feel free to play around with it and do what you want! Peer review will probably require nothing more than a list of articles that need to be reviewed, and with the Project News, you could write a short para on the upcoming election and encourage people to (a) go out and run and (b) vote. Otherwise, I don't have any ideas... Please ping me if you need further help! Cheers, — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  22:07, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I've been doing some work, and it all seems reasonably straightforward, but just a lot of work - which is, I imagine, why it was hard to keep up. The election thing I will basically just copy from the October 2008 one, and change names and stuff. Just to confirm, you are not standing? Regards, Alan16 (talk) 22:45, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


 * My first attempt. Improvements etc would be good. If you think it's ok, I'll start delivering. The sooner people know of the Coordinator Elections, the better. Regards, Alan16 (talk) 23:43, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) - No, I am not. I've got enough on my plate as a MILHIST coord, as evidenced by my lack of activity over at NOVELS. One other thing. Do not open the election yet; give people a week or so to sign up to run! — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  00:45, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay. I'll change the election then. Apart from that, newsletter passable? Alan16 (talk) 00:48, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep. :) — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  01:13, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Right, well I'll get it out then, and hopefully we'll have some interest in the election. Alan16 (talk) 01:16, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Novels Newsletter - June 2009
With the help of a macro, it wasn't a problem - I only had to do it once. Alan16 (talk) 02:40, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Bosworth Field
Hey Ed, thank you for your support at the A-Class assessment. I have implemented a few of your suggestions, but I think the remainder are differences in opinion on prose. Thank you again. Jappalang (talk) 07:55, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You are welcome! No worries on the non-changes. Cheers, — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  22:49, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

WikiCup Newsletter XXI
Delivered by The  Helpful  Bot  at 22:36, 22 June 2009 (UTC) for the WikiCup. To report errors, please leave a message on the talk page.

Article use
Hi, I noticed that you removed the article in front of ship names. Can you please point me to the section in wikipedia where this was discussed and recommended? ThanksEkem (talk) 18:55, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe that it is a matter of style, although I will note that many ship FAs do not use "the", including all of the Iowa-class battleship-related articles and FAs of mine. — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  03:09, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I like to make a case for using the article when referring to ships. First of all, people talk that way (certainly the ones I talk with), second, it is prevalent in the literature and in the arts ("Sink Bismarck" does not cut it), and third, style books support it, at least the one I have access to: H. Ramsey Fowler, Jane E. Aaron. ''The Little, Brown Handbook, 9th ed. Pearson, page 343 (example: the Lusitania), ISBN0-321-10350-5. Ekem (talk) 03:29, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that it matters which we use. :) WP:MILMOS does not say anything about it, and I believe that both are grammatically correct. In my sources, Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships 1906–1921 does not use it while Battleships: Axis and Neutral Battleships in World War II and U.S. Battleships: A Design History do. Feel free to add the "the"'s back into Sao Gabriel; I won't revert. Cheers, — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  03:35, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, -thanks for your help with the article. Ekem (talk) 03:39, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You are very welcome! Hope to see it in DYK soon. — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  03:43, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Some help needed
Hi Ed. Just curious; how many sources are usually needed for a FA? I've seen most articles using quite a lot, but I noticed that USS Connecticut (BB-18) uses just 4 books (with just one being used extensively). I was thinking of developing an article (finally :P) and came across this.  C h a m a l  talk 11:32, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Hello again Chamal, long time no see! :) I think it depends on the article; for a ship like Connecticut that did not do a lot and did not have must controversy surrounding her, it's one thing (and I also used many, many New York Times articles). On the other hand, getting GERMAN BATTLESHIP Bismarck, a very controversial topic, to FA will/would require a much greater number of books. — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  22:15, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I see.... right, thanks.  C h a m a l  talk 07:20, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Wait, do you see or do you want me to clarify? :) — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  03:14, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I got it. Going to find a library now :P  C h a m a l  talk 07:48, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Alright! Ping me if you need help :) — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  21:13, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

RPOTD
Just to let you know, the RPOTD (random picture of the day) has been restarted, just insert on your user page for it to work. - Presidentman (talk) Random Picture of the Day 20:51, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow, it's been awhile since I have seen that. Thanks for the heads-up! Cheers, — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  21:13, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

WikiCup Newsletter XXII
Delivered for the WikiCup by  ROBOTIC GARDEN  at 21:57, 28 June 2009 (UTC). To report errors see the talk page.

Coordinator Election
Hello. The Coordiantor Election has begun. All members are encouraged to vote by the deadline, July 28. To vote simply add support to the comments and questions for.. section of the member of your choice.

3 users are standing:

Regards, Alan16 (talk) 19:45, 29 June 2009 (UTC).

Amazing Race Wikipedia Starts!
Hello, Shappy. This is a reminder that Amazing Race Wikipedia will start very soon. At 00.00 (or whereabouts), our host Firestorm will place the first Detour on your submissions page. Again, the Detour is a choice between two tasks; both members of the team choose one task and work together to complete it. A Roadblock is a task only one team member must perform; he/she may not have any help from the other team member. Good luck and enjoy the Race! :-)  and  --EdwardsBot (talk) 13:34, 30 June 2009 (UTC)