User:The ed17/Archives/22

Bahia
Special congratulations are in order for having an article promoted to FA on Halloween! Bahia is yet another slam-dunk WP:FOUR for you... -MBK004 02:56, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks MBK. :-) I'm quite proud of Bahia; I believe that every sentence is referenced (at least, I believe every sentence has a citation). — Ed   (talk  •  contribs)  07:48, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

HMS Hood
Many thanks for your help with how to get this reassessed. bigpad (talk) 04:12, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You are quite welcome; it was no problem at all. Please feel free to drop me a line if you need anything in the future. Regards, — Ed   (talk  •  contribs)  07:49, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Majestic Titan
What about the British ships. Any good source suggestions there? Geraldk (talk) 22:43, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 2 November 2009
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 05:11, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Brazilian battleship Aquidabã

 * Kudos to you, sir, for your work on this great article! — Kralizec! (talk) 15:26, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Suprised
Gotta say I'm surprised, usually its MBK that catches my anon edits. This time round you beat him to it :) 129.108.96.193 (talk) 22:12, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I stalk watchlist Durova's talk. ;-) — Ed   (talk  •  contribs)  22:13, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Ahhh, now it makes sense. I decided I'd peek at the WP:POST before leaving since I do have to finish this paper, and happened to have spotted the article declaring her the winner. Congrats be in order as always, so I figured I'd leave a message. At any rate, I'm signing off; the sooner I get back to work the better. Take care, ed! 129.108.96.193 (talk) 22:17, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

WikiCup Awards
Congratulations! Glad to have you aboard the judges team for 2010!  iMatthew  talk   at 23:05, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Delayed speedy deletion?
Based on our past conversations, I figured you'd probably be interested in this conversation about implementing a form of delayed speedy deletion. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:42, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

History of Roman Cosmetics
Hey ed17!

Could you help me link my Cosmetics in Ancient Rome page to the Roman table of contents that appear at the bottom of Cosmetics in Ancient Rome? Thanks!

Naso 01:05, 6 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amanda naso (talk • contribs)
 * Done. :-) Also, don't forget to sign your post on talk pages by typing ~ ! Regards, — Ed   (talk  •  contribs)  17:25, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Millennium '73
Regarding Millennium '73, could you please raise your concern on the talk page, instead of adding a hidden comment? Thank you, Cirt (talk) 03:15, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, it seemed like it was a very minor point that could be quickly addressed, but I'll start a new talk page section now. Regards, — Ed   (talk  •  contribs)  03:18, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you! :) Cirt (talk) 03:23, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:FOUR
I am trying to figure out your reason why it should not come up for a vote. Did you include it in your overly wordy explanation and I missed it.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:27, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I've replied on the Cup page. — Ed   (talk  •  contribs)  04:16, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Test your World War I knowledge with the Henry Allingham International Contest!
As a member of the Military history WikiProject or World War I task force, you may be interested in competing in the Henry Allingham International Contest! The contest aims to improve article quality and member participation within the World War I task force. It will also be a step in preparing for Operation Great War Centennial, the project's commemorative effort for the World War I centenary.

If you would like to participate, please sign up by 11 November 2009, 00:00, when the first round is scheduled to begin! You can sign up here, read up on the rules here, and discuss the contest here! This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 17:48, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIV (October 2009)
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 17:34, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

IRC - 3:30?
Can you be on IRC at 3:30?  iMatthew  talk   at 19:15, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Four Award
As a past WP:FOUR awardee you may wish to comment at WikiProject Council/Proposals/Four Award.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:30, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Test your World War I knowledge with the Henry Allingham International Contest!
As a member of the Military history WikiProject or World War I task force, you may be interested in competing in the Henry Allingham International Contest! The contest aims to improve article quality and member participation within the World War I task force. It will also be a step in preparing for Operation Great War Centennial, the project's commemorative effort for the World War I centenary.

If you would like to participate, please sign up by 11 November 2009, 00:00, when the first round is scheduled to begin! You can sign up here, read up on the rules here, and discuss the contest here! This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:38, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIV (October 2009)
The October 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) 20:38, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 9 November 2009
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 02:22, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
Good block. I was heading for the tools myself after the last set of comments. EyeSerene talk 22:01, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem. He/she seems rather interested in the topic though; I hope they decide to come back after the block and contribute constructively (ie writing articles). :-) Regards, — Ed   (talk  •  contribs)  22:11, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank you for the helpful edits with the USS Kitty Hawk riot article. Cla68 (talk) 14:05, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You're welcome, though I didn't do a whole lot. :-) — Ed   (talk  •  contribs)  00:34, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Brazilian battleship Aquidabã
Where are we on this? Some new sources have been turned up and a commenter made the point that it might well be the first battleship sunk by a torpedo. I can't think of anything earlier, but I'm not sure if it is or not.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:03, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * We aren't anywhere. ;-) More specifically, I don't have the will to abandon work on my latest project to add details regarding the revolt and first sinking. The other part, first battleship sunk by a torpedo, is intriguing. I know that Cumberland was sank by a spar torpedo in the American Civil War, but I can't think of an earlier instance where an ironclad was sunk by torpedo. — Ed   (talk  •  contribs)  00:34, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I was under the impression that it was a self-propelled torpedo, but I didn't read it closely, in which case it may well be the first sinking. HMS Shah fired some at Huascar, but missed. And that the earliest engagement with torpedoes, in the modern sense, that I can think of. I'll go a head and put it on hold until you're ready to resume work on it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay. Many thanks dude :-) — Ed   (talk  •  contribs)  03:34, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

$
Ah, thanks - that clears up the problem. I wonder if there is any way we could prevent it from happening again? Warofdreams talk 00:15, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Bored.
User_talk:Resident_Mario So, hit me up :) Res Mar 01:52, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * pick a few battleships/cruisers that look interesting to you from WP:OMT and we'll decide from there. ;-) (an aside: the newer, the better, as I don't have many sources on the oldest ones, and there aren't many sources online) — Ed   (talk  •  contribs)  01:56, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Uh how about HMS Anson (79). Res Mar 02:12, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me. Assuming this turns out well, we should be able to start soon. If not, Anson will be rather hard because she really didn't do a lot in her service life. :-) — Ed   (talk  •  contribs)  03:35, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Haha, that's why I chose her, if everything works out this will be a smaller project then another battleship, and I want to start small :). Res Mar 16:50, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * What you guys really need is a linkfarm with all the "safe" refs for each battleship class, the ones that would pass WP:RS. Res Mar 17:13, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * We mostly have our personal libraries. Since our interests lie in the subject we have all invested a good sum of money into reference material. We routinely share information to each other because between all of us we are bound to have at least something related. -MBK004 on the iPhone 22:21, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * By far the biggest "safe" site is http://www.history.navy.mil . "Combined Fleet" is also helpful. :-) — Ed   (talk  •  contribs)  22:38, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Inter-library Loan is your best friend for this sort of thing. It's slow, but cheap; free unless the book's only in places like Harvard, Columbia, etc. where it will cost abt $25 to borrow.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:48, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Sigh. Well I suppose I've hit a roadblock here haven't I. Res</b> Mar 22:55, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Question mark? Just try it, even if it isn't for a battleship book; inter-library loan will almost certainly be free, and it will help you with any reports you need to do for school. Regards, — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  23:03, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No no, how do I do it :? <span style="font-family:Verdana,Arial,Helvetica"><b style="color:black;">Res</b> Mar 23:33, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Redlinks tell all
You realize that when you watchlist redlinks it makes it much easier to know what others are up to (I won't spoil your fun).... -MBK004 07:25, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I thought of that after I moved it... I then wondered if you'd blunder into the trap. ;-) — Ed   (talk  •  contribs)  07:34, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I know entrapment when I see it, I am a criminal justice major after all... -MBK004 08:00, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Heh. :-) Just as an FYI, I am going to clean up the crap into a decent stub afterwords. :-) — Ed   (talk  •  contribs)  08:02, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Ping: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Maritime_warfare_task_force/Operation_Majestic_Titan -MBK004 on the iPhone 19:19, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in SecurePoll feedback and workshop
As you participated in the recent Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two requests for comment that relate to the use of SecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome. For the Arbitration Committee, Risker (talk) 08:35, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Own work vs driveby nomination
I am trying to get a feel for this event. Can you tell me if I have done enough work on Henry Hatch to earn WP:CUP credit for Henry Hatch. If so is it possible to say at what point I had done enough work? this and this are my part in the article.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:50, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I am considering a WP:GAC nom, BTW.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:53, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know at what point it is considered "enough", but adding a couple sentences, a citation, and multiple wiklinks (simplified, but you get the point?) is certainly not enough. I'd say that you would have had to contributed about 50% of the article, but that varies; for example, adding 30% would seem little, but perhaps you helped a bunch during a FAC and/or provided invaluable information/references to the article. IMO, you have not done enough to take credit for Hatch. Regards, — Ed   (talk  •  contribs)  22:37, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe it is just my recollection, but this seems to be about the amount that does for GAs that he claims.  Have you been allowing credits for his GAs in WP:CUP? I don't even know if you have been involved in the past, but I presume you have been.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:08, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I consolidate edits. You know that well enough. I don't edit as much because I try to do everything in 1 or 2 edits. Its a worthwhile practice, as it beats editcountitis and is much more productive. Now notify me before you talk about me. Mitch 32(A fortune in fabulous articles can be yours!) 00:45, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not talking about edit counts. I am talking about content contribution. Everytime I look at your page and randomly select two GAs they look like they weren't really yours.  Maybe I am choosing the same ones every time, but today it was M-212 (Michigan highway) and New Jersey Route 159.  Did you get WP:CUP credit for those?  I'll choose two more.  O.K., I'd give you credit for Sideling Hill Tunnel and Laurence Harbor (NJT station).  Wow two, that are really your work. Maybe bad sampling on the first two.  Let me try two more.  Hold on, I am trying to find an edit that you did on Tropical Storm Gert (2005).  I give up. How is that on your page?  I don't thinnk I would put that one in my top row of GA credits.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:15, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, that's how I work my system. I do all the rewriting in one or two edits, it works much better. Edit counts means nothing if you did the writing anyway. Look at the freaking history. Besides, Gert was when I was still new (around 06 or so), I really don't think of it much. I don't order by favorites mind you. I just order by when they come in. Just leave me alone, its better for the both of us. If you don't, I'll start making problems with you. Leave me alone! Mitch 32(A fortune in fabulous articles can be yours!) 01:28, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * As an uninvolved admin who happens to have this page watch listed, I strongly advise you not to make anymore threats to disrupt the encyclopedia by pursing a person vendetta. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:37, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, this dates back to a fight in 2007 that I really lost care for until he decided to bring up my name and cause problems. I am also trying to hold off what I want to say, because it'll be even worse. I don't want to, but I am very upset atm and I don't feel like being branded as an editor who "cheated the system". This wouldn't even be happening if Tony hadn't brought my name up. Mitch 32(A fortune in fabulous articles can be yours!) 01:40, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * C'mon folks, it's just a 15px GA icon. Not a big deal. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 01:45, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I admit. I should not have named names. I guess what would be helpful is to see some of the GAs that CUP credit was denied for so that I can calibrate my expectations. Are there some examples of claims determined to be drivebys.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:54, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi, dropping by because it might have been me who coined the term "drive-by nominations". Would have to check Cup history, and perhaps a term something like it existed elsewhere beforehand. The genesis of our use of it came from media editing, specifically featured pictures and an offsite agreement between Shoemaker's Holiday and myself. It's possible to gain official featured picture credit as nominator for material that actually took little or no editing work to do. If one has enough experience and knows where to look, one could cycle through different archives for variety doing minimal actual work and rack up more points than anybody could keep up with. Either of us could have done that and we both pledged not to. In retrospect, we ought to have conducted that discussion onsite because it would have headed off a bit of conflict that happened late in the Cup. Some content drives take more effort than others, and some of the things that editors would have accepted credit for before the Cup would probably be best to refrain from requesting points for doing while the Cup is underway. In general, with GAs, FPs, FLs etc. the effort should represent at least a couple of hours' work.  Durova  363 02:39, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That is a valiant attempt to clarify the issue, but it does not really help me. I am trying to understand GA credits and where the line is drawn.  The thing that would help me is examples of articles that did not count.  I can check the histories and then calibrate my expectations.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:44, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Rohwer
Contact Tom at the address/Phone # given on his website. http://www.aberdeenbookstore.com/ I was just there and he's got it for about $23 and some change. He also has a few remaindered NIP ship histories like USS Arizona, Ranger, etc.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:43, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Dutch 1913 battleship proposal
This is the second time I have been involved in this Newbie experiment. The last time it was Richard Rogler and I could see it was noteable and helped improve the article. However, this one was not so good as it didn't have obvious notability as a separate article and had very limited hits when searched for. Therefore I could see it wasn't a speedy but also felt that it should not be the job of other editors to go into too much depth when such a weak new article is created. Therefore I proposed deletion giving the newbie a chance to stop the prod and also gave the newbie an advice message on creating a new article in userspace. I do very little patrolling so it is worrying to me that so many admins seem to be playing this game that cleaning up after them could become a significant part of my editing. Overdoing this experiment is more likely to put me off patrolling than to improve my methods. Polargeo (talk) 09:55, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Fyi, I agreed with you PROD'ing it. :-) The thing is, it didn't fit into a speedy category; that was the point of me creating it. I actually thought that your actions were perfect in this case. Good work, and I hope you continue NPP'ing. Regards, — Ed   (talk  •  contribs)  17:30, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Input please
Would like your input here please. Note: This is a draft, to be kept in my namespace until the editor is off their block and their new contributions can be reviewed. Frmatt (talk) 07:10, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I've replied there. — Ed   (talk  •  contribs)  20:02, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

RfA
Hi The ed, I'd like to thank you for your support here. Much appreciated. :) Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 19:14, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You're welcome; I hope it propels you to pass. :-) All the best, — Ed   (talk  •  contribs)  20:02, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

USS Congress (1799)
Hi - I was wondering if you could look at this FAC - Featured article candidates/USS Congress (1799)/archive1. I have a specific concern regarding the images in this article - I'm advocating for including more images of the actual ship, which would require a little extra work to include in the commons/wikipedia. The author would rather use existing images and/or a stock image of a frigate, due to rights concerns with the sail plan and woodcut I found. In general, I think the article could use more non-textual information. One problem with this ship is it was neither notable nor infamous so it seems to have very little references in contrast with its other sister ships. I think your or one of the other admins opinion would be helpful. Thanks! Kirk (talk) 21:47, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Heh, the poor forgotten Congress. I've done some of my own hunting and can't find anything; if you are sure that it is PD, could you upload the Google Books image from page 35 of American Light and Medium Frigates 1794 - 1836? Just use "print screen", paste that into GIMP or something similar, and crop the image to your delight. Personally, I wouldn't want to use the woodcut simply because it doesn't specifically say it is Congress and the painting is much better-looking. Regards, — Ed   (talk  •  contribs)  22:26, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm sure because I found the catalog record (but not a digital copy) in the National Archives.  Any idea where to find a reference for the woodcut?
 * Also, What do you think of the image of the Chesapeake in the infobox? My opinion is it should be removed without some discussion about the differences between the two ships, otherwise, it gives the reader the impression they were in the same class when they weren't; the sister ship of the Congress was the Constellation.  I'll see if I can round up a PD Constellation while GIMPing up the sail plan, Brad said he had a problem with those images in his A review.  Kirk (talk) 18:55, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I can confirm that the Constellation image was on that site from 2002–2007: . I am currently trying to identify the license the image ought to be under. — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  19:46, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Your message
Understood and responded on my talk as well as a few other places. Regards - 4twenty42o (talk) 05:44, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Many thanks, — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  07:15, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Really it is my thanks to you. I got caught up in something stupid and tried to resolve it the "easy way". Fortunately there are people like you there to steer us in the right direction. Many thanks to you for setting me straight. Regards - 4twenty42o (talk) 18:54, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No, thank you for taking my comment the right way. Instead of coming here screaming at me, you remained calm and have realized your error. Remind me to !vote support if you ever go for adminship. ;-) — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  19:37, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 16 November 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 &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 16:32, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Close
Hi. I'm a little surprised that you closed the AfD on Engine -- would have thought that you would just keep it open for the seven days. By closing it, you take it off the radar of those that would work to improve it for those 7 days, and while you could go from AfD to deleting the article I don't see how you could go from a non-AfD to deleting it.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:17, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi there, I thought that leaving it open longer would be a waste of editors' time, seeing as no one had improved it in the seven days it had been open. I would have deleted it had the promise not been made to find source, however. If you still disagree with my close, feel free to reopen it (don't bring it to DRV, becuase that'd be a real waste of time there (IMO, at least)). Regards, — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  18:20, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey. Just to be clear, my concerns relate to process, and I don't have any strong feelings about the article.  I've tried to improve it a bit, and if it is notable I would be happy for it to survive.  But: a) I think that taking it away from AfD reduces the chances of those who look to improve articles at AfD actually doing so, and b) I'm concerned actually with something being closed "keep" where (I assume this is the case) you as the closer do not think that is the consensus (but are doing it as a maintenance issue).  I agree DRV would be a waste of time -- can you handle the reopen?  I'm not sure how that could be done maintaining the AfD discussion history, which I think would be important for anyone coming along (and so people wouldn't waste time re-voting).  Many thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:27, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll just undo all of my edits :-) Regards, — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  18:39, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Sorry to be a pain.  I just think it is better this way ... and if this does now close as a delete, there will be no DRV to contend with.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:10, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem at all. Thanks for remaining entirely calm and not yelling at me. :-) — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  19:37, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * And you as well! Actually, given the attitudes I've seen of late on Wikipedia, it is refreshing but sadly rare in my recent experience to run into one (especially an admin IMHO) who can here a different view with an open mind and agree to revisit a decision.  Thanks for being one of the few that makes the experience a pleasurable one.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:47, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

RE: Mitrokhin
I think it might be. Could you check to see if it mentions anywhere the bankrolling of the 1970 Chile Presidential Election for Salvador Allende? I'm in the middle of writing a massive paper for IB on American political intervention in Latin America during the Cold War, and I just need the page # (I had to return my copy to the public library). Thanks for checking in advance, Cam (Chat) 03:56, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Will check it tomorrow. :-) — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  05:45, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks man. Cam (Chat) 06:25, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * This is the book I have access too. It has nothing on the 1970 elections; only a bit on p. 296 about the "PCI's [Italian communists, I think] fears of a right-wing military coup were revived by the overthrow of President Salvador Allende's Unidad Popular government in Chile by the armed forces in September 1973" and a bit on p. 427 about the Centre's "atttempt to claim the credit for an article in the Guardian by Richard Gott (codenamed RON) attacking the role of the CIA in the overthrow and death of the Marxist president of Chile, Salvador Allande, in 1973, and denouncing the military junta of Gerneral Augusto Pinochet which had seized power." Apologies...
 * Also, in your paper you may wish to make note of the transfer of the American cruisers St. Louis and five others (see Template:Brooklyn class cruiser and Template:St. Louis class cruiser) to the navies of Brazil, Argentina and Chile. Not sure if this was a major attempt to boost their support for the United States and democracy, and I'm not entirely sure it is relevant to your paper, but just trying to throw an idea at you in case you needed more information. :-) Regards, — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  21:06, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the info. It should be of some help. As for the cruiser bit, I'll try to work it in if I can. I'm somewhat restricted by a word limit of 4000. Being the wiki-writer I am, I could likely write double that and still have to leave stuff out. If I have room to work it in, I will. Thanks for the help! My paper is mostly focusing on the case studies of the 1954 Guatemalan Coup d'etat, the 1973 Chilean coup d'etat and CIA support for the Contras as case studies from which to analyze changes in U.S. Foreign Policy towards Latin America during the Cold War. Cam (Chat) 05:14, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Well then, I don't know if the cruisers warrant more than a passing mention then. ;-) However, I hope you are introducing the paper with stuff on the Mutual Defense Assistance Act. :P — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  05:23, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Ping
You've got mail... -MBK004 05:27, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * pong — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  05:45, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello again
Another user pointed out a pretty large amount of vandalism on my user page. Could I request a semi from you? Just on my user page? Regards - 4twenty42o (talk) 21:16, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Holy cow, you weren't kidding about the vandalism! Editing and moving are now both semi'ed. If you need anything more, feel free to ask. Regards, — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  21:20, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yea.. I really didn't notice.. But some of the stuff added like to killed me. I appreciate it. Cheers - 4twenty42o (talk) 21:24, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Mig-3 image
I just got a no fair use deletion statement on my other MiG-3 image when it does already have one. Can you check it out at and see if I did everything OK or not? I think that the guy was being overzealous, but I got no response on his talk page.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:41, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey there Sturm. I believe that the only thing missing is the Non-free use rationale template, but there is another thought; for FA, I think that only one free-use image would be needed. I'd understand the need for two if the lead image did not demonstrate the "long nose", but it does. :-) Nevertheless, it shouldn't be deleted if you add that template. See also WP:FURG. Regards, — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  03:16, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Possible DYK error
In the first hook on the main template, the link to Ewart Alan Mackintosh says "Ewan Mackintosh", but the article never mentions "Ewan". Could you switch it to Ewart? From WP:ERRORS. Shubinator (talk) 03:26, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Nice work Chamal. :P Regards, — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  03:32, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Heh, thanks anyways! Shubinator (talk) 03:34, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
Hi Ed, thanks for the partial credit for the Dutch 1913 battleship proposal DYK. I should be able to borrow that book this weekend. Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 07:12, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey dude, you're welcome&mdash;you wrote the entire lead, so I figured you deserved it. ;-) @book, sounds good. It should be ready for GA/A after that. — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  07:17, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism
I have reverted quite a bit of vandalism here. Can you do like a 24 hour semi? Or maybe have a talk with the anon? - 4twenty42o (talk) 07:29, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * If Mjosefsson requests it, I'll protect it, but a better solution is blocking the IP if he keeps vandalizing. I've got my eye on the IP's talk page; we'll see what happens... — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  07:35, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * ty - 4twenty42o (talk) 07:38, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Request
I didn't want to put this in CAT:CSD, but if you have a minute could you delete this? @Kate  (talk)  01:57, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Deleted the user and talk pages; let me know if you wanted to keep the latter. Quick question: do I know you? Not sure why you would come to my talk page to ask that. :-) — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  02:01, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much. We may have interacted a bit in the past, but nothing substantial that I can recall. I popped in to your talk page, because you came up on my watchlist, so I figured that you were online. :) @Kate   (talk)  02:04, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh okay, gotcha. :-) Regards, — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  02:05, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
The Agorapocalypse is comming!  C  anniba loki  18:10, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

IRC
Hey, if you're around anytime soon, please try to get on IRC for a bit. :)  iMatthew  talk   at 19:24, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Dutch 1913 battleship proposal
Hi Ed, I've just added a heap of material into this article, more than doubling its size in the process and converting it into what's basically an article on Dutch colonial policies rather than battleships. Could you please copyedit what I've written (I think it needs a second set of eyes!) and let me know if you'd like more detail on anything? I'm keen to lodge a joint A class nomination for this article. regards, Nick-D (talk) 05:14, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * By the way, the van Dijk book doesn't seem to have any material on the Java-class cruisers. Nick-D (talk) 05:16, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * O_O wow, I saw that on my watchlist. Thanks a bunch! I'll nominate it nom it for A-class after I take a full read-through of it (and ask you any questions on anything :). Again, thanks, — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  07:39, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, @Java - no big deal, thanks though! — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  07:40, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

(out) - it looks pretty good to me. Would it be possible for you to expand this though? "Following the war a new Navy Bill was introduced to parliament in November 1921, but it was defeated by a single vote in October 1923." Side point: is this wrong or was this guy really that stupid? "The prominent socialist H.H. Van Kol argued that building up a strong fleet would hinder Dutch neutrality by making it impossible to not engage any foreign fleets which entered NEI waters." Don't you think that your neutrality should end and fighting commence when someone invades your rich colony's waters with an entire fleet? I'm flabbergasted. — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  08:39, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that's all there is on the 1921-23 bill. Van Kol's argument was that if the Netherlands had a weak fleet in the NEI it would be able to turn a blind eye to foreign fleets passing through its waters while travelling elsewhere (the Dutch were very worried during the Russian-Japanese war about what would have happened if the Russian Baltic Fleet had entered NEI waters and demanded coal) - I've just tweaked this to clarify his views. I've also posted a request for the article to receive a B class assessment. Nick-D (talk) 08:49, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, not a huge deal. And that makes more sense, I guess :) — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  08:54, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Ed, I've borrowed a copy of the 1985 British edition of Conway's from the library, and it's got a description of the post-war naval plans and their defeat on page 364 under the heading 'Postwar plans' which I've added to the article. I don't think that this page number matches up with the ones from your American edition though; would you be able to correct the page number so they're consistent? Also, I've located an article which discusses the various proposals for BB designs in some detail, and will add this to the article tomorrow. Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 11:03, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow, skip reading can do wonders when you need to read something quickly for a test, but it is bad when you are researching; I completely missed that. The page numbers match. Thanks for all of your help; you certainly get the lion's share of the credit, if not more.
 * Warshi International articles are amazing, but I have only ever gotten one, which I used for Design 1047 battlecruiser. I have to email the guy and ask him to snailmail copies to me, but I haven't received any replies since I got the 1047 article. But I am very glad to see that you got ahold of three. O_O Cheers, — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  18:19, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The Australian Defence Force Academy has a full set going back to the late 1960s; let me know if there are any other articles you're interested in (though my access to the ADFA Library is pretty limited until they reopen on weekends in March). Nick-D (talk) 21:36, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I might take you up on that. ;-) Thanks for all of your work on the Dutch article; another article for OMT is done! — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  01:01, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I've just finished expanding the article; comments and copy edits would be great. Nick-D (talk) 00:57, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Goodness Nick, how much source material can you find? o_o Wow. Starting a thorough read now. — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  01:40, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

(out) - hi again Nick, I never got a chance to go through the article with losing my internet for odd periods of time, all the stuff (read: family) associated with Thanksgiving, and a ton of crap I have to do for school. I don't know if I will be able to get through this, but I will try; it's my highest priority. — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  19:18, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

A rallying point for those who oppose NEWT
Can you remove and or strike your comment at Wikipedia_talk:Newbie_treatment_at_CSD and apologize to Crossmr? THIS IS IN THE BEST INTEREST OF NEWT. Your comment is being used as a rallying point for those who oppose NEWT, and is really bad for all of us who support NEWT, Wikipedia_talk:Newbie_treatment_at_CSDIkip (talk) 19:48, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  21:05, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

'Fixing' redirects
Hi. Re 'fixing' links to redirects, as you did here, this is generally neither necessary nor desirable. In most cases it actually increases overall server load. See WP:R2D for details. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 01:19, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That doesn't make sense.. .the reasons given are:
 * Redirects can indicate possible future articles.
 * Introducing unnecessary invisible text makes the article more difficult to read in page source form.
 * Non-piped links make better use of the "what links here" tool, making it easier to track how articles are linked and helping with large-scale changes to links.
 * The first one is fine and makes sense, but it doesn't apply in this case. The other two:
 * Piped links are common; I don't see how it makes a page more difficult to read more than, say, reference tags.
 * This one is interesting. I'd argue the opposite&mdash;when you change the link to the real article, it adds it to "what links here". How does non-piped links help the tool? — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  01:38, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * To address your points:
 * You are correct that ref tags are a far bigger problem in code legibility, but that doesn't mean we should be obfuscating anything else when we don't need to
 * Both show up in 'what links here'. The difference is where in the list they show; the piped link appears in the main list whilst the link to a redirect shows up under a section listing that redirect. In this case, both versions showed up in Special:WhatLinksHere/World_War_I, but the piped link under a section headed 'First World War (redirect page)'. This may be desirable if, for example, there was a naming debate over which is the most commonly used term.
 * Regardless of the specifics in this case, the guideline discourages piping redirect links. I suggest you ask at WT:Redirect if you have any queries as to why it does so. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 16:42, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I see that it discourages it. Thanks for the note! Regards, — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  18:19, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks / you're welcome
Hi Ed. I'm posting this here because the NEWT talk page immediately below my comment is already rather crowded. I just wanted to say thanks and you're welcome to this comment. It's always refreshing when someone responds to that kind of thing with introspection and an attempt to move forwards rather than immediately turning defensive. And of course, anyone who describes my writing as 'wonderfully phrased' must be in the right. Cheers, Olaf Davis (talk) 10:44, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Heh, thanks for the message. Calling him a troll would have been hyperbole; I was attempting to show how his comments appeared though. Regards, — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  18:19, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

No pinging involved whatsoever
You do not have mail. &mdash; La Pianista  ♫ ♪ 05:46, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No ponging either. &mdash; La Pianista  ♫ ♪ 03:50, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Piong'ed. — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  04:55, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Readed (finally). :) &mdash; La Pianista  ♫ ♪ 20:52, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 23 November 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 &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 13:30, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Happy Thanksgiving!


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 Thanksgiving! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 15:58, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Cato June FAC
Thanks for participating in the discussion. I am not quite sure how to respond to your concerns, but I have tried. I hope you will consider supporting this article.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:22, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I've replied. — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  01:38, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Is there anything I can do to get your support?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:20, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * If I could read through it, probably, but I have a ton of stuff I have to get through for school. It's bery difficult to find time for Wikipedia at the moment. — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  19:18, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi
Bless your enemies and pray for them which despitefuly use you and persicute you, for great is your reward in heaven. H444 (talk) 08:10, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

H444
As you can see, is the next one in this series. His message above was his second edit; his first was the unexplained reversion of my reversion of one of V333's edits! He obviously needs blocking. Is it possible to get a Checkuser done on this clan? I see you spotted another one earlier today! ╟─ Treasury Tag ► most serene ─╢ 15:25, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * And is another one – this is absurd! ╟─ Treasury  Tag ► Africa, Asia and the UN ─╢ 06:54, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser is over there. ;-) — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  19:18, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

HI
Mediate upon the word of god day and night and he will make thy way prosperous. U999 (talk) 23:11, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Re: CSD
Hi..Thanks for correcting me.That article was so confusing that I just considered it as some gibberish/non meaningful text.Again thanks for the clarification.. :)  aru nku mar  checkmate me 07:15, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Look at this article அரிச்சந்திரன் கோவில்.This article is written in Tamil language.So I have nominated it for deletion under A2.But as I know to read Tamil, the article seems to be promoting some charitable trust/temple.So which deletion tag may be appropriate here???  aru nku mar  checkmate me 07:38, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Here is where we might run into problems. :-) Two questions: is the temple notable on the enwiki? And is there a Tamil Wikipedia? — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  07:40, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes.There is Tamil Wikipedia.The temple might be notable but to be genuine to English Wikipedia, the article must be in English.So if the author of the article can translate the article to English, then I guess the problem is solved...  aru nku mar  checkmate me 07:46, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


 * If it is notable, my suggestion is to transwiki the article to the Tamil wiki and just convert the article here to a stub. — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  07:49, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I just searched Tamil Wikipedia and did not find this article there. I think its not notable as Tamil Wikipedia does not mention it...  aru nku mar  checkmate me 08:01, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, the Tamil Wikipedia has only ~20,000 articles, so don't use that as a benchmark. :-) If it isn't covered in any reliable Tamil sources, I think it's safe to A7 it. Regards, — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  08:05, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I searched Google on the topic here.Got six hits but none of them corresponding to the topic Harishchandran Koil/Kovil.So Iam placing A7 tag on the article...  aru nku mar  checkmate me 08:16, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay. Good work! :-) — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  08:17, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Karateka
I was just wondering why you moved Karateka (video game) to Karateka. The primary usage of "karateka" is a practitioner of karate, and the video game was named for this. That was why the video game was moved from Karateka to Karateka (video game) in the first place. (It was moved incorrectly around 2005, which was just history merged.) Also, most people looking for karateka probably want practitioners of karate. However, an article about practitioners of karate is most likely never going to be expanded to more than "a karateka is a practitioner of karate." Therefore, a redirect to karate is most appropriate for an article about karateka (practitioners of karate). Having karateka redirect to karate with a hatenote saying such with the appropriate link to a DAB page follows DAB. The video game is clearly not the primary topic, so it should not be at karateka, even if there are no other articles titled as karateka. --Scott Alter 17:22, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, I can go with that, but I think I majorly screwed up. By moving the video game article over the other one, I think I just accidentally did the closest thing to histmerging them... is it possible to revert the changes without taking the deleted edits with it? — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  19:18, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not an admin, but I don't think you messed up too badly (and there is no "undo" function). Karateka (about the practitioner, formerly at Karateka (martial arts)) had been a stub article before I redirected it to Karate, and I think you deleted these revisions.  To establish the flow I mentioned above, I just moved Karateka back to Karateka (video game) and I added a redirect back from Karateka to Karate.  The only thing that remains to be done is restoring a few older revisions to Karateka.  There shouldn't have been any other revisions deleted (that I am aware of), so you probably can restore all of the Karateka revisions - and make sure are the correct content for the redirected article.  --Scott Alter 20:40, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Done, I believe: —  Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  22:37, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletions
Please see my explanation at User talk:Ged UK. thanks, --noclador (talk) 23:35, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Rest West
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TreasuryTag&diff=328470082&oldid=328038351 Another] of those stupid "let's-copy-a-message-from-above-and-add-my-signature" trolls, can he be blocked please? Ta! ╟─ Treasury Tag ► inspectorate ─╢ 17:10, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * He hasn't edited in a few days, so I'm going to hold off. I'm going to be on break for a little bit, so don't come here if he does show up again ;) — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  22:32, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Lollipop for U!!!
<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:blue; background-color:AliceBlue; border-width:1px; text-align:left; padding:9px;" class="plainlinks"> ARUNKUMAR P.R has given you a LOLipop! This horrible pun and delicious candy promotes WikiLove and tells the world how low you will stoop for the sake of humor. Spread WikiLove by giving someone else a lollipop, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Spread the unrelenting joy of lollipops by adding {{subst:Lollipop}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!


 * Thanks :-) — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  03:07, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

arun talk  05:48, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 30 November 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 &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 14:21, 1 December 2009 (UTC)