User:The ed17/Archives/20

expanded sections of vital articles?
Not sure that should count. Might be a good idea to discuss on WT:TFA/R. I don't think that existed when the rule was made.Wehwalt (talk) 19:09, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey Wehwalt, are you sure? It looks like it was created in 2006: # (cur) (prev) 14:59, 5 June 2006 Silence (talk | contribs) (Moving this page from MediaWiki to here, where more editors will probably be able to see and edit it.)
 * Regardless though, now that I think about it, it may be against the original spirit of the rule, if nothing else. Would you like to bring it up on the talk page? Otherwise I will. Thanks for the note, — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  22:46, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I am on my blackberry only until sat; and can only edit by adding a new section. I haven't checked, if you haven't already started the discussion is it ok to wait til then?  I have no problem with quark getting the pts but feel the expanded list should be discussed and the rule clarified.Wehwalt (talk) 10:53, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Will wait then; have a safe journey! :-) — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  12:36, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Photo problem
Ed, I just got pinged again by the same guy who pinged me over the Il-40 photo for a new photo: File:Il16front.jpg. I've now added the fair use template you gave for the Il-40 photo, although I did have a rationale already added. I'm getting tired of this and don't trust myself to remain calm. Since I'm likely to be adding more photos of these obscure Soviet prototypes can you discuss with him what he wants to see? The non-free aircraft template doesn't seem to be enough for him. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:05, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Dang, you're doing the right thing by asking someone else before you get angry, but I'm going home from college in about an hour and I have to get ready. I'll start a new section at WT:MHCOORD; hopefully someone who isn't as busy can help. Apologies, — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  17:28, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Happy Labor Day!
Dear colleague, I just want to wish you a happy, hopefully, extended holiday weekend and nice end to summer! Your friend, --A NobodyMy talk 03:04, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Nominations open for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election
The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 12 September! Many thanks,  Roger Davies  talk 04:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Yamato Class
Hi Ed, I have started to include "notes" in some of my drawings in order to test this new feature on commons. I dont want to jeopardize your featured article work, so plz have a quick look (Musashi ) if that could cause trouble if those notes ever get fully functional on en.wikipedia one day and let me know. wbr Alexpl (talk) 13:15, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Battleships
Ed, I'm sending Tom your way should he have an questions. I left a somewhat long note on his talk page explaining our cautious approach to his inquiry, and I commend you for offering your support to him. Thanks for offering to help him out. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:57, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. I'm sure he'll do fine :-) — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  15:50, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

You are the missing link
A quick thx for this. I don't read Portugese, either, ;p but for my purposes, it doesn't matter.... Also, very belated apologies for dropping off the map on aiding you. I've been very distracted by other things & almost entirely off WP since Dec. And I shouldn't make big promises. :( Best wishes.  TREKphiler   hit me ♠  21:39, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No thanks necessary, but why are you thanking me? :-) No apologies are necessary either; I haven't done a thing on Nevada-class battleship. If you are going to be on more now, though, you could keep an eye on what I am doing and cite infoboxes...like the one for North Carolina-class battleship. ;))) — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  02:27, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm pleased to see my perfect record of unclarity is unsullied. ;p Thx for an info link; any new info, on...just about anything :) is welcome. And I can definitely keep an eye on your shoddy work. ;p (I prorfraed my onw wrok just so well...) TREKphiler   hit me ♠  03:23, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Lol, too true, my friend. :-D Thanks dude, — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  03:25, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for this. Nick-D (talk) 10:21, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem. — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  20:29, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
You've got experience with pre-dreadnoughts, and you are the designated "mentor". It sounds like he wants to rid the article of detail required for FAC. -MBK004 18:27, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the notice. Don't be too hard on him, MBK; it took me awhile to learn how to write battleship articles, so why wouldn't the same apply to Tom? :-) — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  20:29, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I guess it just shows how skeptical I am... while we all have had problems when we lean to write these, I would think we wouldn't propose to remove crucial information about the service history of the vessel from the article. -MBK004 21:37, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * He proposed to change "3 January 1901" to "early 1901". Not the biggest matter, my friend. :-) — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  00:51, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Bahia
Hey Ed, I reviewed the article for GA here. There's just a few nitpicks I have, and once those are addressed I'll also support the article for A-class at MILHIST. Excellent work on this ship. But you might have missed the fact that it's not a battleship :) Parsecboy (talk) 21:02, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks Parsec. I know it's not a battleship, but you gotta switch it up every so often! :-D — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  21:07, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That's true, I suppose. I usually just go to a different country, though I have done my share of smaller ships :) Parsecboy (talk) 21:11, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That you have. I think my next projects will be copyediting and MOS'ing USS Iowa (BB-4) and rewriting New York-class battleship. — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  21:13, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds good, let me know if you need any help with either of them. I don't know what I'll be up to next, I'll probably stumble onto something though soon enough. Parsecboy (talk) 02:23, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If you want, we could collab on Minas Geraes-class battleship. I started it with the intention of getting a DYK, then stopped. :| — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  02:26, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That'll work, but it'll have to wait until after about 4pm on monday. I'm taking the GRE at noon, and so I'll be pretty busy with last-minute studying to be on here much. Parsecboy (talk) 12:20, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem, good luck! :-) — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  15:35, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

MILHIST Coordinator election
You do realize that there is less than 24 hours to put your hat in the ring for re-election as a coordinator? If you've decided not to run again, please consider letting the rest of us know in the table on the election page here. I hope you decide to run again. -MBK004 05:54, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I guess I'll run. I've been debating about it for the past week or so... — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  06:21, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You forgot to change the name parameter to The_ed17; so I changed it for you :) glad to see you are running again. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:19, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, doggone it. :-D Cheers friend, — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  15:36, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

North Carolina class battleship
I thought I would share this with you since you are working on the North Carolinas; I'm not sure if you can use any of it, but as they say every little bit counts. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:14, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Awesome video. I'll link it at the bottom of the class article. — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  06:33, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

note
Thanks for caring with that note re my loss. DS (talk) 12:36, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLII (August 2009)
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:07, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 21:00, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLII (August 2009)
The August 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) 21:21, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

First para
Hi Ed, one option would be to split out the first few sentences of your BB articles into a separate para which describes the ship as was done in FAs HMS Ark Royal (91), HMAS Melbourne (R21), AHS Centaur and USS Missouri (BB-63) or even a single sentence like SMS Moltke (1910). There are some examples of FAs on ships where the first para didn't define the article's entire topic, such as HMS Cardiff (D108), but they seem to be in the minority of the list of FAs at WP:SHIPS. Nick-D (talk) 07:54, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Heya Nick. I really don't like four paragraph/three long paragraph leads. :-) I'll see what happens at FAC (whenever I get around to nominating them); I'd argue that my first two sentences are about the same as the first paragraph in Moltke... I think that my first paragraph unambiguously defines it in topic, just not in its fate. Cheers, — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  12:35, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

OCLCs
Sorry to bother you with this, Ed, but I can never figure this out. Can you lend me a hand with the Hindenburg FAC? Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 00:30, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Hehe, it's nice to know that you can write 2968354 German Navy articles, but can't figure out OCLC's. ;-D Getting them and Amagi's now. — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  00:32, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Nobody's perfect, right? :P Parsecboy (talk) 00:53, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Riddle me this....
I can go anywhere in the world, but only stay in one corner. What am I? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.8.246.55 (talk) 22:15, 16 September 2009 (UTC)  92.8.246.55 (talk) 22:17, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I couldn't figure it out, but is it a postage stamp? :-) — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  22:18, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

You'sa cheater! :oP 92.8.246.55 (talk) 22:19, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Gotta love Google. — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  22:21, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Military history coordinator elections: voting has started!
Voting in the Military history WikiProject coordinator election has now started. The aim is to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of sixteen candidates. Please vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on 26 September! For the coordinators,  Roger Davies  talk 22:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Contest Dept
Just a brief note to remind all entrants that, under the new arrangements, they are encouraged to self-score (but not self-assess) their own entries.

There's also a discussion about a new points scale over on the Coordinators talk page. This deals with some of the anomalies raised elsewhere and as ever comments there would be very welcome. Roger Davies talk 13:49, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

In all factuality...
yes :P Parsecboy (talk) 22:31, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Heh, that's cool. Thanks for the link; I was too lazy to look it up. ;-) — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  22:32, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

You've got mail
&mdash;La Pianista  ♫ ♪ 22:03, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * And more. Just keep checking it, please. :) &mdash;La Pianista  ♫ ♪ 15:08, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Your second RFA
Her you go: Requests for adminship/The ed17 2. Wait until MBK has a chance to add his conom before doing anything to it; I expect to be busy all weekend long. Good luck Ed; I know you have what it takes to handle adminship, and I have full faith and credit in your ability to answer the questions posed to you and rally support from our project for the rfa. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:26, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * About time. Your name was put forward today at WT:RFA as a potential candidate. A lot of people seem to think you're ready, so it's time you took the hint :) ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 05:29, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Come on !!!!!  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) 05:29, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Ping: User talk:MBK004 -MBK004 05:58, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm travelling, so it may be a few days before I add my support, but I will. Come on, Mil Hist buff, pull the trigger.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:48, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Support Good luck!  Little Mountain  5   14:30, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * @Chamal: yeah, here. Focused upon me, that section is (not). :-)
 * @Everyone else - thank you all very much! :-D — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  18:06, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I said potential candidate, and that's close enough :D And when I said a lot of people think you are ready, I meant the comments you got here in the past, not the ones there. Iz correct. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 02:01, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I've found a free moment to support, so I decided to !vote now since I'm not sure when I'll next have that chance. Also, for whats it worth, I think you'd be a good lead coordinator for the project. I see about popping on tomorrow if I get the chance; otherwise I'll see you next week at some point. Bon Chance. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:03, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see Chamal. Oh fine. :-)
 * Sounds good Tom; thanks for everything. I don't think I will get lead coord, though&mdash;it'll be Bryce, you or Nick (assuming Parsec will decline it) :-) In any of these four cases, we'll have a pretty strong lead coord. See ya around dude! — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  02:07, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * (od) I thought that you were an admin :) It looks like this nomination is going to pass easily though. Nick-D (talk) 04:28, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You're on track to hit WP:100 fairly soon. :)  Little Mountain  5   15:38, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Heh. :-) I'm gonna start getting opposes soon because I'm not answering the questions, but I don't have the time too; I thought this weekend was going to be completely free, but that was before my Grandparents decided to come up and visit, among other things... — Ed17  (talk  •  contribs)  16:24, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Well
Well, it's obvious that you'll pass RfA, but can you make 150?  ceran  thor 00:28, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, the supports are slowing...who knows. :-) — Ed17  (talk  •  contribs)  03:57, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Possible collab
Hey, Ed, I'm in need of information on the design of the Japanese Kongo class battlecruisers. Would you happen to have any resources that could contribute to that? My sandbox page (where I'm pre-writing all of this) is here. Thanks in advance, Cam (Chat) 17:14, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey Cam, I only have whatever Conway's 1906–1921 gives me. I'll try to add some info when I have the time, and I will go through Google Books as well. Cheers, — Ed17  (talk  •  contribs)  16:23, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I might be able to add a bit from Peter Hore's Battleships of World War I. Parsecboy (talk) 03:53, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

(out) - a thought hit me: the Kongos were built in Britain! I'll leave a note with our awesome resident English naval historian,, to see if he has anything. :-) — Ed17  (talk  •  contribs)  04:01, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Only Kongo was built in Britain, the other three were built in Japan. -MBK004 04:14, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, they were designed by an Englishman. :-) Hopefully Simon will have something more on them. — Ed17  (talk  •  contribs)  04:16, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I have the obituary of the man who designed the Kongos, Thurston. I'm afraid all I have shipwise is whatever appears in Breyer, and also the emphatic statement in Battlecruisers by John Roberts that the Kongos had absolutely nothing to do with the layout of H.M.S. Tiger.  --Simon Harley (talk | library | book reviews) 11:55, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, it's something at least. I'll try to add what I have on him tomorrow or Wednesday, Cam. — Ed17  (talk  •  contribs)  20:37, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Alright. Thanks. I'm going to move ahead and work primarily on the sections that don't require your resources (ship information, armament & armour). I'll start on most of that later tonight after my labs are done. Cam (Chat) 23:07, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Your RfA
I'd like you to answer my question on your RfA soon if you could, I've been avoiding making votes until it is answered. Thanks! --Tznkai (talk) 04:51, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I had answered it, but a computer crash (I tried to note that here) ate my answers to questions 6 through 8. They were really good answers too; I had taken an hour on them. Back to the point: I'll probably get to it by 11:00 Eastern tomorrow, as I'm off to bed so that I can stay awake in class tomorrow. :-) Apologies for how long this is taking me. — Ed17  (talk  •  contribs)  05:02, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Not a problem.--Tznkai (talk) 05:14, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Happy WP:100 on your 2nd rfa! TomStar81 (Talk) 20:44, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks Tom :-) — Ed17  (talk  •  contribs)  22:51, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 September 2009

 * From the editor: Call for opinion pieces
 * News and notes: Footnotes updated, WMF office and jobs, Strategic Planning and more
 * Wikipedia in the news: Wales everywhere, participation statistics, and more
 * Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
 * WikiProject report: WikiProject Video games
 * Features and admins: Approved this week
 * Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
 * Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 00:05, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Calling my talk page stalkers (all 80 of them)
Anyone feel like reading this and commenting? :-) — Ed  (talk  •  contribs)  00:58, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Congrats on getting WP:100 :P You're right about WP:BITE of course. And I completely agree with improving edit summaries (or at least providing one). I'm not sure about your suggestion though (but remember I don't deal with deletions, so I might be wrong). With the frequent backlogs, I don't know how successful such a thing might be. You do get a chance to improve the article while at AFD if you want to, so I think it's at CSD that your suggestion could be implemented. The only categories that this would be applicable in would be where no notability is asserted and there is a chance that they can be improved (but in that case, we are supposed to improve rather than delete :)), and maybe advert-ish articles. The other categories are for more or less significant violations of policy, so I don't think we can keep them. Borderline cases are supposed to be nominated for AFD or at least PROD, in which case there would be time to improve the article and save it. Maybe the key would be to improve the notice templates that are posted on the user talk pages, so that new editors can clearly understand what they have to do. If we were more ambitious, we might make up a wikiproject, preferably in collaboration with the welcoming committee and the article rescue squadron (big dreams, eh? :D) to help newbies out with their articles. But something like that will require a lot of effort, and support from the community too. Take it to the village pump and see what others think about the idea? ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 03:28, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Good thoughts, Chamal. I like the idea about the notice templates, but the problem is better explaining it in a limited space per TL;DR. Maybe I'll take a stab in my sandbox at improving one or two sometime. A WikiProject wouldn't be a bad idea, except that I should not be the leader of it&mdash;we'd need someone who is 100% committed to seeing it through. I'd wander off to work on battleship articles or something. :-) The Village Pump is a good idea; maybe I'll take it there after more comments here. —<font face="Baskerville Old Face"> Ed  (talk  •  contribs)  16:23, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * A couple editors started WP:INCUBATE about two weeks ago. The original idea was to pull some savable articles off AfD and improve them instead of debating and/or deleting.  My own vision for the project is to do that, but also serve as an alternative to speedy deletion.  Articles that don't meet standards, but are salvageable could be incubated instead of deleted.  I believe that doing so would 1) satisfy those who think having bad articles hurts our reputation and 2) reduce byte by effectively saying "your article wasn't good enough, but we want to help you improve it" rather than "your article wasn't good enough so we deleted it."
 * Another idea that I like is "outlawing" the tagging of articles less than say 30 minutes old - excluding only attack & vandalism pages. The problem with this is it isn't exactly enforceable. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:34, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The only problem I see with that is "[a]rticles that don't meet standards, but are salvageable" aren't supposed to be speedyed. :-) Good thoughts though. As to your second point, I think that is an excellent idea that should be proposed somewhere. "Outside of vandalism, complete gibberish or blatant hoaxes, articles should not be speedyed or AfD'ed until at least a half hour after their creation." ? —<font face="Baskerville Old Face"> Ed  (talk  •  contribs)  20:06, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well that open to interpretation, actually. Many of the most active admins will do a GNews search and decline a speedy based on that, but technically any article that doesn't assert importance, or is mostly ad-like, can go regardless of actual notability.
 * As to the half hour idea, I'll definitely consider writing up something more formal and "shopping it around" to see if there is any support, eventually bringing it to WT:CSD and the village pump if it seems to have a chance. I really think the sticking point is going to be enforcement though. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:01, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

OMT
Thanks for doing the merge and putting your sandbox up, but as you can probably guess, there will be quite a bit of work to get that presentable as the main page of the op, so if you don't mind, I'm going to keep your sandbox intact but copy parts to the main page as well as re-work what is already there to make it more uniform to our standards for special projects. -MBK004 03:33, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I have no problems at all. Do whatever you have to do with it or any other subpage of mine. —<font face="Baskerville Old Face"> Ed  (talk  •  contribs)  03:34, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I have no plans to further modify your sandbox (subject to change if I see something to do), but the sandbox of Parsec's that is transcluded onto yours may see some work from me. -MBK004 03:36, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * My work is done, have a look as well as my comments at WT:MHCOORD in the place where this was discussed. -MBK004 05:49, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Looking now. —<font face="Baskerville Old Face"> Ed  (talk  •  contribs)  16:23, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks and a request!
Thanks for your service as coordinator on WPr Military History for the last six months. Great job, the Wikiproject has matured some more. Lots more needs to be done though.

Would you consider giving a para here on what you planned to do, what you could achieve, what gave you happiness, what irritated you and your suggestions for the road ahead to the new team?

All the best for the new elections!

AshLin (talk) 04:20, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Ashlin. Thanks for the question! My replies, in order:
 * What I planned to do last tranche: I honestly don't remember, so I cannot answer this part of the question.
 * What could I achieve: hopefully what is listed at #4 ;-)
 * What irritated me: literally, nothing. I've been having a great time as a milhist coord in the last few months :-)
 * Suggestions: I'm hoping that we can offer more support for images and sounds within the project. For myself, I'd like to get back to reviewing A-class noms at some point; I really want that to be utilized more, but people won't if they don't get good reviews. —<font face="Baskerville Old Face"> Ed  (talk  •  contribs)  20:23, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your answers. I'm keen to see how the Project gets along with respect to audiovisual media. Thank you for the great job of last six months and for your time. Once again, all the best for the new elections! AshLin (talk) 17:32, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Requests for adminship/Bob the Wikipedian
I've responded to your question. (Sorry about the edit summary...I accidentally put "response to Daniel", even though it's a response to you.) Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 00:05, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: Your RfA
I added my support to your RfA, but also wanted to stop by and drop a more person note here. I have asked the "greatest threat" question on a number of RfAs, but you are the first to really "get it", IMO. Most people have answered with some variation of BLPs/inaccurate articles ruining our reputation. You are the first to site loss of editors.

In my opinion, BITE is out of control. The quote you added was pretty accurate. Unfortunately, a large chunk of new page patrollers think it is a race to tag a new article as fast as they can. I know I certainly would be highly discouraged and probably leave if my first effort was tagged for deletion with minutes of its creation, and I am quite sure we lose many editors this way. This is especially true given that many articles are not created in one edit. Imagine saving the first few sentences of what you planned to be a thorough article. Then someone comes along and tags it as crap before you even have a chance to write the second paragraph. Are you going to want to finish the article? Probably not.

I'm not personally sure of what the answer to this problem is, but it is definitely a problem.

Anyway, congratulations on your soon-to-be adminship. I'm sure you'll make a fine one. --ThaddeusB (talk) 12:42, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks Thaddeus. I'm 100% agreed with you on all points; perhaps all blatant pure vandalism or hoax articles should be the only things speedyed within (say) seven days of creation? Eh, unfortunately I also do not know what the answer is. I really wish I did. —<font face="Baskerville Old Face"> Ed  (talk  •  contribs)  16:23, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * An interesting conversation, may I join in here? I'm ocassional participant at NP, and I think the main problem there is the incompetence and impatience of some new page patrollers (especially TWINKLErs), who don't check their nominations carefully. I found a lot of incorrectly tagged articles, SD nominations of clearly notable subjects etc. To be honest, in a tricky situation everybody can make mistake and I make mistakes too, however, it's always possible to clarify and explain your point and solve things peacefully. I don't think we lose many editors this way - usually they are properly notified and the SD notice together with welcoming tag offer a normal and polite way how to explain the basic principles, it's not BITING. A potential editor has possibility to orientate himself, ask, learn the rules and defend his/her article. We need more thoughtful people to check the new pages and communicate with newbies, not the "game players" or contestants. That's the main problem. Ed, do you want to store thousands articles about unimportant bands, highschool students, or starting companies? How does it help? And what about the credibility of the project? We need some functional and effective speedy deletion process, but it isn't easy to control it, since anyone can edit also there. A good solution could be to determine requirements for potential NP patrollers (e. g. experience with AfD or article creation), but I'm not sure with that, I know excellent CSD workers who never write articles.. I apologize for my bad English. Have a good day, guys. --Vejvančický (talk) 12:51, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Hiya Vej, welcome to my talk page! Thanks for joining in, it's nice to get more opinions. :-) In response, I'm not very keen on "stor[ing] thousands [of] articles about unimportant bands, highschool students, or starting companies", but I would also like the editors who start these articles to learn the basic policies and stay, even if they only make one typo fix a month. I realize that I am asking the project to strike a fine balance here, but what else can we do? Something radical has to be done to rope in new editors.
 * With regards to our credibility, it's already low anyway; walk into any high school or college class and you will see that. As long as anyone is allowed to edit, we will never become 100% reliable in teachers' and professors' eyes, but we aren't going to sacrifice that&mdash;nor should we. So we should lay the arguments about credibility on the side and focus on what should be our main issue: new editors and (a) how to get them + (b) how to keep them. You make a point with the anyone can edit there; we certainly don't want to limit it to certain people. Cheers friend, —<font face="Baskerville Old Face"> Ed  (talk  •  contribs)  18:04, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your answer Ed, and congrats to your new status. To get back to our conversation - I agree with you, we should support new editors, even though they make only one constructive edit in a month, but I'm talking about creating and patrolling new pages, which is a bit different and more complicated area. My idea of "selected group" of patrollers is probably dumb, but I still think this specialized work needs experienced editors with level-headed judgment. The speedy deletion system and criteria are good, effective and quite "welcoming", providing sufficient information to a potential editor. We only have to work within the system cautiously. You mention the balance (in relation to encyclopedic notability?), which is one of the key elements for the credibility of Wikipedia. I think we cannot lay on the side the notability requirements in order to "get and keep new editors". It won't help anything. Writing new articles and learning the complicated rules and guidelines is harder, the project is too huge, that's fact. However, everyone should respect the rules - we cannot make concessions. It isn't easy to find a magic formula, Wikipedia's heading towards another stage of development. We have to find the right path, to keep the openness and increase level of credibility. This is just my personal opinion.


 * Anyway thanks for your inspiring opinions, I believe you'll do fine as an admin. --Vejvančický (talk) 10:12, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Congrats!
Congrats on your election as Coordinator for the Military history Project. In honor of your achievement, I present you with these stars. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:16, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Travis Touchdown DYK
Could you please change the caption from "named" to "so named"? I believe the latter is the gramatically correct way to state it.--ZXCVBNM (TALK) 05:00, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅! Cheers, —<font face="Baskerville Old Face"> Ed  (talk  •  contribs)  05:01, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks.--ZXCVBNM (TALK) 06:30, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 September 2009

 * Opinion essay: White Barbarian
 * Localisation improvements: LocalisationUpdate has gone live
 * Office hours: Sue Gardner answers questions from community
 * News and notes: Vibber resigns, Staff office hours, Flagged Revs, new research and more
 * Wikipedia in the news: Stunting of growth, Polanski protected and more
 * Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
 * WikiProject report: WikiProject National Register of Historic Places
 * Features and admins: Approved this week
 * Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
 * Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 03:01, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Worldcat
Hullo ed. There's currently something of a fracas at ANI over the mass addition of OCLC numbers to book articles. As I recall you recommending these links for the Manifesto of the Sixteen article in addition to the ISBNs (thanks again for the peer review!), I was wondering if there was a case to make for the mass addition, and if you'd like to share it. The thread is (currently) at AIN. Regards, Skomorokh,  barbarian  10:47, 30 September 2009 (UTC)