User:The ed17/Archives/28

Protections
Hey, since you;re on, could you just double check my protections. Also, I'd appreciate another admin keeping an eye on Tasmania. Feel free to revert or change anything. Best, HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   04:08, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi again HJ! The only one I disagreed with was 2020 Summer Olympics&mdash;while he may be trying to 'win', there is an edit-war going on, and we don't care what version we protect, just that the participants are forced into discussion. That is just my opinion though, and you are doing a fine job! Tasmania looks like it's part of the same dispute... eek. — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  05:09, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Brazilian battleship Riachuelo, any more sources?
Hello Encouraçado! You ssem to be new, only holding the top-secret knowladge of writing lots of GA's and FA's about uncompleted ships. Ed, what I want to ask you is this: Do you have anything else on this fifth tire. I've got it up at DYK, a result of me spending nearly all of my time on the wiki improving it and not some one sentance French dreadnought stub. How far is it from a GA? Can it get to a GA? Those are my quesitons. Buggie111 (talk) 03:27, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Hahah. :-) No, I don't, but I do happen to know what we need: two issues of Warship International. "The Riachuelo (Brazilian battleship)". Alan Vanterpool. N2/69:140. §N3/70:205.
 * might have access to them. I'll ping him and see if he could scan and email them. — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  04:13, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Ohio State has some issues, ask Parsec to check for you. I only have one issue before '76.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:24, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * What would those two list: Each design? Buggie111 (talk) 12:59, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The '69 reference is to an article, while the '70 is to a letter/comment on the first. Be advised that they could very well be references to the ironclad, not the battleship.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:22, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I ran into that while google seraching for refs. Buggie111 (talk) 13:26, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * OSU has an edition from 1964, 69, and 70 (and from 70 to 2002); I don't know if they're the right ones, because WI is a quarterly. They're in the book depository, so it'd take a while to get them (I can't just go and find them in the university library). Parsecboy (talk) 15:33, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Nick has access to them, so no worries Parsec. Sturm, I hadn't thought about that, and I really hope that it isn't&mdash;I'd be a little frustrated. :-) On the other hand, if that is about the ironclad, I think we'd be able to call this an article that will never have enough information to make it to GA. — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  21:00, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, you know I'm not big on projects that didn't have any steel cut being in the project anyways, so that wouldn't bother me a bit.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:43, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Your Conway's page linked in the NEWT discussion seems interesting. I'll try and utilize it. And Sturm, I share your feelings. Buggie111 (talk) 23:02, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The only other source I could think of would be listed here (look under "nome"), but I'm still waiting for them to put up ships that are alphabetically past the letter "D". You can do a Google Translation of them and paste it into a Word document, although sometimes those translations suck&mdash;a professional Pt-En translator helped me with BRAZILIAN CRUISER Bahia after he noted some mistakes with the translation that were copied into the article. Otherwise I think we would have to get Portugese books, which I can't read.
 * I'm starting to htink that this should not have an article, though. Pt.wiki doesn't even have an article on the design, and there isn't even a redlink for it in this template. I'm thinking we need a list of battleships of Brazil and this needs to be there. — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  07:36, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikicup scoring error
I think that the bot has erroneously credited everybody with a GA and a FL.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:53, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * And it's not properly counting the class articles for the GTs for me and White Shadows.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:46, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * no wonder I don't have all my points showing! Is there any way to fix that?-- White Shadows you're breaking up 22:16, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yup, see WT:CUP :) — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  07:21, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 3 May 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 15:47, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

GTCs
Ed, I'm a little unsure how to make sure that I'm not claiming credit for the Tosa class battleship article for that GTC, but I do get credit for the Lion class BC and Imperator Aleksandr II class BB articles.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:46, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Well there's an interesting question. I'll direct J_Milburn here; he's more in tune with submissions than I am.
 * @J, he only wants JAPANESE AIRCRAFT CARRIER Kaga to be counted in the GT's on his submissions page, but according to the format, he has to put the main article Tosa-class battleship. — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  05:20, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Try just listing the Kaga article as the main article for the topic, with no other articles. See if that works. The bot is not very intelligent, it won't notice. J Milburn (talk) 09:21, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Battlecruiser
For battlecruiser, User:Wiki-Ed has been reverting my edits several times, even though his preferred version was unsourced. In the most recent dispute, I had a reference to back up the statement. As the old existing statement was not backed up, and possibly even inaccurate, why does that put the onus on me for BRD? Generally, I feel that User:Wiki-Ed is not assuming good faith as his first reaction is to revert my edits. By contrast, User:Trekphiler has been tweaking my contributions for Allied submarines in the Pacific War, and that is what I expect as opposed to a revert. 

I have run afoul of User talk:MBK004 a few times with North Carolina battleships and Scharnhorst, however I feel that the blocking threat is way too extreme, and also as I disagree with what he describes as disruptive editing.

GoldDragon (talk) 17:12, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : L (April 2010)
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:36, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : L (April 2010)
The April 2010 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) 20:06, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

The GA and A-class symbol discussion
Hello there Ed17. Thanks for your contribution at the discussion here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Good_articles As a result of your comments I have taken the liberty of refactoring the discussion to create a separate section on A-class that follows the format of the GA-class !vote/comments. In doing this I have deleted our interchange, but used your (and Casliber's) remarks as the basis for some of the arguments for and against. Please drop back in and see if you are satisfied with the refactoring, and modify the arguments if you wish, and perhaps add your support as a yes for A-class. I'll leave this for about half a day to give you (or others) the chance to just check it out, then I'm proposing to add a centralised discussion tag to get more eyes on the issue. Regards, hamiltonstone (talk) 22:34, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Discussion of note
You might want to read the discussion between me and WhiteShadows at User talk:Buggie111.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:01, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

ACR
I've replied at WikiProject Military history/Assessment/SMS Habsburg‎.-- White Shadows you're breaking up 03:03, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Colorado class battleships
I have to disappoint you. The Newhart book is very bare-bones as far as ships histories go. I added what I did simply because the section on the Colorado was vague as to her whereabouts on Dec. 7. Newhart tells at least that she was at Puget Sound. Being the model of a modern wikipedian I threw in the ref cite to be on the safe side. Beyond that, the book says the same things that are already in the article. Wish I could help you. Cheers--Phyllis1753 (talk) 22:46, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 10 May 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 13:30, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Tosa, congrats
Your next WP:FOUR award. Congrats! I'll go update the WP:OMT page. Buggie111 (talk) 17:32, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Heh, thanks Buggie. :) — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  17:42, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Mizunoko Sima Lighthouse
The DYK project (nominate) 08:02, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Wartime booty photos
Ed, Aren't captured German wartime photos considered war booty and PD by the US? That's what I recall from my earlier search when I decided to use on in my Kronshtadt BC article. Parsec said to ask you as you'd run into the issue for your Design 1047 article.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:38, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey Sturm, yes they are. I've replied in full at the GA review —  Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  18:31, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

DYK for New York Central 1290 and 1291
Materialscientist (talk) 00:03, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Diaspora (software)
Just wanted to drop you a quick note to say that although I worked with it with the asterisk for most of the day, they use Diaspora without the asterisk extremely extensively in nearly all their materials (their Kickstarter pitch document, their news mentions, their text within blog entries, etc.). In fact, the only place I see the asterisk used is primarily with their graphical logo. In addition, it'll be much easier to work for all editors concerned without the asterisk (breaking Wikipedia templates, for example). So, I reverted the move and moved it back -- wanted to drop you a courtesy heads-up on that. If you really feel strongly that I'm wrong, let's thwack it out here, get a WP:3O, or open up something for discussion on the talk page (although it's such a new article it's not likely to have enough editors to get a good mix of opinions). Best. WCityMike 01:21, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Nope, not a big deal to me&mdash;it was more of a drive-by move after I read the NYT article. :) — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  03:25, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

HMS Lion (1910) FAC
Is there still something left to be done on the Lion FAC? There are a couple of disagreements, but it has the required number of supports.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:02, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It's only been ten days; I suspect they are waiting for another comprehensive review or an image check. More time can't hurt. :) — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  07:57, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry
Uh, I'm not sure why this was dequeued or I was accused of sockpuppetry. I only have one user account and I'm not sure what your deal is. The article meets Wikipedia reference standards. The article is about the hospital- but the hospital has been shut down and there isn't any other encyclopedia-esque information related to the hospital. I am go for launch on the DYK. Tkfy7cf (talk) 08:21, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It will be dequeued until this matter is cleared up. If you can understand our point of view, this looks very suspicious. Also, the articles may meet the reference standards, but they focus almost exclusively on the scandals, etc., which makes the articles non-neutral IMHO. Apologies, — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  08:25, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Ed, after reviewing the associated documentation with the actual sockpuppet, I agree entirely; however, may I assure you that I don't have the time/desire to disrupt or distort the greatest learning tool on the planet. The sad thing is that people actually do want to do that. I am not sure who the IP address user is, but my IP address doesn't match his/hers. Hopefully we can get this matter squared away and requeue the Manatee Palms article. I don't know much about the facility except for what has been in the news about it. Upon researching through online news archives and sifting through numerous websites, the only pertinent information (albeit, any information) was on the negative side of the spectrum. My apologies for this brouhaha.Tkfy7cf (talk) 08:34, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Ed, could you please requeue the Manatee Palms article? I'm not sure how blocking a position in a queue is relevant to defeating the sockpuppet. It doesn't make sense. I only edit under my user name. This is quite unethical. Tkfy7cf (talk) 09:06, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Ed, the sockpuppet case was unfounded. Can you please requeue my article for DYK? That would be greatly appreciated. Cheers... Tkfy7cf (talk) 17:12, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm going to raise this issue on WT:DYK. At the least, they have to be approved again by someone who is not impersonating another editor. :) — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  03:36, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Ed. I appreciate your help. The Manatee Palms article has been enhanced and is go for launch upon your approval. Cmadler has said that he will requeue it once the article is approved. Thanks for your help.Tkfy7cf (talk) 04:43, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Arizona
Just looked over the article; doesn't need much work, IMO, other than to trim down the extraneous detail with which DANFS tends to load into their articles. But I'm in no hurry to take this one on as I've got plenty on my plate right now. But maybe I'll drop our names on it now just to prevent anybody else from working on it while we cogitate.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:18, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. I have plenty on my plate as well, both here and in RL — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  18:29, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Manatee Palms
Hi Ed, thanks for your comment re: Manatee Palms. Please see my recent comment at DYK:talk. Thanks - Tkfy7cf (talk) 04:46, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Table on Riachuelo
Could you please find the belt armor for each of it's designs? That and the bare links is all that is blocking me from a GA. I'm thinking Bonewah could review it, if I ask nicely. Buggie111 (talk) 13:28, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * LOL. No, leave Bonewah out. :-) I'm not quite done with it, so if we could hold off for a little bit...? I got caught up in adding more to BRAZILIAN CRUISER Bahia for its (probable) upcoming TFA appearance. — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  18:45, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You sleep in late. Noow is it done? Buggie111 (talk) 13:15, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Late to bed, late to rise. :) Not quite&mdash;apparently Brazil actually ordered the ship in February 1914! — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  19:15, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * So that's all that remains? Or does somthing else need to be done? also, would the Scharnhorsts fit in [|this]? Buggie111 (talk) 02:02, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I need to add a paragraph or two on the design that was accepted&mdash;it's entirely different from "A" through "D", and actually looks like it would have been a decent choice (ie better than six turrets!). Would the Scharnhorsts fit ... where? — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  02:10, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, my copy-pasting goes afoul. Would they fit in your Large Cruiser class draft. Buggie111 (talk) 02:34, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No, they had too much armor. — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  02:42, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thought so. So as not to force me to keep on asking on your talk, are you done with Ruiachuelo, and, if not, could you tell when you will be? I'm anxious to see it rot at WP:GAN for a decade. Buggie111 (talk) 04:07, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

- I want to rewrite the armament section, but then we can go to GAN. Question, though: where did you find the information on Riachuleo being ordered in May 1914? I can't seem to find it anywhere... — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  08:55, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Conways 1906 to present. And hazegray, but that wants to present me with a free copy of System Security which will remove all existant viruses on my system. It's been the cause of three force shutdowns. Buggie111 (talk) 13:27, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * (WP:TPS) I don't see an order date in the relevant section of Conway's, p. 405. --Simon Harley (Talk | Library). 17:39, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Here goes. It's All the World's Battleships: 1906 to Present, pg 14. Does Hazegray do the same thing to you too? Buggie111 (talk) 19:10, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see an order date in hazegray, and yes, that's doing that to me too (I had to go around to hazegray.org and click in). — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  19:42, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm certain it's in the Conways. And the main link is now down also. Buggie111 (talk) 19:55, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You mean page 27; ordered May 1914 to design 781, hull no. 879, but was never laid down.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:13, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Awesome, I completely missed that Sturton edited that Conway's and wrote the "Re: The Riachuleo" that I am already using! Does it say anything else? — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  03:51, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I updated the infobox with the armor specs. Only other thing is 3500LT of coal, 700LT oil. One other point as is being discussed on the HMAS Australia FAC, all units should be imperial first, metric second since that's what the Brits used when they would have built her. And the infobox needs to be cleaned up.

Thanks. I'm stuck for time and should not be on here right now&mdash;I have a ServSafe food-safety class and exam tomorrow. Wahoooo! Really? I thought the Brits used metric...odd. Guess I'll have to change them all back (too bad I converted them offline)! :-) — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  06:18, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 17 May 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 19:48, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Bahia translation
Thanks for your message on my talk page ! I like very much the picture on your User Page. I will do my best to translate completely the article in french. DeansFA (talk) 19:13, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Nudge
Per request. :) --Elonka 19:21, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Speaking of nudge, wanna review my 1999 NL tie-breaker GAN? :) Staxringold talkcontribs 07:04, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Encouraçado Minas Geraes (1908)
Olá The ed17. Thanks to write. Sorry for my poor english. The reason for have two diferents articles, is because the first one E Minas Geraes (1906) (type Swiftsure), belongs to a big plan of Brazilian Navy fleet renovation. The capitan of this boat was indicate, the British shipbuilder was the same but the tonnage was smaller. In that time happened a big geo-politic discussion whith Argentina and Chile. The tonnage of all the brazilian fleet was revue, about that fact there are a long naval storie to be write, and the E Minas Geraes 1908 (type Dreadnought) was build. Thanks for your articles Brazilian battleship Minas Geraes and Brazilian battleship São Paulo. HTPF 13:59, 23 May 2010 (UTC) Other links:, and
 * Hello ed17. About the references Brazilian battleship Minas Geraes you can look (and translate) the links: Encouraçados “São Paulo” e “Minas Geraes” de 1910, Noticiário Naval; Foi lançado o mais poderoso navio de guerra do mundo, destinado à Marinha do Brasil, Poder Naval; Supremo Tribunal Militar and A Flotilha de submarinos e o levante do Encouraçado São Paulo.

About the Minas Geraes Class, the ship are very diferent. Encouraçado Minas Geraes (1906)= HMS Swiftsure (1903), tonnage 14.700. The Encouraçado Minas Geraes (1908) was a Dreadnought, tonnage 21.500. --HTPF 19:38, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Note in Erzherzog
This, which is the pdf of the article states that "several ships are trying to refloat her". Now, I admit that the reader does not have adequate visual proof that the battleship was refloated, but it's pretty obvious that sunk battleships don't bombard ports and hcase other battleships. Buggie111 (talk) 18:31, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * True, but how do we know that the ship was refloated "the next morning"? — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  18:42, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

May I butt in? I changed "Italy's entrance" into "Italy's entry into the war" and one of your edits changed it back. This article has "armour" in it so it isn't American English, but I've been pleasantly surprised so far how easy it is to get ship articles to read well in American English even if they're not, and I'd like to keep aiming for that if possible. The word is overloaded, at least in American English; WNW has a third definition of "permission, right, or power to enter; admission", as in, "Italy gained entrance to the alliance". When a country enters a war, that doesn't usually mean "asked and got permission" or "was awarded a spot", so "entrance" has a chance of confusing the issue, which is I think why I usually see "entry" in this sense instead. Is that wrong in BritEng? - Dank (push to talk) 19:16, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * P.S. This is why I like to go last :) - Dank (push to talk) 19:18, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Good question. Fortunately, I don't have to answer it, as I just removed that bit. ;) — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  19:18, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Barney Frank
Thanks very much for taking vandalism (esp BLP) seriously. AV3000 (talk) 15:39, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  15:42, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Moreno
You've got a little habit of putting inuse on pages and then forgetting to edit them. You gonna work on this? Buggie111 (talk) 04:03, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It's such a nasty habit, isn't it. ;) I'm currently writing it, but it may take me until tomorrow night to finish (I'll save my progress later on). — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  04:09, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. That was one of my lower quality works, as it was a draft I had since the begining of the month. Thanks for jumping on to raise the bar. Buggie111 (talk) 14:02, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 24 May 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 04:40, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't mean to be a duck
which I supposed is the aquatic version of a dick, but at Iowa class battleship, reading down the list of changes needed for GAN, plus the copyediting needed, plus having to go through line by line citing (or repudiating) from G & D, plus who knows what for the FAC ... I don't know how you guys do these things but I think I'd like co-nom credit at FAC, or else I may want to see if someone else is interested in doing all this stuff. How does that sound? Should I ask Tom? (Watching) - Dank (push to talk) 21:31, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I would want to co-nom as well if there ever is a FAC, seeing as I wrote the entire "Design" section and am aiming for more, possibly a full rewrite (probably after ARA Moreno). :) Also, I'd say you deserve credit. You certainly deserved it for North Carolina-class battleship (although I don't think I ever added you as a co-nom...sorry 'bout that). I would ask Tom if it ever gets to that, but normally we don't make too big of a deal out of it. — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  21:38, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll soldier on. - Dank (push to talk) 21:42, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * And no, you aren't a dick for asking. That's a lot of work you are undertaking, and I whole-heartedly believe that you need to be credited. — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  21:46, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't want to step on any toes, I'm skating on thin ice hacking and slashing on people's articles as it is. Btw, I don't see any refs to Friedman's U.S. Aircraft Carriers; should we remove that from Bibliography/Sources? - Dank (push to talk) 00:39, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Nevermind, found it; there was one cite a long time ago, here, that has been removed. I'll remove it from the biblio; feel free to revert. - Dank (push to talk) 01:05, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know about other people, but I'm extremely happy when someone of your caliber starts hacking and slashing at my articles. :) I may add that back in later depending on how I rewrite it. The proposal wasn't seriously considered, AFAIK&mdash;I suspect that the Navy would have been much more in favor of converting one of the Alaska-class cruisers rather then their precious battleships. — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  01:37, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll second that; hack and slash my articles all you want ;) And Dank, if you ever have the time in between all these FACs and ACRs, would you mind looking over SMS Blücher? I nominated it for FA back in December, but it failed essentially due to prose concerns. If not, that's fine too. Parsecboy (talk) 02:49, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Happy to oblige, and thanks. I'll start a to-do list on my copyediting page. - Dank (push to talk) 03:16, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Venting a little
Hi Ed, Figure this is better over here on your page. I guess I really wasn't bashing the A-class review for Horses in WWI, but I have been, in general, based on experiences elsewhere, badly soured on dealing with any topic military or firearms-related because it seems that those who care about these articles are just some of the most horrible, nasty people on WP and they have a tendency to do things like, as I commented elsewhere, insist on a complete history of minutae linked to their own personal obsession (I used the evolution of the bullet as a theoretical) in every article, regardless of what the article is about. Maybe this isn't what MilHist is about, but it certainly is a problem that has arisen with me several times. I have also had an article nearly torn down by someone who wanted the impossible and pretty much felt the whole thing should be completely rewritten to their specifications. So many of these people offer no constructive content, they only sit back and criticize. I am quite fed up with it, and for that reason I no longer have any interest on initiating an improvement drive on an article any more (though I still help others) because the critiques usually have nothing to do with improving the accuracy, style or content of the article, and too often have everything to do with egos, bullying, and proving that one is right, even when one actually has no clue what they are talking about. (Or if they do have a clue, they refuse to share their expertise, instead referring you to a 500 page treatise only obtainable from interlibrary loan from the University of Timbuktu.)  Sorry that I'm venting, but maybe if you are involved in WP:MilHist you can tell ME if this is a problem that is endemic to the wikiproject or if I have just had the bad fortune to run across some bad apples. Montanabw (talk) 18:03, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. I've had the exact opposite experience with milhist stuff, but I do write on warships and have had the most helpful people around to guide and throw me in the right direction. Their criticism, while some may be unjustified or wrong, is on the whole excellent and benefits the article, even if it is difficult to implement. Honestly, if you want a healthy collaborative environment, I'd suggest you try writing on ships with us/me. ;) I am involved in Milhist; I am a coordinator there. I haven't noticed what you have been talking about, but I do only pay a good deal of attention to the ship-related ACRs, so I could have easily missed it. However, the large majority of people I see there are good-natured and helpful, so I'd suspect you ran into some bad apples... but that's just a suspicion and not a statement of fact.
 * Also, feel free to vent as much as you need. It can help a great deal to let off some steam every so often. :) Kind regards, — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  05:52, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * On the whole, Montanabw, I can fully appreciate where you're coming from. In my experience, many reviewers do throw out criticism without actually 1) being specific enough about it to be remotely helpful or 2) helping in the improvement process. This is part of what led me to develop my style of A-Class reviewing. I won't link it, but the best example to date is probably the ACRs for Battle of Vimy Ridge or Nikita Krucschev. Part of it is up to the coordinators discretion. In a few cases, I allowed ACRs to either remain open (or pass) despite opposes when I felt that the opposition was either unwarranted or unhelpful. It's all a matter of being realistic. The reality is that someone will always have a beef about it. The prose will never ever be of a level that Tony will not find at least one gramatical error, of a factually verifiable calibre that it will satisfy everyone, comprehensive enough to pass as a doctoral thesis, etc. On the other hand, however, you can't simply dismiss this criticism; there's always an angle to where they're coming from, even if they're hopeless in communicating that angle to you. Of course, don't rewrite the entire article, but work towards a compromise. My last FAC was a nightmare for this. Half the article had to be re-cited, and it was just maddeningly stressful. You have to work towards a happy medium between balancing the reviewer's objections and what is humanly possible for you to do within the scope of the review and article. Cam (Chat) 06:08, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * P.S. - My apologies if this seems somewhat incoherent. The last three days have been my graduation ceremony/banquet/aftergrads, and the adrenaline rush has yet to wear off. I've done my best ;)
 * Oh, Cam has a point. I was focusing only on the Milhist ACRs and completely forgot about FAC. — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  06:14, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * On another note, Ed, I've started rewriting Kirishima, if you're interested in assisting. Cam (Chat) 22:39, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks gang. I feel more like a normal wikipedian (wikipode? Wikipudian?)  now. Yes, I think it really does depend on the mix. And of course, my own tendency to respond with a slight bit of exasperation, requesting a good reason to change something, which often elicits a tantrum from the other side when they actually have nothing substantive to offer. Sigh... Montanabw (talk) 18:24, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I've found that returning a request with "no, reasoning" works better than an argument. :) Cam, I'll start on that ASAP — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  18:28, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

WikiCup 2010 May newsletter
We are half way through round 3, with a little under a month to go. The current overall leader is, who has 570 points. He leads pool C. Pools A, B and D are led by, and  respectively. Anything you worry may not receive the necessary attention before the end of the round (such as outstanding GA or FA nominations) is welcome at WikiCup/Reviews, and please remember to continue offering reviews yourself where possible. As always, the judges are available to contact via email, IRC or their talk pages, and general discussion about the Cup is welcome on the WikiCup talk page.

Two of last year's final 8, and, have dropped out of the competition, saying they would rather their place went to someone who will have more time on their hands than them next round. On a related note, a special thank you goes to for his help behind the scenes once again. There is currently a problem with the poster, perhaps caused by the new skin- take a look at this discussion and see if you can help. The competition has continued to tick over well with minimal need for judge intervention, so thank you to everyone making that possible. Good luck to all! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox and The ed17 20:54, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Titan's Cross

 * Thanks muchly Tom, but don't forget to subst it! :) — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  17:07, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks muchly Tom, but don't forget to subst it! :) — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  17:07, 1 June 2010 (UTC)