User:The ed17/Archives/29

DYK for ARA Moreno
 — Rlevse • Talk  • 12:03, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks Rlvese — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  17:07, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 31 May 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 22:55, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

User talk:TreasuryTag
Hi. Can you explain your indefinite semi-protection of User talk:TreasuryTag to me? The protection log says "U1", which doesn't make any sense as you weren't deleting anything. Perhaps you meant "user request," which still doesn't make any sense, as it's never been the policy of the English Wikipedia to allow indefinite semi-protections of user talk pages without a clear history of sustained vandalism. The protection doesn't make any sense to me, so I imagine there's a reasonable explanation I'm simply missing. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 11:08, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Hello there. Honestly, I don't remember, although I am sure that I meant "user request." I strongly suspect that it had to with this vandalism spree, but again, I don't remember. Feel free to remove the protection; you'll have no argument from me. Regards, — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  17:42, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

MZMcBride, while you may think me obnoxious, I would have appreciated you coming to me on this; as it happens, I would have given you word-for-word the same response as you received from Ed, but it would have been a nice gesture. ╟─ Treasury Tag ► Lord Speaker ─╢ 17:52, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ in any case. Juliancolton (talk) 17:52, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Apologies TT, I should have thrown a tb on your talk (although you apparently watch this page...) Thanks JC — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  17:55, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I didn't have it watched, but Julius mentioned to me that you'd consented, so I came for a peep. Not your fault at all, anyway! ╟─ Treasury Tag ► estoppel ─╢ 17:57, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, I missed his message on your talk, oops. :) — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  17:59, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It's nice to append &diffonly=1 when linking to such large pages, e.g. Don't be offended, I'm sure more people think I'm obnoxious. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:00, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, sorry—I forget that, I have &diffonly=1 set to default in my preferences! However, you still should have come to me first, I'm afraid. ╟─ Treasury Tag ► Counsellor of State ─╢ 19:02, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'll come to you for my future unprotection requests (or inquiries about protections that others have performed). You can give the pages a hearty stare (or come up with a plausible-sounding reason for the protections). --MZMcBride (talk) 19:04, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Since I clearly explained the situation above, I'll assume you're just being rude and sarcastic, and will expect you to come to me first if complaining about the protection of a page within my userspace. Thanks. ╟─ Treasury Tag ► CANUKUS ─╢ 19:28, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm rarely, if ever, rude or sarcastic. Expect what you want and I'll do as I please. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:36, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

London hasn't got a protection template
See subject —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eraserhead1 (talk • contribs) 18:10, 2 June 2010
 * I know, you posted this four minutes after I protected it... — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  18:13, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Usually protecting admins do it straight away, and I wanted to catch you still here :). Sorry if I was a little hasty :o. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 19:11, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thinking about it some more 4 minutes is more than a little hasty, I apologise. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 21:21, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No, it's fine&mdash;a little quick, but a reminder can't hurt anything. :) Also, my apologies, I was a tad crabby earlier. Regards, — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  01:25, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Copyedit?
Ed, did you want me to copyedit something? I wrote something down but it was wrong. You had something turned away at FAC in April, right? (Watching) - Dank (push to talk) 05:06, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, overlooked this earlier. ARA Moreno could use a copyedit, but I need to add in information from another source beofre anything else.
 * On another note, the reason I want you to wait is because there are date conflicts between Whitley and Schenia's Latin America: A Naval History. Schenia is far and beyond the better scholar here, so I trust him more anyway, but that isn't the problem; I've witnessed many date conflicts between Whitley and other sources. I'm close to declaring him not reliable for dates... the events always seem to be accurate, but I have seen him get days, months AND years wrong. — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  00:21, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, I can do it any time. On another note, please see User_talk:Parsecboy; what do we do about navweaps.com? - Dank (push to talk) 00:30, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Request
Ed, hi, at WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Franco-Mongol alliance, you've got two entries, one saying "Oh no!" and one saying "Support". Could I get you to combine them, or at least to strikethru the "Oh no", so it doesn't look like you're opposing the nom? Thanks, --Elonka 13:06, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Hello, my apologies&mdash;I've fixed this. — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  22:56, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks! --Elonka 00:14, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Featured picture candidates/Review of closure process 2 results
Hi, because you contributed to FPC's recent review, I'm letting you know that the results of the poll have been posted. We appreciate your contributions to the first stage and hope you take part in this next step, here, to move towards implementing several changes to the process. Regards,  Mae din\ talk 18:37, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for being such a, well, you might know...
Hi Ed. Sorry for slacking off in my quest to get those Chevrons and a stream of DYK's by lowering my quality (a lot) and having you and Ian Rose to walk around and cleanup after myself. I had a lot of stress on me at that time, but I think it has gone away now. I won't again try to claim the Cevrons by creating tiny destroyer and U-boat stubs, but will find another way. After my trip, I'll try and launch both the Almirante Latorre and Sevastopol, along with maybe Knyaz Suvorov and Orel. Consider this an apology to both you and Ian Rose. If you could, please inform me of anything new once I come back. Buggie111 (talk) 09:49, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LI (May 2010)
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 17:26, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LI (May 2010)
The May 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) 21:44, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

G & D
Just FYI, I've now ordered the other two Garzke & Dulin books, and I've already got the '95 edition, so please let me know if you need anything from either of those. (It looks like one of the books was almost $1000 new, but never fear, I got it for $165.) - Dank (push to talk) 05:20, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Dank, thanks but I think I already have them... User:The ed17/Library? :/ — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  19:25, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Great, well we'll be reading the same stuff then :) I've got the '95 edition of the '76 book, but I don't know if that makes much of a difference.  Speaking of that source ... there hasn't been any activity at the GAN for Iowa class battleship since May, so I'll jump in and start fiddling with the article.  Feel free to fix any mistakes; I'm obviously part man and part newb when it comes to ships.  A man-newb. - Dank (push to talk) 19:33, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Haha, that could be a good thing actually! It shouldn't make too much of a difference except with regards to the mid-80s Iowa refits. I think that Iowa is next on my list after Rivadavia-class battleship. 06:08, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Changed my mind regarding wanting a co-nom at FAC above ... I'll offer reviews instead at FAC because that's what FAC needs most, but I'm going to try to do enough work for A-class to pick up some noms and co-noms there. I suppose that means jumping in at the GAN stage, which I'll try to do more of.  I have all 3 Garke and Dulin books now, as well as Friedman's U.S. Battleships and Conway's ... 1922-1946.   I understand you have all the sources you need, but let me know if there are any you'd like me to pick up, I'm still in the mood to buy more books. - Dank (push to talk) 18:52, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't make me smack you. Why not offer reviews and conom? Take some credit for your work, especially when someone tells you too! (don't think I didn't see you remove that from your userpage :). I may hit you up a couple times for Conway's stuff; I only have the 1906-21 volume. Yeah, I don't think I need anything else right now, but if I do, I'll certainly ping you. ;) Regards, — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  03:35, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I wanted to ping you on the GAR; might you be able to hit that final outstanding hurdle about armor references?  bahamut0013  words deeds 03:22, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I think Sturm(?) or someone fixed this already&mdash;it looks like the three paras are all sourced to Friedman. — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  05:06, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

RfA
Would you mind co-nominating me per your offer for my RfA? Thanks, NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 06:10, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey NF, I'm almost literally walking out the door to head to work, but I certainly will in a few hours. Regards, — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  19:24, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Hee, nice work on the tb template, although it's not a big deal. No problem, I won't be transcluding until at least the 12th. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 22:32, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Conom written and added. Hope you like it and good luck :) — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  06:02, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. We'll have to get working on the washington at some point. :) NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 06:04, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * We will. Eventually. ;) — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  03:35, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

re:Editorial
Thank you very much for your kind words! I'm more than pleased that my editorial is usefull for somebody! Cheers, --Eurocopter (talk) 10:16, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 7 June 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 12:36, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

info possibility
Hey, Ed, I'm considering taking Japanese battleship Musashi on an FAC run, but some aspects of the article (mostly her final action and sinking) are in need of some expansion. Would you consider collaborating again to get that section expanded? I'm mindful of your excellent additions to Yamato, and I'm thinking you may just be the man for the job. Cam (Chat) 05:05, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Cam, sure! G&D is pretty detailed on the final action/sinking, and it also looks like I can back up statements in the rest of the article as well. I'll start right after I finish User:The ed17/Sandbox/Rivadavia class battleship, which shouldn't be too long (assuming nothing goes crazy in RL) — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  05:39, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. I'll keep working on the Kongos in the meantime. I'm meeting with a specialist military bookseller in Calgary late next week to look at specialty literature on the IJN battleships, so that'll likely be of huge help to my work on those articles. Cam (Chat) 04:22, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Lucky, the nearest "specialty military bookseller" to me is probably in Milwaukee. Happy [book] hunting! — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  03:35, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That seems like a bit of a hike. On another note, I've been skimming over stuff for the Kongos, and I've decided that of the remaining ones, Japanese battleship Kongo is going to be the trickiest to rewrite. It's easy to rewrite when there's nothing there. It's a little bit tougher when there's a crapload of information already there (albeit in an overly-detailed format). I'm about halfway through the Kirishima rewrite, then I'll do Hiei and save the worst for last. Cam (Chat) 23:19, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, you may be able to use some of it at least because it's referenced to Combined Fleet&mdash;it's better than a mass of unreferenced text, that's for sure. That sounds good, and I'll pitch in when I can, but that won't be as much; I've decided that Whitley is unreliable for dates, so I'm only going to use him as a supporting source. He's fine with general events, but I've found a lot of screwed-up dates in my South American BB area, see . Milwaukee is ~6 hours away by car, so yeah, it's definitely "a bit of a hike." :-) — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  05:56, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

File:USS_America_(LHA-6)_-_050718-O-0000X-001.jpg
Hi, ed! Please review the of the USS America (LHA-6) regarding fair-use rationale issues. Thanks! Marcd30319 (talk) 18:30, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey marcd! I've asked to take a look, because I'm not sure if that is a PD work of the Navy (as they are releasing it) or if it is a non-free Grumman image. He'll also take a look at your rationale too. Regards friend, —  Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  03:35, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Looked to me like it was public domain, to be honest. I've changed the image description page accordingly. J Milburn (talk) 09:20, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think "(RELEASED)" means the rights were released, but that the image was allowed to be used ("released" to the Navy for its use). The "courtesy" term is often used on US military sites in reference to images owned by other companies or organizations. I don't think we can assume its PD here without something more explicit. - BilCat (talk) 09:29, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The image appears on the NG Shipbuilding websit here. The is no individual copyright info for each image, but the page has a copyright notice at the bottom. There is Media Contat info here,a nd they may be able to clarify the status of the image. - BilCat (talk) 09:37, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not a non-free image guru, but if it's "released" by the Navy, why wouldn't it be PD? :/ — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  21:09, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Not if they don't own the image rights to begin with. I'd rather err on the side of caution here - it's far better to assume the imageis not PD, then to assume it is, and have the rights owner make trouble. - BilCat (talk) 21:28, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I received the following communication from Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding:

From: Dillard, Mike 

To: marcd30319

Sent: Wed, Jun 16, 2010 1:34 pm

Subject: Image 050718-O-0000X-001 Status

Your request for information from Jerri Dickseski, Communications Vice President of Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding was forwarded to me.

You may post the image, a rendering of the amphibious assault ship America (LHA 6), on your site. Please list the image requiring use with the credit: Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding.

If you have any other questions, please let me know.

Mike Dillard

Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding-Newport News

Photo Library Editor

Public Relations Representative

Phone 757-688-2292

Fax 757-380-3867

I added this letter to the discussion page for this image. If someone can adjust the licensing notice, I think we have resolved this issue. Marcd30319 (talk) 21:10, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * If I was wrong to assume this as PD, this does not resolve the problem. Permission to post the image on Wikipedia counts for nothing. J Milburn (talk) 00:35, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * J, I'm discussing this with Marc through email too — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  03:08, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Just to jump in, this image clearly isn't PD as it was created by Northrop Grumman and not a "sailor or employee of the U.S. Navy" as the template states. NG's above statement isn't sufficient for this to be released into the public domain either as they're only giving permission to post the image on Wikipedia (for an image to be PD the copyright holder must explicitly state that it allows the image to be used for any purpose - requesting attribution is OK, but they have to also agree to the image being reposted on other sites, edited, used commercially by anyone, etc). That said, as it depicts a non-existant ship for which no PD image is available (I assume) it can be used under a fair use claim until a PD image becomes available. Nick-D (talk) 04:34, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * In my email to Marc, I suggested http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/, as that was the most restrictive image license allowed on WP that I could think of. With the email, I don't think it is PD either. — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  04:44, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that would be the best choice. I'd be surprised if NG agreed to release the image freely, but stranger things have happened. ;) Nick-D (talk) 04:59, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yup, you never know :) I mean, it'll be [monetarily] useless once the ships are built, right? So they might release it based on that... — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  05:16, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Possibly (and hopefully). However, it will also allow the image to be used by NG's competitors and critics in any way they like (as long as the source is attributed). Nick-D (talk) 05:22, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Heh, didn't think of it from that angle, touche. — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  05:51, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Fair Use

A case could be made that this image, or any image from NGSB, or image from any defense contractor, or any image for any government contract that is created pursuant to its contractual obligation is a work for hire. Also, the commercial possibilities of selling a LHA-6 ship to anyone other than the US Navy are nil. That being said, I am sure the folks at NGSB are not going to abrogate their rights to any workplace materials just to satisfy licensing as set forth under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/, so I suggest a fair use claim be developed under the promotional licensing that I initially attributed to this image which, I must note, was uploaded at Wiki Encyclopedia, not Wiki Commons. Since my expertise is not in writing fair-use statement, may be the appropriate fair-use guru should undertake this task. Marcd30319 (talk) 11:43, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Aren't copyrighted images able to be used on WP (not Commons) with permission? That's been granted. - BilCat (talk) 11:54, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Which means that such images can fall under promotional licensing which is allowed when you upload such images onto Wiki Encyclopedia, not Wiki Commons, provided that you include a fair-use rationale which the NGSB letter achieves. With the exception of the NGSB e-mail, we apparently are back precisely at the starting point of this entire discussion.  Marcd30319 (talk) 15:01, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Lol, back to square one! Love it. :) I'll ask J to write a FUR; if he can't, I'll try to tomorrow — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  04:52, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Done for both atricles, but please look it over. Also, the resolution of the image needs to be lowered, but I can't do it. - BilCat (talk) 05:57, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I have given the rationales a tweak, but they are sound. Sorry for the confusion I have contributed to here, we all get it wrong sometimes... J Milburn (talk) 10:56, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I have uploaded a 100kb lower-rez version vs. 300kb original of the image, and I have added the appropriate tags. Thank you all for the help on this matter.Marcd30319 (talk) 12:20, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It happens, J... I was in full agreement with you too, so you weren't the only one who got it wrong! Thanks Marc, I think it's fine now. — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  21:24, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Ships barnstar

 * I'm not sure if you have one of these or not but if you do a second one won't hurt. Brad (talk) 03:09, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I think MBK gave me one awhile back, but that has no bearing on this one. Thanks a lot Brad, I really appreciate it! — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  03:35, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

WW2 edit
Just noted your revision on 11 June of another edit: "it's not covered because ... it's not part of WWII. Where has anyone even claimed that the Greek Civil War was part of WWII?)"

While maybe not the correct place to bring it up here, and the line you removed mentioned the fighting was part of the Cold War hence your removal. It should be noted that the fighting kicked off in '43/44 and involved rather large number of Allied forces considering the Germans had withdrawn etc. The only mention thus far is that it all kicked off after the war in the aftermath section, do the early stages not come under the umbrella of the article and subject? :)
 * From Greek Civil War, it looks like the the only major WWII event was the killing of protesters in '44, and even the infobox says that it is part of the Cold War... it might deserve a mention, but certainly not in the lead of World War II. —  Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  21:09, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Completely agree deffo doesnt belong in the lede but i would agree its worth a mention; there was complete British/Indian occupation of Athens iirc not to mention military intervention agaisnt the commies at various stages. Several divisions, and numerous indy brigades were dispatched from Italy to qwell the fighting and restore the exiled government.

Non-free use rationale for File:Cannone navali da 381 1914.jpg.
Ed, I'm getting more crap about using. Can you take a look?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:59, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It looks like he removed the speedy tag, let me know if there are any more problems. — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  02:43, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

AfD
I've nominated an article, Puckheads, from which you removed a PROD tag in 2008, for deletion. The article does not cite any reliable secondary sources, as it did not when you removed the PROD tag. I believe it to be non-notable. If you have comments, they would be welcome at the AfD page. Thanks. &mdash; KV5  •  Talk  •  00:30, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Heh, that was two years ago. I don't even remember looking at the page, much less removing the prod. :-) — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  02:44, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the vote of confidence.
I am not really sure what to do with my new "powers", don't think I am ever gonna use any of them, but thanks for the vote of confidence. Yoenit (talk) 08:15, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Oke, I discovered rollback is a total pain in the ass. When reading wiki on my phone it is right below the "diff" and "hist" links on my watchlist and because I have fat fingers it just caused me to rollback the MILHIST announcements template, which is something I don't plan on doing again. Could you be so kind to take it away? Yoenit (talk) 09:10, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I removed it for you. I know what you mean about fat fingers - I accidentally blocked Cometstyles about a day after I got the admin bit. Parsecboy (talk) 10:29, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I just went through the OMT members quick and saw you hadn't gotten them. I won't be doing much with pending changes either unless it gets rolled out wiki-wise, but better to have it than not. :) Lol, good work Yoenit. Don't worry, it happens (we understand!), and me or stalkers people like Parsec can easily clean it up. — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  04:51, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 14 June 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 21:30, 15 June 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, 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) 03:14, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the nomination for the Oak Leaves. The award took me by complete but pleasant surprise :). Best regards, Constantine  ✍  10:11, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Good, I was hoping you wouldn't notice it until you received it! It was my pleasure to nominate you; you truly deserved it. Heck, you probably deserve more. Thanks for all the education I have received from your articles, and on behalf on MILHIST, thanks for your contributions to the Byzantine milhist articles. Byzantine navy, in particular, was one of the most interesting and informative articles I have ever read on Wikipedia. Regards, — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  21:24, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Raccoon
Hey Ed, I was just checking the move protection on the scheduled TFAs. I'm sure it wasn't intended, but you removed the indefinite move protection from raccoon by scheduling it to expire after its day on the MP so I hope you don't mind but Ii restored it to indefinite. Best, HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   14:37, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Oops, I thought it was just semi-protected and needed move protection, my bad. Thanks for checking up on me :) — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  21:24, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Well it seems I'm the only one who checks the Main Page- today's featured picture wasn't protected when it went up 00:00 and you;d be surprised how many typos and other obvious mistakes come up at WP:ERRORS! HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   22:14, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I watched all the June TFA pages and add protection when Raul posts the blurbs and they come up on my watchlist. I can do that with TFP's too, if that will reduce your workload... — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  22:56, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

RfA
Thank you very much for your contribution to my Rfa. I have made a comment about it at User talk:JamesBWatson which you are, of course, very welcome to read if you wish to. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:42, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 June 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 19:45, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Eminem
Please either restore the semi protection to Eminem which you removed, or else, why don't you spend your time reverting the constant vandalism? Everard Proudfoot (talk) 17:40, 23 June 2010 (UTC)


 * (Unlurking) Are you aware that the article is part of the Pending Changes trial? This is to test supplementing protecton by allowing edits to be made, but requiring edits made by IP and non-autoconfrmed users to be reviewed first. The trial runs for about 3 months, and is primarily to test the viability of using Pending changes in lieu of semi-protection and full protection. Those edits are not viewable on the page unless approved by a reviewer. As you are a rollbacker, you would probably be eligible for Reviewer rights (I looked, but I didn't see where that had been applied to you as yet). - BilCat (talk) 18:47, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I couldn't have said it better than BilCat&mdash;thank you, stalker. :) — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  02:36, 24 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I haven't applied for Reviewer rights, but that still doesn't help these articles which are constant vandalism targets. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 18:33, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Lionel Messi
Why did you change said page back to pending changes mode? It makes a lot of peoples watchlists go nuts with the constant vandalism. Please change it back again. Sandman888 (talk) 14:07, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Because I was an idiot and thought Risker had accidentally unprotected without adding the pending changes. I wasn't aware at the time that pending changes actions are not contained in an article's protection log, which led to my confusion. However, is it really an unmanageable amount of vandalism? The article seems to be doing just fine at the moment. I will be happy to reprotect if the vandalism grows again. Regards,` — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  02:33, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Abundant vandalism, please change it back. Sandman888 (talk) 14:48, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Shameless request
I think it was you who mentioned wanting to work on RMS Titanic in the past. If you haven't noticed, that article has just been nominated at WP:GAN under the transport category and could use an excellent reviewer who has plenty of experience with ship articles. I would jump on it, but I'm going on wikibreak for a few days starting tomorrow and won't be able to. I just completed a thorough copyedit to put the article in compliance with WikiProject Ships/Guidelines and saw some problems with unreliable referencing, that might get passed without notice by an inexperienced reviewer. Would you mind doing the review? -MBK004 02:59, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * *jumps in the air* I'm not terribly excited to review an article that long, but it's Titanic. Who in their right mind refuses a chance to force themselves to work on an article like that? :-) On the flip side, there are reference problems in abundance; unformatted and/or unreliable sourcing... eek. I'll do what I can, but the work required probably means that I won't be able to review it. — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  03:18, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll be willing to work on it, but I'm not that competent in the less blatant aspects of referencing. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 04:47, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Ed, Hi
Hi Ed, I did leave a note for you on my talk page where you had informed me that you had changed my oppose vote without taking my consent. But just wanted to extend this olive branch to communicate that wrt Left's RFA, my oppose vote was all meant in good humor. All you should have done is to leave a note on my talk page asking me to remove my oppose vote, and I would have done that yesterday itself. In fact, frankly, I was going to do that today morning -- and had logged on to just do that -- when I saw your note. Olive branch Ed, Olive branch :) Cheers.  ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪    ―Œ  ♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣  04:00, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 June 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 22:18, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

WikiCup 2010 June newsletter
We're half way through 2010, and the end of the WikiCup is in sight! Round 3 is over, and we're down to our final 16. Our pool winners were (A),  (B, and the round's overall leader),  (C)  and  (D, joint), but, with the scores reset, everything is to play for in our last pooled round. The pools will be up before midnight tonight, and have been selected randomly by J Milburn. This will be the toughest round yet, and so, as ever, 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.

Though unaffiliated with the WikiCup, July sees the third Great Wikipedia Dramaout- a project with not dissimilar goals to the WikiCup. Everyone is welcome to take part and do their bit to contribute to the encyclopedia itself.

If you're interested in the scores for the last round of the Cup, please take a look at WikiCup/History/2010/Round 3 and WikiCup/History/2010/Full/Round 3. Our thanks go to for compiling these. As was predicted, Group C ended up the "Group of Death", with 670 points required for second place, and, therefore, automatic promotion. This round will probably be even tougher- again, the top two from each of the two groups will make it through, while the twelve remaining participants will compete for four wildcard places- good luck everyone! 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