User:The ed17/Archives/21

Approving hooks for the bot
Hi Ed. Just a reminder not to forget to add when updating, or the bot will make a noise at AN :) ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 03:20, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah. I'm new; leave me alone. :P — Ed  (talk  •  contribs)  03:24, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

re United States protection
Please discuss (and warn us of) such things before doing them. I've started a thread on the talk page. --Golbez (talk) 14:31, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I have replied there. Talk:United States — Ed   (talk  •  contribs)  15:06, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Re:RFPP
I don't follow your argument here:. I count three IPs vandalising the article today - all in a narrow range, but surely a temp semi on one article is better than a rangeblock? Philip Trueman (talk) 16:00, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Heh, note to self: look past the first five digits of an IP before determining they are the same. :-) — Ed  (talk  •  contribs)  20:02, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

US Article
Hey noticed you indefitly protected the U.S. Article, thanks for that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaron mcd (talk • contribs) 23:01, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIII (September 2009)
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:59, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIII (September 2009)
The September 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) 02:57, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Unprotection
Hello The ed17. See WP:AN3 in which your lifting of the semiprotection from the Stedman Pearson article is mentioned. The case was filed against an 82.29.* IP who was removing the Controversy section, but some editors are concerned about BLP, since an 80.41.* IP keeps on adding it. I assume you're keeping an eye on the problem, so I've closed the 3RR case. EdJohnston (talk) 03:51, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I had added semiprotection but then removed it about a minute later, thinking my action to be a mistake; I saw that 82.29.* seemed to be the only vandal, rather than 80.41. (who was providing refs). Didn't think about BLP then, though. I gave 82.29.* a final warning at the time, so he can be blocked upon further disruption.
 * In retrospect, the article shouldn't have been protected at all by me because there was not enough vandalism to warrant such an action. Thank you for the notification. Cheers, — Ed  (talk  •  contribs)  06:16, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Your Request for Adminship
Dear The ed17,

I have closed your recent RfA as successful per the consensus of the community. Congratulations, you are now a sysop! Please make sure you're aware of the Administrators' how-to guide and are aware of the items on the Administrators' reading list. Finally, please don't hesitate in contacting me if you need anything. Best of luck in your new position! — Anonymous Dissident  Talk 03:45, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Congratulations, very well deserved :) (And you may wish to add your name here.)  Roger Davies  talk 03:51, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Razor-thin margins; I'm glad you pulled that one out. Have a beer on me. - Dank (push to talk) 03:52, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Yay, congrats! – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 04:00, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Congrats Ed. Remember the advice you gave me ;) And of course you get your very own t-shirt that comes with the mop for free.≈ Chamal talk ¤ 04:04, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the suck :) In all seriousness though: congrats! I hope that your new found abilities won't distract you too much from help us build content. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:20, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the club! -MBK004 07:06, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


 * From me too. Have fun with the shiny new buttons, be circumspect in their use, and welcome aboard the Admin Ship ;) EyeSerene talk 09:16, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Same here. You bring coffee for all admins until there is a new junior admin (which shouldn't be long)!--Wehwalt (talk) 09:28, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Congratulations! AshLin (talk) 10:18, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Go ed, you really did deserve it, I'm sure you will be a great admin! Good luck.  Athe Weatherman   14:57, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Congrats, it's very well deserved.--Giants 27 ( c |  s ) 15:20, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Congrats, Ed! :)  Little Mountain  5   17:02, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Good luck!--Res2216firestar 17:51, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Congratulations! Feel free to add yourself to the DYK admins list. Shubinator (talk) 18:42, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Yet another congrats! --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:57, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks everyone, it's much appreciated! Tom, my primary focus is still working on battleships; adminship was just something on the side so I can help out every so often when I am needed. :-) Also, in case anyone wants to pitch in, take a look at User:The ed17/Sandbox/Japanese battleship Tosa. Cheers, — Ed  (talk  •  contribs)  20:24, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm a little late, but congrats!--LAA Fan sign review 16:05, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Congratulations Ed! Welcome to the mop crew! Cam (Chat) 03:38, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Congratulations from me too  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  08:11, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think so, WSC. I don't have a delete button on the main page. I think the developers removed it because they knew people like you would put bad ideas in newbie admins' minds :) Congrats to Ed, by the way :) Parsecboy (talk) 16:34, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Lol'ing here, thanks WSC for trying to send me to the village stocks. Jerk. ;P Thanks Parsec and everyone else! — Ed  (talk  •  contribs)  20:18, 28 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Hooray, I still win the award for latest late-comer! Congrats, buddy. :) &mdash;La Pianista  ♫ ♪ 13:23, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh gods, completely missed out. Congratulations. Don't screw up, and I'll be supporting you (when I'm actually here :D) Icy  // ♫ 23:00, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Heh LP, you paid for $50 for a t-shirt in the public domain? :-) Thanks you two; it's nice to see you both on here, even if it was for fleeting moments. — Ed  (talk  •  contribs)  23:20, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Well done  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) 01:23, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * A late congratulations, Ed! :) Cureden 18:05, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Congratulations...wow, I'm really late! ~ Rhana ~<font color="1E90FF">{♦} <font color="#00CED1" face="Edwardian Script ITC">talk page 15:14, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Basebull Bags protection
Heya. I was going through RFPP and I noted this request by Baseball Bugs to protect his userpage; you declined, probably due to seeing the word "pre-emptively" (don't worry, I would have done the same haha). I've protected it due to policy. Cheers, Master of Puppets  - <sub style="color:#7d7d7d; cursor:help;">Call me MoP! :D  14:10, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That link says "User pages and subpages are protected at the user's request if there is evidence of vandalism or disruption" (emphasis mine). Of course, I can go to protected pages and see this in the log: "User request within own user space ([edit=autoconfirmed] (indefinite) [move=sysop] (indefinite)". Meh, whatever, it's not a big deal. :-) Thanks muchly, —<font face="Baskerville Old Face"> Ed  (talk  •  contribs)  14:18, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That part of the policy isn't very relevant to me. I don't say that just because I disagree with it, but I don't see why we would deny protection to someone's page if it's in their userspace; I mean, why wait for a vandal to come along and whack their page before they ask for protection? Thanks for being cool with it, though. Cheers, Master of Puppets  - <sub style="color:#7d7d7d; cursor:help;">Call me MoP! :D  14:22, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 October 2009

 * New talk pages: LiquidThreads in Beta
 * Sockpuppet scandal: The Law affair
 * News and notes: Article Incubator, Wikipedians take Manhattan, new features in testing, and much more
 * Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia used by UN, strange AFDs, iPhone reality
 * Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
 * WikiProject report: New developments at the Military history WikiProject
 * 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 · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 05:32, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
<font color="#21421E" face="Papyrus">Wuh <font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">Wuz <font color="#AA0022" face="Papyrus">Dat 05:30, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Rollback
The edits were using a term, "railroad mark", that doesn't exist. It would be like if someone placed in Barack Obama that Obama is the "head minister" of the U.S. I don't think anyone would hesitate before rolling that back.

By the way, you might want to remove Whowuzdat's rollback, while you're at it. --NE2 02:09, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I have done so, as he was guilty of the same violations as you. —<font face="Baskerville Old Face"> Ed  (talk  •  contribs)  02:20, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you please review what I said? The only edits I rolled back were the ones using the nonce phrase "railroad mark". --NE2 02:23, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * ...which aren't clearly vandalism, as established at WP:CNB. —<font face="Baskerville Old Face"> Ed  (talk  •  contribs)  02:26, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Wait, so you're saying that if someone rolled back the addition of "head minister" to Barack Obama, you'd remove their rollback? The previous discussion was over two terms, "reporting mark" and "railroad code". This was "railroad mark", a nonce phrase. --NE2 02:33, 10 October 2009 (UTC)


 * There was nothing to indicate that the edits were "blatantly unproductive". The only thing wrong was that there was no ref, as you have later mentioned in your message to that editor. If we rolled back every edit without a ref as blatantly unproductive, we'd have to revert quite a lot. That editor was obviously doing it in good faith. You could have contacted the editor and explained to him if there was anything wrong with their edits. What you have done instead is rollback the edits and then leaving him a message in his talk page saying that you will consider any such edits as vandalism. I'm afraid I have to agree with Ed here. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 02:34, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Chamal said what I was thinking, just much more clearly. Thanks dude. —<font face="Baskerville Old Face"> Ed  (talk  •  contribs)  02:39, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You're misunderstanding. There are two valid terms, "reporting mark" and "railroad code". This third one, "railroad mark", was a nonce term that he claimed was a "more generic term to prevent misconceptions". If I called Obama a "head minister" and claimed it was a "more generic term to prevent misconceptions", would that be rollable back? --NE2 02:41, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, suffice it to say that if I get rollback back I won't use it for anything even close to the border, even if clearly on the vandalism side. --NE2 02:50, 10 October 2009 (UTC)


 * - I'm not wading into a dispute where I have little knowledge, I am only commenting on the use of rollback to remove edits that are not obvious and blatant vandalism. Using undo and providing an edit summary would be much better. (after) - if you would like it back, please apply at WP:RPE. —<font face="Baskerville Old Face"> Ed  (talk  •  contribs)  02:55, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Need some advice (again)
Hey Ed, for a timeline article (of a war, to be specific), is it better to use past tense or present tense? Timeline of the Adriatic campaign, 1807–1814 (an FL) uses past tense, while most timelines such as the ones of WWI and WWII use present tense. What do you think? Is there a MILHIST guideline for this? ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 08:52, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything about it in WP:MILMOS. I would think that it is left to the discretion of the author, sort of like citation styles, because it doesn't really make that much of a difference in the end. :-) If it is important to you, I'll post a question for you on WT:MHCOORD, but it is now bedtime for me. Cheers dude, —<font face="Baskerville Old Face"> Ed  (talk  •  contribs)  09:26, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No, just wondering. Thanks :) ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 11:11, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem dude :) —<font face="Baskerville Old Face"> Ed  (talk  •  contribs)  21:50, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

RFPP declined - Jason Porter
Hi, you declined this request because of not enough recent disruptive activity. I imagine there probably aren't any hard and fast rules about this but please could you give me an idea of what levels of vandalism you would be looking for to grant these requests, so I can avoid requesting too soon again? Thanks Cassandra 73 (talk) 22:31, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I really don't have a hard and fast rule for a number&mdash;times come into factor too&mdash;but I think that three reverts over sixteen hours is just not enough to warrant protection. Normally, I need to see that hugglers/reverters can't keep up with the vandalism, or an article has received a good amount of vandalism over a long period of time, maybe three–four days. That's just me though. —<font face="Baskerville Old Face"> Ed  (talk  •  contribs)  17:47, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Reparative Therapy Survivor
Repeated, willful, proud violations of BLP over and over again are not disruptive? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 02:29, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * He's blocked, so BLP and whatever violations of that he had while editing have no bearing on my decision. If he was being disruptive on his talk page while blocked, it would be different. —<font face="Baskerville Old Face"> Ed  (talk  •  contribs)  02:30, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * He IS being disruptive on his Talk page!!!!! That's why the request at RFPP.  Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 02:32, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Heh. That'll teach me to not closely look at histories before declining. My mistake; J.delanoy has reblocked. —<font face="Baskerville Old Face"> Ed  (talk  •  contribs)  02:36, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 02:38, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Some more articles I want to make
Hey Ed. I've been wanting to create an article on the US Marine Corps' P42 camouflage scheme used during World War II; it's that splotch pattern you'll see occasionally on jackets and helmet covers. I also want to create a page on Rhodesian camouflage, since it's pretty well known and there isn't an article covering it. I can provide pictures of my own samples if you'd like. The only thing I have trouble with is finding a proper online source to verify their existences in the eyes of the academia. Thanks. Colosseum (talk) 00:16, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Hello again Col! :-) Would you happen to have a book that discusses one or both of them? If so, when writing the new article, try one of these two things:
 * include a "References" section at the bottom with the book, author and page range from where you got some/all of the info you used to write the article
 * include in-line references with the page (or pages) from where you got the info, using <tt> </tt>
 * More information on the above is at WP:CITE, but the whole process is rather complicated. Alternatively, you could email/post here the information and I'll add it for you; next time you write an article you could just copy what I did. :-) Cheers friend, —<font face="Baskerville Old Face"> Ed  (talk  •  contribs)  00:50, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

World War II
Thank you for leaving a message with me while failing to address the concerns of the reverts in the first place. Well done. --Labattblueboy (talk) 00:21, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not addressing nor wading into a dispute I know little about; I'm only warning you on your misuse of rollback. Cheers, —<font face="Baskerville Old Face"> Ed  (talk  •  contribs)  00:50, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

The first step...
Apparently I may have a problem... -MBK004 04:36, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It wasn't so much what you wrote, it was how you wrote it. To me it just sounded a little brusque, and I didn't think you would mind if I tweaked it a bit. Apologies if you do mind; I won't do it again. :/ —<font face="Baskerville Old Face"> Ed  (talk  •  contribs)  04:39, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No need to apologize...your analysis was spot-on in retrospect. -MBK004 04:40, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, good. I was worried for a second. :-) Cheers dude, —<font face="Baskerville Old Face"> Ed  (talk  •  contribs)  04:41, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Khrushchev
Thanks for the image heads up. I'm not too upset (I would have gone to his grave anyway when I was in Moscow, that cemetery is a tourist attraction) and there are many more photos of him. I think we can probably survive on the Bundesarchiv ones, the ones from the US National Archives (I'm sure I could find more by contacting the Eisenhower Library), and possibly others that have wound up in the public domain. It will all work out. I'm impressed by the workout you MilHist folks are giving me, though feeling that some of the comments are a bit off target (due to the broad scope of the article, a guy who did a lot in his life), it is hard to go into hugely fine detail). I'll work on it next week.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:17, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Cam is a really good reviewer. :-) The A-class system is normally really robust for the wider scope/larger appeal articles, and only a little less for the smaller-scope articles. I certainly like it as a prep for FACs! Normally images aren't reviewed, but I saw a couple questionable ones when I was going through, so I went and got NW. Cheers dude, —<font face="Baskerville Old Face"> Ed  (talk  •  contribs)  21:38, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. And I want substantive reviews.  As I said, not worried about the images.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:41, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the compliment Ed! Cam (Chat) 23:52, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Vandalisation Attempts
Hi, Just wanted to let you know that a page that you semi-protected : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_of_India_(Maoist) has been vandalised again by user Mehrrunissa, who was recently blocked for doing exactly that. S/he takes large chunks out and inserts statements without any citation. I have undid the edit. But if the user does it again I think s/he should be blocked for indefinite. Thanks. Vinter-light (talk) 12:45, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I just noticed she did the same thing on this page as well - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naxalite. Here admin Prezbo has changed it back. Even though these are major edits, s/he is purposefully tagging them as minor.

Vinter-light (talk) 12:49, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi there, I've watchlisted both pages and will keep an eye on the situation. Cheers, —<font face="Baskerville Old Face"> Ed  (talk  •  contribs)  14:35, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. S/he has been at it again, s/he just goes and reverts other people's edits.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_of_India_(Maoist) This time alongwith vandalisation, s/he has started harassing me by a false accusation of "known sockpuppet" at me. Vinter-light (talk) 05:15, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I wasn't online, but Mehrrunissa has now been blocked by . Cheers, —<font face="Baskerville Old Face"> Ed  (talk  •  contribs)  15:07, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Poked
Hi, Ed! I thought you've read my posts on the Commons page. See the latest report too, please. I'm not an expert on copyright. If there's anything that I can do for the matter, please let me know. Best regards. Oda Mari (talk) 16:29, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I saw it and was drafting a reply before I got caught up with BRAZILIAN CRUISER Bahia. :-) I've finished it and saved now. —<font face="Baskerville Old Face"> Ed  (talk  •  contribs)  16:40, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I saw your reply. What do you mean by Cla's information? The book published in 1949? I doubt the existence of the book. I think I should ask the museum the photographer's name, the date of the photograph was taken, and the date of the photograph was first used/published. Anything else? Oda Mari (talk) 16:57, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think Cla would lie; he did say that he had the book. Searching google, a couple other sites seem to refer to it, though they aren't reliable. You should ask those three things and about the book; it appears that many Commons images cite it as a source. Many thanks, —<font face="Baskerville Old Face"> Ed  (talk  •  contribs)  17:03, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I commented further in the Commons section. I may have misread the Japanese and what it actually may have said was that the photos were released in 1949. Cla68 (talk) 23:55, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Ping
If you're around, hop on over to IRC?  iMatthew  talk   at 19:57, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Ping, again. If you're around.  iMatthew  talk   at 23:22, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeahhh I wasn't around, and it doesn't seem like you are around now. :-) Apologies, —<font face="Baskerville Old Face"> Ed  (talk  •  contribs)  03:08, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Nope, I'm going to bed now. :( I'll try to catch you tomorrow.  iMatthew  talk   at 03:12, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Rear Admiral Leonard Holbrook (Royal Navy)
Hi, I have been helping create articles of officers Commanding His Majesty's Australian Squadron and have a question if you know the answer or can point me in the right direction. The question is whether Leonard Holbrook was a commodore prior to his appointment as Rear Admiral and specifically whether this occured while in Command of His Majesty's Australian Squadron. The London Gazette lists in his promotion as Rear Admiral, a day prior to being placed on the retired list, as being Captain. Can you help? Kind Regards Newm30 (talk) 03:19, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I have absolutely no idea. :-) I would try or, two of the major Aussie naval editors here. Cheers, —<font face="Baskerville Old Face"> Ed   (talk  •  contribs)  15:10, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 October 2009
<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 · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 03:46, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * News and notes: WikiReader, Meetup in Pakistan, Audit committee elections, and more
 * In the news: Sanger controversy reignited, Limbaugh libelled, and more
 * Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
 * Features and admins: Approved this week
 * Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
 * Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Talkback
I know the page is on your watchlist, but you may not be looking at the watchlist :) -MBK004 00:37, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I always look at my watchlist. :P Have replied. —<font face="Baskerville Old Face"> Ed  (talk  •  contribs)  01:30, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Promoted FS
The following is how it appears on WP:FS:

Shoemaker's Holiday Over 213 FCs served 00:39, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks Shoe. :-) —<font face="Baskerville Old Face"> Ed  (talk  •  contribs)  00:43, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Birthday
Thank you for the birthday note. I had to work off some cake-produced calories in a run this morning. Cla68 (talk) 07:07, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You're most welcome. :-) Cheers dude, —<font face="Baskerville Old Face"> Ed  (talk  •  contribs)  07:22, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

And again...
Ed, could you do a copy edit on the lead section of this? Take your time, and no problem if you are busy. I've been working on it for 3 days and it's just too familiar for me now to spot any problems :P ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 11:00, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It's certainly not bad writing at all, though the placement of "Muralitharan was declared as the "best bowler ever" in Test cricket history by the Wisden Cricketers' Almanack in 2002." confuses me. (2002 one sentence, 1992 the next?) :-) —<font face="Baskerville Old Face"> Ed  (talk  •  contribs)  04:35, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks Ed, and Icy too, for the help :) I'll change that sentence. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 13:15, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Wish I could do more - but flu is giving me killer headache and there will be homeworks to make up that I've missed :( Icy  // ♫ 21:46, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Aquidaban
Hi, once we have finished these additions to Brazilian battleship Aquidaban do you want to try to get it listed at WP:DYK? Thanks for the work on the article so far :) -- Casmith_789 (talk) 21:08, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep, that would be what I was aiming for. :-D Keep plugging away, as I will have to go soon, but we'll have a nice little article soon for DYK and possibly GA. :-) —<font face="Baskerville Old Face"> Ed   (talk  •  contribs)  21:13, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've listed it... Fingers crossed, and feel free to list an alternate hook. -- Casmith_789 (talk) 22:24, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Hungarian Rev
Surprised that not many other people noticed the issues there, except the stakeholders in teh said article  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) 00:55, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm surprised as well. What scares me is that I just skimmed the article&mdash;what might I find if I actually went in-depth and read it? —<font face="Baskerville Old Face"> Ed  (talk  •  contribs)  04:53, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Well most of the voters are stakeholders, so obviously they would just vote keep, but no outsiders bothered to come look. That's why I took my mod hat off...  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) 02:16, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Now that I take in the article a second time, I have realized how old those UN sources are. The article should ideally use newer (preferably post-Soviet) secondary sources that are able to take in what really happened by accessing Soviet and possibly Hungarian archives, the UN reports, and any other relevant information. As the reports were written just a year after the event in what was a very politically and militarily charged time, it's certainly conceivable that they contain many inaccuracies. —<font face="Baskerville Old Face"> Ed  (talk  •  contribs)  04:59, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 October 2009
<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 · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:52, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Interview: Interview with John Blossom
 * News and notes: New hires, German Wikipedian dies, new book tool, and more
 * In the news: Editor profiled in Washington Post, Wikia magazines, and more
 * Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
 * Features and admins: Approved this week
 * Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
 * Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Bahia class cruisers
Ed, I've tried doing a search for convoys that Bahia was involved in but it is complicated by the fact that Bahia is a port and was also a German merchant vessel. Yahoo search results for Bahia and Rio Grande do Sul Mjroots (talk) 15:08, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Teliris
Guys, I'm finally getting the hang of this, thanks for all your help. Citation inserted and I have notified others to help me with a re-write - clients and analysts. I'd recommend you two plus R'n'B to everyone. My first encounter with Wiki was a nightmare but I soon worked it out and am still learning and reading the support documents closer.6G (talk) 10:08, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Featured article statistics
Hi, Thanks for updating my subpage User:Dr pda/Featured article statistics recently. However I have just regenerated this list since (for various reasons) I prefer to use "readable prose" size rather than "wiki text" size as a measure of the length of FAs. Using readable prose size does mean the generatestats script takes ~2.5 hours to run, instead of 25 seconds if I use wiki text, which is why I don't update it very often. There is already a page, Featured articles/By length which has the list of FAs sorted by their wiki text size, and this page is updated weekly (I think) by a bot. Dr pda (talk) 23:48, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see. Wsa just trying to help becuase I saw it hadn't been updated in quite awhile. ;-) Thanks for the fix! Cheers, —<font face="Baskerville Old Face"> Ed  (talk  •  contribs)  00:05, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject
Hey I noticed that you're one of the coordinator of the WikiProject Military history/South American military history task force. I've been editing some articles this week (Francisco Solano Lopez (politician), Eliza Lynch, Treaty of the Triple Alliance, and War of the Triple Alliance. I've only been at it a week so I'm a bit lost since I don't know how else to improve it. I'd really like to get one of these articles (speacially the War or López one) nominated to FA. Could you help me please in some manner? I have a huge interest in Paraguayan military history and I plan to continue improving Paraguay's articles (I've already been working a lot to try and make anything realted to Paraguay a bit more decent by making templates and such) especially those related to the Triple Alliance war. Any sort of hlp would be hugely appreciated. Thx! Veritiel (talk) 17:16, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh man, the last two in particular are quite large in scope! I can't help you much, because I hold a keen interest in 20th century warships, but I can point you in the right direction. :-) The Military history WikiProject's Academy will hold some great tidbits for you, and Milhist's showcase will contain FA and A articles you can emulate. This will probably also be of assistance to you; I'd recommend Latin America's Wars. Volume 1, The Age of the Caudillo, 1791-1899, as volume two has helped me greatly with a couple of my articles. —<font face="Baskerville Old Face"> Ed  (talk  •  contribs)  23:52, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the sources, I really appreciate it. Now hopefully, with these I can work on improving it more.  Burningview   <FONT COLOR="black">✉ </FONT> 01:22, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

The Two Eagles
Thanks for cleaning up/reorganizing the ships' list on the Audacious class aircraft carrier. It was confusing! - BilCat (talk) 17:24, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh yes it was. :-) I didn't realize in my first edit that Audacious = Eagle [I mean the second Eagle). Extremely confusing...darn Brits. ;-) —<font face="Baskerville Old Face"> Ed  (talk  •  contribs)  19:37, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The USN Essex class has some similar renamings, so I won't complain about the Brits too much on this one! - BilCat (talk) 20:57, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Happy Halloween!


As Halloween is my favorite holiday, I just wanted to wish those Wikipedians who have been nice enough to give me a barnstar or smile at me, supportive enough to agree with me, etc., a Happy Halloween! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 23:48, 30 October 2009 (UTC)