User:The ed17/Archives/24

Happy New Year!
Hope yours was as good as mine! TomStar81 (Talk) 08:11, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Mine was certainly as good&mdash;I spent time with friends and played cards all night. :) — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  08:16, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVI (December 2009)
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:37, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVI (December 2009)
The December 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 04:40, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
would you take a look now. I've added a lot, and I don't want to go overboard, making it less about him and more about the Napoleonic Wars. Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:28, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Apparently I didn't watchlist that review like I thought I did. Checking in now. — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  00:42, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

If you could,
Could you possibly remove me from the Wikicup? Cheers, Abce2 |  Free lemonade  only 25 cents!  02:35, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Hello? Abce2 | Free lemonade  only 25 cents!  03:36, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I did this yesterday, and J Milburn removed you entirely because you withdrew so soon after the start of the cup. — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  03:46, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, okay. I didn't know if you saw this. Sorry for bothering you, Abce2 |  Free lemonade  only 25 cents!  03:47, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that sounded more flippant than I intended; your follow-up didn't bother me at all. :) Regards, — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  04:26, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Hotze article at A review
Hi, the Friedrich Freiherr von Hotze article is at A review now. I've applied the critique you made on Klenau to it. Would you take a look? Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:07, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure! Just give me a few hours, as I'm heading out right now. Regards, — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  23:09, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
Someone is out for blood... -MBK004 22:36, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note, I have replied there. That was a really strongly-worded post for so minor an issue... — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  23:07, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * He is still at it, I'd put good odds on him putting the article up for FAR after it goes off the Main Page. -MBK004 23:46, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Anything like that will (I think?) be closed per WP:POINT. — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  00:27, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Nope, the FAR rules say that after the article has been off the main page for three days it is fair game, and several have been delisted after being put up three days after their appearance. -MBK004 00:32, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I mean that nominating an article at FAR over the use of convert in the article would be POINTy. :) Obviously it's fair game at any time, but something this minor should be handled at Talk:Brazilian battleship Minas Geraes (with or without an RfC) or WT:SHIPS. — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  00:36, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed, but I've seen FARs started over less which resulted in the article being delisted. -MBK004 00:38, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm, interesting. My present for going back to school could be ... a FAR. Yay. :P — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  00:41, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't hold your breath, Ed. Gene is a arrogant, condescending prick who likes to think he's smarter than everyone else. I wouldn't waste my time with him. Parsecboy (talk) 01:16, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not holding my breath because it is such a minor issue. I can spend two minutes replying to him for as long as he feels like wasting his time with idiotic posts like, too. :) — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  01:26, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

FAC video spoof
This video on YouTube is hilarious. It is already being discussed at the appropriate place: Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates. Just be sure you have the captions turned-on. -MBK004 11:04, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow. Just wow. Too bad non-Wikipedian's wouldn't understand it; I'd show it to everyone. :) — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  18:10, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations on the TFA!
Namaste Ed. I just noticed the Minas Geraes TFA and immediately thought "oh no, not another bloody ship/road/hurricane article", but reading through found the prose very engaging and the history of the battleship through the wars fascinating. Great job! Regards,  Skomorokh   12:41, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Heyyy, ships have been raised to the level of roads and hurricanes now? We must be doing something right, I guess. ;) Thanks for the compliments on Minas Geraes! It certainly was a fun article to write. I just wish that I could read Portuguese, because the Revolt of the Whip would be a really interesting topic to read about. — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  18:09, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Belatedly from me too :) EyeSerene talk 21:48, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks ES. :) — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  01:47, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Congrats!

 * Thanks Tom! — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  06:19, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Convert
I noticed that you found another glitch in convert (abbr=none not working). Maybe it's time to make a list of all its problems, including things such as "sp=us" not working in
 * 1245 t &rarr; 1245 t

or this:
 * 1245 LT
 * Gene Nygaard (talk) 20:31, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Another issue, this guy is on a crusade now: is this correct or not? -MBK004 00:05, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Gene: the first is a glitch, the second is not because (if I remember right) that shouldn't be converted under any circumstances, for obvious reasons. ;)
 * MBK: yup, the BB-55 edit is correct. — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  06:19, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 January 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 00:08, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
don't think I need this, but you haven't replied yet -MBK004 09:03, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

fragmented conversation notice
May I copy your notice about fragmented conversations? It's exactly what I want to say and I'm really bad at formatting! PrincessofLlyr (talk) 22:36, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Go right ahead! I myself stole it from User talk:Maralia. :) — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  22:45, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I thought it would probably be okay, but asking never hurts! PrincessofLlyr (talk) 22:51, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

GranSnake
Hi Ed, I've indef blocked this editor as their only edits have been vandalism. Nick-D (talk) 09:40, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with that; I actually did not even glance at their contribs. :) Regards, — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  06:10, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Military Historian of the Year - 2009

 * Thanks Tom. — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  06:10, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Windows Odyssey
Please reduce it to semi-protection. The only edit warring at this point is from the 76.xx.xx.xx IP adresses, who keep reverting    to the poorly sourced version containing WP:OR, and refuse to discuss anything on talk. Please also check if an IP range block isn't more suitable. N.B.: You protected the right version, so that's not why I'm complaining about, but a single uncommunicative edit warrior shouldn't be allowed to prevent improvements to the article, even if those are likely to be just copy-editing at this point. There was admission in the AfD that those are just dynamic IP address of one editor. See also Sockpuppet investigations/OBrasilo. Pcap ping  12:47, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm looking into this. — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  06:10, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Nothing has been proven in the SPA, and the IP has a right to contribute to discussions regarding the content of the article, so I'm going to leave it protected. The protection will force the IP and you to discuss. Regards, — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  06:40, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Cats
Hello. I have decided to have a discussion on whether or not Feline acne should be merged into Cat skin disorders at Talk:Cat skin disorders. Your opinion would be valued.  Bramble  claw  x   00:10, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you
Thats good, people using sandboxes :) Mickman1234 (talk) 21:21, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Heh, yup. Don't you feel like a little kid again? :) — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  21:23, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Sure, and also im only 16 :). Mickman1234 (talk) 21:33, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * ...and I'm only 19. :P — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  21:35, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Johann von Klenau at FAC
Ed, would you take a look at Johann von Klenau at FAC? It could use a knowledgeable pair of eyes. Auntieruth55 (talk) 22:16, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm doing so now, though I don't know what more you want me to do! I also just realized that I forgot to look at Friedrich Freiherr von Hotze while he was at ACR; ping me when he goes to FAC please and I promise I'll take a look. :) — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  01:26, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Roma GAN
I noticed that you listed the article at WP:GAN but didn't put the template on the article's talk page. I went ahead and did the liberty of fixing that for you. -MBK004 03:37, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I nommed it at GAN but then got pulled away by people coming into my dorm room to visit. Cheers, — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  03:52, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: Independence day
My apologies, I wasn't aware there was a recent move request discussion on the issue. --Cyber cobra (talk) 08:10, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It happens to the best of us; I assumed that was what happened. :) Regards, — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  08:11, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Occupational hazard of WP:BOLDness. :) --Cyber cobra (talk) 08:13, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No, the occupational hazard would be if I yelled at you. ;) — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  08:16, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Reading the talk page discussions first would be a good idea. See Glider, and Talk:Glider (sailplane) for a pre-existing consensus to move the page to the current title. Be BOLD, not blind! - BilCat (talk) 09:22, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Franklin move
"The result of the move request was: not moved, please figure out where you want to move it before listing it!"


 * Sorry for the inconvenience. I left two weeks of time for people to object to my proposal and this one guy who has had no involvement in Civil War articles jumps in at the last minute and screws it up. Hal Jespersen (talk) 17:20, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It happens, no big deal, just wanted to draw attention to the problem I had in closing it! :) Regards, — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  04:10, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Defend the use of USS
A relative newbie is challenging our use of USS in the title of ships who never had it legally, like in USS Illinois (BB-65), USS Kentucky (BB-66), and USS Hawaii (CB-3) on the basis of navy regulations and is of the mind that the articles should be trashed and their status' removed for that fact. If he were more experienced I would expect all three to be at FAR/GAR/ACR demote immediately. His argument is that it makes us look unprofessional and amateurish and that the Navy would never allow us to go against their Executive Orders. Your thoughts are requested: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ships -MBK004 06:16, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I've commented. — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  19:36, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * And thanks for your comment in that discussion. As for "newbie" that is downright funny. Here yes, not in the subject. I have probably spent more time underway at sea on various gray ships and certainly researched them longer than most have been on Wikipedia--and maybe some have been alive! Stumbled on this by accident as I was going to comment on one of your interests. Got a great chuckle. And yes, my issue is not with the articles content other than what really is a "professional" blunder. The commissioned/not commissioned thing is quite important in Navy and even broader military circles, kind of like calling an APC a "tank" when trying to write a serious piece. It does no credit to the writer or publisher. Palmeira (talk) 02:00, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * We refer to all new-ish accounts here as "newbie", especially for the purposes of WP:BITE, so please don't take offense. :) And I wouldn't be surprised if that was true; I've only been on here for four years and have been active for only about two. — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  04:59, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, I am not "taking offense"--more amused. Hope nobody takes offense that I see some of the ship people here as "newbie" to the field. I've got no "investment" in status anywhere under some "user name" as here. I do have an interest in fighting the tide of casually tossed less than accruate and downright misinformation that seems to overwhelm us at times. I also find it a bit amusing that many of the ship articles I moved causing such offense were almost exclusively cut and paste from DANFS yet did not follow DANFS naming policy. Sort of odd to pretty much copy text and then add a naval vessel "newbie" error. Palmeira (talk) 13:28, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

SS Merion
Hello

I know that you are not a author of SS Merion but because author is not present on en.wiki i havea question - do you know/can check from what come name of that ship ? So far there are two possibilities: or Francis Marion or Merion, Pennsylvania. Can you help me, please ? PMG (talk) 21:02, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Hello there! I'm sorry, but I cannot find a single thing. The town seems like it would be the best guess, especially as it appears that the American Line named many of its steamers after cities, but the town seems rather small to be the namesake. However, I highly doubt that it was Francis Marion, as the name is spelled differently. — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  21:58, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, Merion was really, really close to Philadelphia and was pretty big back then (see File:Main Line 1895.jpg). I'd say that the town is a strong bet. — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  22:00, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I'm almost certain it was the town. The article on Merion remarks that Haverford was Merion's sister ship. Haverford is another town on the Pennsylvania Main Line. — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  22:04, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Hello. Thank you for help. We will try to include information about that in pl article. PMG (talk) 10:50, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Brazilian ships and Portuguese
I was interested in your interest in Brazilian naval vessels. Even after an almost lifelong connection with the country and frequent visits (See my photos at Carranca) my language skills are terrible (and an issue at home) but I can make general sense of the written language and have translation assistance at home. I am also pretty experienced at navigating the web pages in Portuguese. If you have a particular problem perhaps I can help. Palmeira (talk) 02:08, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well that's unexpected. Never expected to find someone else interested in Brazilian naval history! :) I see that you looked at Revolt of the Whip... not sure if you have the time, but if you would like to collaborate on a Wikipedia article... well, it's a lot to ask, but if you could get your hands on this book and add information from it, it would be an immense help: Morél, Edmar. A revolta da chibata. Rio de Janeiro: Editôra Letras e Artes, 1963. . If you can't or don't want to, I understand. Regards, — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  04:59, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for getting me into Revolt of the Whip! Now I'm practicing my poor Portuguese reading skills on that. I passed right by that statue a bit over a year ago and did not realize it was there. I don't know what I can do short term on the book. I did find a pretty extensive list of web references with what seem to be reliable sources. I am still exploring those. Being a newbie here how is the best way to collaborate in draft stages? There has been an Afro-Brasilian blooming in the last decades that is quite interesting--and refreshing--in many ways. Despite the reputation of being "color blind" the country is coming to terms that there was a good bit of fiction there. There was never the "Jim Crow" legal structure seen here but there was sort of a blind eye turned to Afro-Brasilian culture. A return to Salvador in 2007 after almost forty years was amazing and there is real recognition of the fact so much of that history was ignored among those of European origin. The airport we arrive at on family visits has been renamed for  Zumbi dos Palmares, a recognition that is rather new. My user name comes from my pleasant escapes with the wind  rattling in them as I sit with ice and below zero weather outside!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Palmeira (talk • contribs) 13:57, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Haha, trust me, I'm not complaining that I've got a little help here! This is a long term project; don't feel hurried in the slightest (although help within three/four months would be nice ;). This is my workpage for it right now: User:The ed17/Sandbox/Revolta da Chibata. Feel free to add anything there. It's necessarily choppy and incomplete because I'm adding more and more details to the basic structure. It's interesting to find out about the level of discrimination present in Brazilian culture at the time. Glad to hear that has changed though. Lastly, I'll bet your ice and below-zero weather doesn't compare with mine! :) — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  04:04, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 11 January 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 09:28, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Iowa class battleship FAR
nominated Iowa class battleship for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:52, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the notification. I'll try to help, but you caught me at a bad time--attempting to finish a couple Japanese ship articles with Cam. — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  00:59, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Ed, I am leaving this message to inform you that in the next day or two I will be working on fixing the dead and dying external links in the article. I am not sure how this will necessarily effect your rewrite, or whether it effects your rewrite at all, but I wanted to let you know so that you don't panic if you see me working in the history section some. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:09, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That's fine, want to do it in my sandbox though? It'll make the history merge a lot much easier. ;) Cheers, — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  08:11, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry for slow pace of the work I've been doing, its seems that whenever I get a moment to get around to this something comes up. I should have all of this evening to work on the websites, and that I will do in you sandbox, though with a little luck it won't take a butload of hours to do this time around :) TomStar81 (Talk) 19:28, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It's fine, I've been working slowly as well for the same reason. :) — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  19:48, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, the external links on both your version and the article version should now be up to date with one exception: the article I cited for the Mastiff drone has apparently up and vanished, and the internet archive can not load the page. I am going to see about locating an alternative source, but everything else should be up and working now. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:54, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Ed, I just wiped about 20% of the article content out for FARC compliance; if you are in agreement I would propose that we inform the reviewers that we are applying the FAR(C) suggestions in your sandbox and not on the main page article. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:23, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi again ed. I added the rebuilding you had done originally in the sandbox strait out on the Iowa article since I have run out of ways to improve what I had there originally. Please do feel free to add or subtract to it, but I felt at this point attempting to show that we were in fact trying to address FAR concerns warrented a risky if bold maneuver. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:09, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That wasn't risky or bold, you know. ;) I do need to add more to it, but my plate is about to snap from the weight of all my projects at the moment. I'll finish as soon as I can, but I don't know when that will be. — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  16:32, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Milhist task force reorganisation
Following the project's recent discussions, I've now merged the Taiwanese military history task force into the Chinese military history task force. Because you were a coordinator of the Taiwanese task force, I've transferred your coordinatorship across to the Chinese task force; redirects have been left in place on the defunct TF pages, but you may wish to update your watchlist accordingly. All the best, EyeSerene talk 10:46, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Page move error
Hi Ed, thanks for doing the multipage page move requested here but you've made a mistake on the 1988 season move. It is currently at 1988 NSWRFL season but should be at 1988 NSWRL season - would you mind changing this please? Thanks,  LunarLander  //  talk  // 14:30, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. Sorry for butting in, BTW ;) ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 14:34, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Fantastic, thanks a lot!  LunarLander  //  talk  // 14:42, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks Chamal, not sure how that rogue "F" got in there... — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  22:01, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

re: MOS:IMAGES and Flocke
Hi, Ed. Images can be resized up to 300px, but there typically has to be a reason; resizing doesn't register on everyone's computer and can even make things worse. Detailed maps, large group photos, etc., are candidates for resizing because greater detail is needed. An image later in the article was made larger for this very reason: otherwise Flocke appears as a white speck. Were that the case, I would agree with you, but this particularly awesome bear cub and a basketball portrait is clearly visible at 180px. ;) María ( habla con migo ) 22:04, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Isn't she? And thanks!  María ( habla  con migo ) 23:11, 14 January 2010 (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) 22:30, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Bix GAR
Ed, Thanks for the nice note. I realize that GARs can be a roll of the dice, and I certainly have no ill will about the situation, especially since it worked out well enough in the end. I have heard nightmarish things, though, about putting entries up for Feature Article -- in terms of the time involved and the arguing over the most minute kinds of style/prose/factual details. All of which may be a good thing, but I don't have the free time at the moment. Thanks again, though, for the note and the encouragement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Margo&Gladys (talk • contribs) 13:49, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

WWW RfCU
"A confrontational and necessary warning"? Missing an un I think. p.s. I can't read this page (I use the green on black screen gadget to protect my eyes). DuncanHill (talk) 23:27, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yep, that it would be. :) And that's interesting, but why can't you? On my screen, the only blue occurs at the very top in my navbar and the table of contents... Thanks and regards, — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  23:29, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * All I can see are wikilinks - blue has nothing to do with it. On other pages, the background is black and text (other than wikilinks and the odd sig) is green. Here, the background is black and the text is black as well (except wikilinks and the odd sig). DuncanHill (talk) 23:33, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I can read headers and edit section links (they shew in green, as is normal for me). DuncanHill (talk) 23:34, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well... that's odd. (as a side note, the green and black screen looks really odd to me :) Why isn't it turning the text green? — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  23:52, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why (I tend not to look under the bonnet of websites). I think it's something to do with how you've set the colour for the font. I've got a vague memory of having read about this problem somewhere before, will have a noodle about to see if I can find it. DuncanHill (talk) 23:57, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, if you find it feel free to remove it. :) Regards, — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  23:58, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I've asked at the village pump (technical). DuncanHill (talk) 00:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The answer I've been given is "...it's caused when the user uses CSS on the page to explicitly set the colour of the text. For example, on that page near the top, you see border:2px solid lightsteelblue;color:black;font-family:gill sans MT...." . DuncanHill (talk) 00:17, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I edited your CSS to fix it. AFAIK, everything's still working, but if I broke something feel free to revert. :) A le_Jrb talk  00:32, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Replied at VP/T. Thanks for all your help! — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  00:34, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks - looks fine to me now, I hope it looks fine to you too wthout the gadget. DuncanHill (talk) 00:38, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Dutch 1913 battleship proposal - FAC-worthy?
I think that this article is just about ready for a run at FA status - what do you think? In regards to this edit summary, I'd be reluctant to include a table of the three designs - if these were the ones referred to by Anthonie van Dijk, they're the three designs for which records are still available, and not the only three to have been submitted (it appears that at least 11 different designs were submitted to the navy, including the five(!) from Armstrong). Nick-D (talk) 10:08, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Heh, well then I won't try to figure out how to make a table (I feel like Help:Table is written in French...) Breyer has what appears to be full specifics of the Germania, B&V and Vickers designs though, so I'll try to add some of that into the prose. Armstrong had a group of hyperactive designers, it seems. ;) Regards, — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  13:49, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, the advice on tables makes no sense at all! Expanding the info on the known alternate designs seems like a good idea. FYI, I'm going to be out of town from Thursday to Saturday (Australian time). Nick-D (talk) 07:31, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, I can do that. Want to co-nominate it at FAC on Sunday if you get on your computer then? :) — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  16:45, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. Nick-D (talk) 06:10, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Ed, were you going to add anything further to this article? If not, I'll start the FAC Nick-D (talk) 03:14, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but only a partial list of certain designs' features. Nothing that will affect a FAC a lot, so feel free to open one anytime you're ready. — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  07:11, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the star
Thanks for sharing FA credit on North Carolina class battleship ... although I don't think I've done enough yet to earn the credit, I can get there soon enough by continuing work on USS North Carolina (BB-55) and adding some of what I learn to North Carolina class battleship. I think you're probably trying to tempt me to help out with WP:OMT, but it wasn't necessary, you had me at "Ahoy matey!" (watching) - Dank (push to talk) 20:49, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You did enough by addressing so many of the concerns during the FAC; it was much appreciated. I actually wasn't tempting you to help out with OMT, I promise. But it's nice to here that you are going to help. :D — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  20:51, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * My pleasure. I got into it initially through the North Carolina wikiproject, but working on ship articles turned out to be great fun. - Dank (push to talk) 20:59, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It is, isn't it? The design sections in ship class articles are normally rather tedious, but the stories of ships and what they did&mdash;or what happened to them&mdash;are quite intriguing. Take BRAZILIAN CRUISER Bahia, for example. Took part in a rebellion, served in WWI and WWII, and blew up in the Atlantic near the Equator during the latter. The surviving crew had to endure days of harsh sun, no food and shark attacks. I feel bad for them now that I fully know what happened, but it was extremely interesting to read and write about at the time. — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  21:49, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Riacheulo
Hey, found two sources for you on this Brazilian ironclad in WI. Report on European Dockyards by Naval Constructor Philip Hichborn. Washington, D.C.: GPO 1885 and Riacheulo Brazilian Armourclad Turret Ship: Its Construction and Performance. 25th Section of the Institute of Naval Architects, 2 April 1884. Good luck finding copies outside the Library of Congress, but now you've got something to work with.

And check out my talk page; I just got a strange offer from someone in the WikiCup that you might want to know about.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:08, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks Sturm, I'll be sure to try and find them if I ever get back to the article. :) That is a strange offer, but I don't think anything is inherently wrong with the offer... it looks like more of a call for collaboration that is using the Cup to try to get people to help them reach their goal. But we'll see. — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  16:45, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe, but the offer of login info aroused my suspicions of meat-puppetry or somesuch mischief.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:03, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh I see. I think he is talking about log-in info to get access to the online book? At least it looks that way to me. :) — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  03:00, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 18 January 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 15:39, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

2007 Groundhog Day tornado outbreak
Thank for doing the alt text in this article but there is still some criticism over it. This was left on the talk page:

"I was asked to look at the alt text. The first image (the map) has alt text 'A map displaying the path of the three tornadoes.' which doesn't really give the gist of the map. It's obvious to the sighted reader where the tornadoes went, and this info should be given to the visually impaired reader too. The second map has two misspellings 'Floridan' (should be 'Florida'?) and 'peninnsula', and wastes too much time talking about colors (which are irrelevant details) and doesn't give important points such as where was the line of thunderstorms? and where were they the most severe? Please see WP:ALT#Maps for more advice. For the 3rd image 'one side's worth' is phrased oddly; how about something like 'the houses on one side' and 'the houses on the other side'? The 4th image looks good." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard (talk • contribs)


 * You're welcome. Sorry about the criticism, but I'm currently quite busy with other articles; perhaps you would be able to address the concerns yourself? Regards, — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  02:56, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
You should be aware that a major change to the ship article guidelines has been proposed that would apply to all ship articles on wikipedia. -MBK004 08:47, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Yamato
Hey, Ed, are you done with adding the additional information to Yamato? Because if you are I'm gonna give EyeSerene the go-ahead for the copyedit. Cam (Chat) 19:21, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey there, not quite, sorry. He can copyedit virtually everything above the 1944 section though... G&D have like four pages on the final mission which I have to pick through. :) — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  20:43, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok. Don't make it too too long. I don't want the sections to be horribly disbalanced in terms of section length. Cam (Chat) 06:46, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Will do, though the '44 and '45 sections will be necessarily longer because she took part in more action. — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  23:15, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Image for USS Washington (BB-56)
I asked about the images, restoring them etc. (I want to do it myself, and it might take a LONG while). I can't seem to find anything in the library of congress, but she suggested you might have some tricks.

Additionally my trip to the local library sort of failed: they don't have hardly any information on the ship specifically. However, they do have lots (5 books) on the naval battle of guadalcanal which it took place in, so I'll see what I come up with. I'll be at the other library tomorrow anyways, so I'll check that out. I put 5 books on hold Best Regards, NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 05:11, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


 * First Book that arrived from being on hold (History of United States naval operations in World War II, vol. IV) was labeled to include the battle of guadalcanal, but did not. Neither of my local libraries have the correct book (History of United States naval operations in World War II, vol. V)  We'll see if I can get my hands on that. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 01:00, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well that's disappointing. :/ Does your state have inter-library loan? — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  01:55, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't think so. I've got another 3 on hold, we shall see. One of them is a listed ref at Naval Battle of Guadalcanal NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 02:31, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, sounds good. I may be able to get ahold of volume V anyway. — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  08:04, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * http://usswashington.com could be good... Where to start... where to start NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 02:33, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Roma
Ed, Do you want to finish off the GAR of Roma anytime soon? And why is most, but not all, of the info in the infobox cited? Is there something in the MOS that requires that? I just took a look and couldn't find anything. I find it hideously ugly, personally, but whatever. And what did you mean when you said that you were working on that part of the MOS that says to put the bibliography before the notes?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:28, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh damnit. I somehow took that off my watchlist. I'm really sorry for being a horrible GA nominator and not responding. :-/ I think I just forgot to add the citations during this edit, and you're right that it is rather ugly. Re MOS, see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Layout&action=history ; I tried to change it, but changed it back because the bibliography section on that page refers to the work written by an author. Bibliographies as we use them are covered under WP:LAYOUT. —  Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  08:04, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that I've ever seen an article with the bibliography before the notes, etc., so WP:Layout is being pretty consistently violated. I guess I'll not worry about it for my FACs as no one has commented on that for my Pe-8 article yet.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:28, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Almost forgot, is there a MOS requirement to cite each fact in the infobox? If so, could you point it out for me as I couldn't find it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:33, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No Sturm, the "bibliographies" in WP:LAYOUT aren't really bibliographies; it refers to wear the works written by an author (ie so really only things like Mary Shelley). Bibliographies as we use them (aka "works cited" etc) are covered under the notes and references section.
 * Maybe I'm just being dense, but that's not how I read it. But I like your explanation better as I've never seen it the other way. I'll not worry about it then.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:02, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No, there is none that I know of. — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  18:48, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

German U-Boats
(Your like the 3rd person that I have come to asking about this) I have recently created over 20 articles on German WWI U-boats. They are all stubs and contain almost no info and only one source each. I was trying to expand thema little by adding a table/chart showing every (if any) ships that each u-boat has sunk (much like the table/chart on SM U-35) I was wondering, can you help me create these tables or just plain expand thes stubs. Any advice or help would be nice. Thanks.-- Coldplay Expért <sup style="color:#DC143C;">Let's talk  18:30, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Hello there, was a proliferate contributor once upon a time (though he now appears to be retired?); some of the articles he wrote include many WWI German U-boats like SMS UB-17. I would take a look at their reference sections for ideas; for one, it seems like using inter-library loan to obtain Tarrant's The U-Boat Offensive: 1914–1945 looks like it would be a good idea. Also, you might want to take a look through http://www.uboat.net, which is a reliable source. Regards, —  Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  18:48, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I have been useing http://www.uboat.net, great website. I'll take a look at the book you told me about. Perhaps I can get some of these to start class with it. Thanks again!-- Coldplay Expért <sup style="color:#DC143C;">Let's talk  19:05, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Mind you, I don't have that book, so I can't guarantee that it will be a huge help. :) I would just take a random sampling of five of Bellhalla's WWI U-boat articles (all members of the German Type UB I submarine, U-42 through U-47 and the FA U-66) and look at the references. See what he tends to use the most, and that/those books will be what will help you the most. Good luck, and thanks for all your efforts! — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  02:25, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, and right now, I'm expanding the German Type UE II submarine article. I'll let you know when Im done with it :)-- Coldplay Expért <sup style="color:#DC143C;">Let's talk  02:37, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Done! (And yes, I'm using Firefox now)-- Coldplay Expért <sup style="color:#DC143C;">Let's talk  03:27, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Good work! Is the Goebel ref really by him, or is a book rendered online? Might be worth hunting around in Worldcat and see if it is, just to make sure you have the proper author. — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  07:11, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

24 January 2010
It appears you are in the middle of an edit war with yourself (1, 2). Rollback is only to be used for obvious vandalism; continued misuse of the tool may result in its removal. Please stop Parsecboy (talk) 02:56, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I think that we've all accidentally hit the rollback button by mistake ;) (I know I have) Nick-D (talk) 03:13, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * - ROFL. I humbly apologize for my misuse of rollback. I promise it will never happen again. Of course, to remove rollback from my account, wouldn't a steward have to desysop me? ;)
 * Well, at least I haven't blocked another administrator yet, Nick! — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  03:16, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yep, the stewards and Jimbo are the only ones capable of removing the bit from you. But ArbCom can dictate that a steward remove it. -MBK004 03:28, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * ...or I could just block him and hope that no-one notices. I've blocked two admins so far (EyeSerene and, um, myself) without being formally punished so I figure that it won't be a problem ;) By the way Ed, I've left you a message about the Dutch BBs above. Nick-D (talk) 03:57, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * How did you manage to block yourself? Did someone tell you that you couldn't? And as for you, Ed, I hope you learned a valuable lesson today :P Parsecboy (talk) 04:36, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification. I had forgotten that Jimbo can desysop people.
 * Ahaha, what if Nick had been punished for blocking himself... that would have been hilarious.
 * Yup, I certainly have Parsec. I guess this edit warring probably just ruined my previously minuscule chance at becoming a crat or getting on arbcom. ;) — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  05:26, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
I'm ready to go :)  Singlish   Speªker ♪♫ 06:20, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

USS washington (BB-56)
I've got a book with about 25 pages on the action of the washington in the battle of guadalcanal. How should I proceed? <I>NativeForeigner</I> Talk/Contribs 19:35, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Awesome! If you want, you can start rewriting this section. Just summarize the parts leading up to the battle, try to focus on the role Washington played in the battle (but also provide enough context&mdash;you have to strike a balance), and devote a paragraph to the aftermath. I'll start adapting text from North Carolina-class battleship for the design section as soon as I can (it'll only be background stuff, no need to get in-depth) and adding citations from Garzke and Dulin, Whitley and DANFS as soon as I can. :) — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  22:32, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 25 January 2010
<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) 04:49, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Playing in your sandbox.
Messing with your toys. Innuendo? You won't even begin to know.

In all seriousness (if this isn't a crossing of boundaries of any kind psh, boundaries ), while you're at it, just keep in mind that it would be easier for me to copyedit the stuff later if you trim as much as possible, since I do intend to help out with a few things. At least. In other words, mince your sentences. This message isn't really important, but since when have I ever done anything of that sort? Lord knows I only use Wikipedia to have fun. Whoa, did you see that? Something just flew out the window...I think it was my admin potential. Maybe my dignity, too. So, then. I know as much about battleships as you know about Bösendorfers, but I'm willing to make a feeble effort. Before I do, though, would you pretty please make a separate, "Battleships for Dummies"-ish copy? You're actually writing for one, in this case.

PS: If you can, cut down on your semicolon use; I'd make one per paragraph a rule of thumb. It's gets annoying after a while; you can plainly see that. &mdash; La Pianista  ♫ ♪ How's my driving? 06:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I wrote that a long time ago, my dear. I hope my sentences now are better than ones I wrote a year ago. ;) But hey, I could use your copyediting prowess over at Iowa-class battleship... just saying. :) Hope to catch you on IRC soon — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  16:32, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That's actually surprisingly true, even though it still needs a little help. I think you always will. Ouch...burn.
 * FA? Gladly, gladly. I'm inclined to promise that I'll finish it, but I won't since that somehow manages to work out a magical charm that makes me never finish the work. But it augurs well, God willing, and I'm sure it'll be done. ;) &mdash; La Pianista  ♫ ♪ How's my driving? 01:08, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

thanks for your help and advice!
thanks for your help with Johann von Klenau, which was promoted to FA yesterday. Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:58, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You're welcome; thanks for the interesting article! — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  20:36, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Nominated USS Triton for February 16th FA
Ed -

Hope all is well. I naminated the article on the USS Triton for the Feature Article of February 16th:

Feature Article nomination - February 16th

I think that I did the nomination correctly, but you may to review and comment.Marcd30319 (talk) 00:23, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey Marcd, everything is alright on my end; hope it's the same for you. Your nomination was removed because Triton hasn't passed a featured article candidacy, so it can't appear on the main page. Sorry :/ — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  03:04, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I gave some advice as well (on their talk page), take it to A-Class since the GA review was in 2008 before any trip to FAC since it would be overwhelming to a first-time nominator. -MBK004 03:39, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks MBK, good advice. I've added a supplement to your comment there. — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  05:13, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikicup scoring
Is there some reason that the scoring page doesn't show the points for my 3 article Good Topic?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:45, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Let's see if this fixes it. — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  04:55, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No joy. Hmm, hadn't realized that it was automated, probably a necessity considering the number of people involved.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 07:11, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

ITN nomination
Hi. Since you are one of the main ITN admins, I'd like to suggest to take a look at this nomination from January 23. If there is still space on the ITN template, please add the blurb as it already has a lot of support. I recently completed a separate article that I just recently published, so that could be the main link for the news blurb. Thanks. ~ A H  1 (TCU) 02:23, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Hello there, I have actually never posted an update on ITN and have only ever commented on like two nominations, so I don't feel comfortable in posting that. I would recommend . — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  04:08, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks on Nixon
I limit myself voluntarily to 2RR as an admin. Also, I saw your cn template, I am currently "on the road", will get to it when I can.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:10, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yup, it was an easy call since there was no page number. I added the cn just for you, because I'm pretty sure that it is true. :) Are you planning on taking that to FA anytime soon? — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  04:13, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Achilles
A few questions.


 * 1) The first few chapters of the book are about the Diomede, a few journeys round NZ, and a trip to the Pacific Islands. A lot of this is dedicated to details of navy exercises. What is relevant and notable?
 * 2) Is there a GA or FA on a similar topic that I can use as an exemplar?
 * 3) There's another book by the same author, called Well Done Leander. Should I get that out?

(Please leave me a, I tend to forget about discussions otherwise... thanks :)  Singlish   Speªker ♪♫ 05:30, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I assume you mean HMS Diomede (D92)? If so, skip everything related to that ship; I believe the author of your book was trying to provide context to the New Zealand Navy's activities prior to Achilles arrival. The only connection between the two ships appears to be when Achilles took Diomedes place in Aden in March 1936. The journeys are notable, but you don't need to go into a long and detailed explanation on them unless something unusual happened.
 * BRAZILIAN CRUISER Bahia is probably the closest you can get. For the journeys, articles from Bellhalla's US destroyer good topics (ex. USS Aylwin (DD-47)) could help.
 * I don't think so. From the title, it sounds like the book would be about HMNZS Leander, and I don't believe that Achilles and Leander ever operated together. — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  08:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay, thanks! Singlish   Speªker ♪♫ 09:11, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Short tons
Ed, do you have any objection if I use only long tons and metric tons, not short tons, in the article I'm working on, BB-55? I looked at 20 ship FAs, including all the USS ones, and none of them measure any quantity in both short and long tons (and short tons were only mentioned twice). (Watching) - Dank (push to talk) 01:03, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * P.S. Also, how do you feel about Sturmvogel's approach of one conversion (presumably for each unit) in the infobox and one in the main text, and that's it? - Dank (push to talk) 01:09, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No, not at all. I've actually started using only those two in other articles I have been working on.
 * I'm fine with it, with the exception of the lead and armament sections. I think that the lead shouldn't count as the first time, just in case someone skips the lead to look at a particular section. Same thoughts re the armament section; a metric-familiar person may skip right to the armament paras, and it doesn't cost much to include conversions here too. Having said that, I'm really tired, so if you think I'm wrong or I don't make sense, just tell me. :) — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  06:54, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Repeating what I just said at WT:SHIPS: I've done some poking around and I think I can support this for any units that are converted in the infobox, but getting it through FAC would probably require an edit to MOSNUM of some kind. There's no guidance on this in the MILHIST or SHIPS style guides.  Many units in ship articles feel more like names of things (16" guns) than measurements, and we have a long infobox on each article with plenty of room to provide a handy conversion guide. - Dank (push to talk) 14:12, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Ed-- I came here to let you know of the discussion, but that has already been done. Unless the FAC folks think that repeated conversions are necessary (which I doubt) I think the MOS does not require it. I think legibility would be helped by eliminating multiple conversions. Regards,  Kablammo (talk) 14:31, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * @Dank, well, I guess that it also doesn't really matter to me either. :) I didn't completely grasp that the infobox would be fully converted, so any of the figures they would need would be there. The reason I provided so many conversions in the NC class article is that I have was told in the past that I didn't use enough of them. :/
 * Aye-aye, there's the rub. I won't assume that I know anything about what will fly until I push a few through FAC and see what happens. - Dank (push to talk) 16:49, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Discussion on MOS and FA criteria started here. Kablammo (talk) 18:30, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * @Kablammo, thanks, I saw it a couple days ago but decided to sit back and watch it unfold. You are right re legibility. — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  16:01, 31 January 2010 (UTC)