User:The ed17/Archives/36

WikiCup 2011
Child of Midnight is blocked until August. Corvus cornix talk  03:19, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * He was still here but I don't see him anywhere else. Thanks! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:54, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Re: WikiCup signup

 * You had already signed up, see Wikipedia:WikiCup/History/2011/Contestants. :-) Regards, Ed

Hi Ed! You may have me confused with someone else—I do not appear on the contestants list. However, I'd like to sign up. Cheers and happy New Year, —Ynhockey (Talk) 11:28, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Ping
I've emailed you. J Milburn (talk) 22:05, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Got it and replied Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:35, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Tall ship
You are right. Thank you. --Keysanger 23:53, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

1961 Indian annexation of Goa
Hi ed, wondering if you can look into something for me. I am currently and have been in a discussion over the title of the 1961 Indian annexation of Goa page. The current title is entirely inappropriate for a military conflict, and is not used in literature on the subject. At the very least a tag stating the title is in dispute should be on the page. A tag used to be on the page, but an editor recently removed the tag and refuses to allow it to remain, despite the fact that the title is still in dispute. I dont want to keep edit warring with this fellow, my question is what do i do now?XavierGreen (talk) 07:22, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I've commented on the talk page. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 08:44, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your input and fast response!XavierGreen (talk) 04:32, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You're welcome, and good luck. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:59, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Chilean ships names in WP
Hi, for the Chilean ships I think the best name is (Chilean) (ship type) (ship name) (year commisioned). For example Chilean corvette Abtao (1865). --Keysanger 21:55, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * If it isn't ambiguous, the commissioning year isn't needed (WP:NC-SHIP)... but there are going to be a lot of ambiguous names given Chile's ship naming policies! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:59, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 3 January 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 01:23, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Minas Geraes-class battleship
Hi, mate, in the Minas Geraes-class battleship article I think there is a source missing from the References section. In the Endnotes, there is a source by "Morgan", but it doesn't seem to appear in the References. I haven't commented on this at the ACR because I'm trying to reduce my involvement in the ACR process as a reviewer at the moment, so that I can help out with the closing. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:22, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Oops, that'll be Morgan's chapter in Naval Mutinies of the Twentieth Century. I'll add it as soon as I get back from San Francisco (ie I have my sources again!) Thanks very much for the note. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 16:06, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Good luck
Good luck with the Campus Ambassador thing - it looks really interesting. San Francisco is an interesting city as well. While you're in town you might want to take a photo of the bow of the USS Indiana (BB-58) in Berkeley, which is here (you can see it on Google street view). Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 10:06, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks Nick, you can be one too if you want. ;-) If I can get over there, I definitely will -- we have a full day's slate of action toda/tomorrow, then I fly out Thursday. Thanks for the note... I certainly didn't know they have Indiana's bow on display here! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 16:06, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Empire of Brazil FAC is now open!
Empire of Brazil is now a Featured Article candidate. Your opinion (either as support or oppose) is welcome. Here is the page: Featured article candidates/Empire of Brazil/archive1. Kind regards, --Lecen (talk) 18:51, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the notice Lecen, I'll take a look as soon as possible. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:54, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Invitation to join WikiProject United States

 * Thanks Kumioko, I've joined. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:54, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Great, Welcome to the Project! Please let me know if you have any questions, commments or suggestions.--Kumioko (talk) 20:59, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Milhist A-Class and Peer Reviews Oct–Dec 2010

 * Thanks Ian for the award and the work that went into putting the table together! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:24, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Re:Judges' pool
Don't worry, I'm counting :P J Milburn (talk) 12:27, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Military historian of the Year 2010

 * Thanks Kirill, much appreciated! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 15:24, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

10 party
You've got email. htom (talk) 05:55, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Replied, thanks Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 15:24, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * and more. htom (talk) 06:10, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Yamato
I have some problems with the displacement which was chosen for the infobox in Yamato class battleship. Those data, based on Jackson as source, are: Since the difference between "standard" and "full load" consists mainly of fuel, this would mean a fuelreserve of only 1.889 t - which just does not comply with any other source (but one, to be honest). Do you remember some sort of debate on that topic where I can find out why Jacksons book was used as source? with best regards, Alexpl (talk) 12:52, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 69,988 long tons (71,111 t) standard
 * 72,000 long tons (73,000 t) full load
 * I haven't seen Jackson's book, but I'm not inclined to think that it's better than Jentschura, Garzke and Dulin, or Skulski. I always prefer the more specialized books over more general surveys. The Treaty definition of standard doesn't include ammo or most reserve feed water for the boilers so the figures above seem way out of line. Sturton's book, which is also a general survey of battleships, quotes 62,135 standard and 69,990 full load, much more reasonable.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:52, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I can check G&D next time I go home – you both make good points. I'll ping Cam, perhaps he has more. Can anyone view the limited preview of Conway's 1922–46 on Google Books? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:44, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, I already did that while working on the german Yamato-class artcile, I just came to en.wiki to reassure before upoading it:
 * Standard Displacement (as defined in the Washington Treaty 02/1922) is the ship fully loaden with everything but fuel and boiler reserve feed water. (see G&D page 5) Trial displacement is 67% fuel on board, Full ist 100 % Fuel. (ts=long tons / mt= metrical tons)
 * 64.000 ts (65.027 mt) Standard (G&D)
 * 69.988 ts (71.110 mt) Full Load, 6.300 ts of fuel (G&D)
 * 62.315 ts standard Standard (Conways)
 * 67.123 ts trial (Conways)
 * 69.990 ts Full load (Conways), 6.300 ts fuel (oil)


 * 65.000 ts Standard (Skulski)
 * 72.809 ts Full (Skulski), 6.300 ts of fuel

The 1946 USNTMJ reports, which evidently formed the basis for most publications, note several, different displacements. A few examples:
 * 64.000 mt Standard in Report S-01-5
 * 62-63.000 mt Standard in Report S-01-3
 * 72.200 mt Full in Report S-01-3
 * 72.809 ts Full Load in Report S-06-2 (match with Skulski)
 * 69.935 mt standard S-01-4 (translated japanese document)

edit: To defend Jackson, report S-01-4 states 1.900 tons of fuel for Yamato, but the same table notes 2.410 tons for CL Ōyodo, failing a simple probability-check.

Aside from various japanese books. Alexpl (talk) 10:17, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * If you can give me a page number for G&D, I'll update the en article (I'm assuming G&D are more reliable than the '46 report because they would have had access to all the relevant information + Shizuo Fukui). Thanks for bringing this up! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:50, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Battleships: axis and neutral battleships in World War II / William H. Garzke,Robert O. Dulin / ISBN 0-87021-101-3 / P. 53 Alexpl (talk) 19:53, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll add this tomorrow. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 07:20, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiCup
Your thoughts would be appreciated. J Milburn (talk) 17:50, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Replied there. I'm not going to make a decision yet because I don't have diffs and I'm not poring through that long history for his edits. :p As soon as I see he has added a significant amount of content, I think he can have the points, even if they were later overwritten... this is an interesting case because of the ridiculous amount of attention it has received on-wiki. Normally the updates are to obscure elections and there is a clear author. ;-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:50, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Tucson shooting diffs
Here I think are my main content additions to 2011 Tucson shooting:

And some smaller ones:

In total I made 57 edits. I counted that I added about 3200 bytes, while Eternal Reaper added 4212 bytes here and got 10 points. I'm not sure whether my contribution was as good as his; probably not. Nanobear (talk) 19:30, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Source?
Hiya ed, don't know if you can use this, but they did make mention of a few interesting facts about the SoDaks in this Popular Mechanics article, for what its worth :) TomStar81 (Talk) 03:38, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Mostly basic facts, but thanks :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 07:20, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Duly noted. At the moment I just wanted to get something to this effect in the article, as hard as it may be to believe this is in fact my third try at such a section. Still needs work, but thats why I have a PR open for the article and not a ACR  :) TomStar81 (Talk) 07:37, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll see about getting to these new comments tomorrow maybe, at the moment I'm out of town on a vacation/business trip of sorts so my access to the building materials is somewhat more limited. I do intend to continue to rebuild the cultural significance section, so look for that to get some trimming and grooming in the next few days. As for the record: I tried removing that once, and the editor who added it original took some offense to the move (this was a while back, mind you). I though it might make a good addition to the gunnery control section since it does help highlight the role of the gunfire control systems - radar and all - played to help the US in general wield what are considered to be better battleships than the Empire of Japan. For the sake of article length though I may remove that to help keep things short and to the point (though I must confess that I would love the see the article go above 100kbs again, its been kind of personal goal during the whole rewrite). At any rate, thanks for comments. Also, on an unrelated side note, OMT got a shout out in the signpost this week for featured content. Go us :) TomStar81 (Talk) 08:12, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Uh, 100kbs is bad, I have a really good internet connection here at university and that page takes a very frustratingly long time to load! Cut anything and everything extraneous please! :-) I saw the shout-out -- it was a nice consolation for not getting the FT of the year ;-) (though that deservingly went to YM's cricket topic... that is/was a ridiculous achievement) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 08:20, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 January 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 05:58, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Iowa class battleship
What's with all the in-text comments on this article. I hope they're only temporary place holders while you work on the article - they certainly aren't appropriate for a wikipedia article. Dpmuk (talk) 17:29, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, they are certainly temporary., who is working on the article, will be addressing them in the next few days – if he doesn't start by tomorrow, I'll go through and hide them all. Regards, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:06, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Ed, I've been working to trim, cite, and otherwise address the issues you brought up the section; I wonder if you might look at what is there now and leave any additional comments before I turn my full attention to the comments you left in the other sections. I know that some trimming could still be carried out in the section, but at the moment I'm more interested in making sure that what is there and what has been added there are accurate, cited to reliable sources, and free of any addition clarification. I'm sure if you spot something others will call me for later, so I'd rather get to this now before it becomes an opposition issue at the impending ACR/FAC. As fair warning, at the moment the article is 100kbs (sorry, still working on the size issue). Thanks in advance, TomStar81 (Talk) 01:41, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the bump, I'll look at this asap. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:25, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

A belated Happy New Year & a question
Ed, thank you for the New Year's salutations, and I have question.


 * 1) I recently did Foal Eagle which, if you look at the article's talk page, had quite a number of article links.  Foal Eager is what I would characterize as a near current event in so far as the sourcing is limited only to the Internet.  I did an extensive web search, and the principal source was GlobalSecurity.org which draws mostly on DOD news releases, with many no longer available elsewhere.  I am consequently curious about why this article was adjudged to be a Start article because referencing and citation were not met.  I can assure you that there is no much left to cultivate, and I did do the citations correctly.  Ditto this regarding the Korean Project.
 * 2) As part of my ongoing effort to create Carrier Strike Group articles, I recently completed Carrier Strike Group Fifteen, and I followed the same approach in its research and development as I have in my previous carrier strike group articles which have all been adjudged as B-Class article, with Carrier Strike Group Nine was a noteworthy example that could be a potential A-List or FA article.  Admittedly, Carrier Strike Group Fifteen was an anomalous article since it was created for the Ronald Reagan strike group, it never deployed overseas, and it was disestablished.  However, for completeness, I wrote this article, and I used the same approach that I did for all of my previous carrier strike group articles.  Yet, Carrier Strike Group Fifteen was adjudged as not meeting referencing and citation, coverage and accuracy, and structure by the Military History assessor, and not meet on all five criteria by the Ship Project assessor, although my approach was the same as my previous article.

Could you review and advise. As you know, the articles that I write represent a major commitment of time and effort, and I want to do the best that I can. Thanks! Marcd30319 (talk) 19:44, 11 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Hey Marc, you're welcome. :-) You assessed Foal Eagle yourself but forgot to add a |class=. The reviewer used your assessment (with three no's) and added "start" to |class=. It's a B, and I've edited the rating to reflect that. In the future, leave the |B1=, |B2= , etc. blank. The only thing is that you should expand the lead, but I'm not going to hold up B-class based on that.
 * CSG9 is definitely a B-class article. I don't see how B1 isn't met, so I've reassessed this article as well. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:06, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

New Years Message for WikiProject United States
With the first of what I hope will be monthly newsletters I again want to welcome you to the project and hope that as we all work together through the year we can expand the project, create missing articles and generally improve the pedia thought mutual cooperation and support. Now that we have a project and a solid pool of willing members I wanted to strike while the iron is hot and solicite help in doing a few things that I believe is a good next step in solidifiing the project. I have outlined a few suggestions where you can help with on the projects talk page. This includes but is not limited too updating Portal:United States, assessing the remaining US related articles that haven't been assessed, eliminating the Unrefernced BLP's and others. If you have other suggestions or are interested in doing other things feel free. I just wanted to offer a few suggestions were additional help is needed. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions, comments or suggestions or you can always post something on the projects talk page. If you do not want to recieve a monthly message please put an * before your name on the members page.--Kumioko (talk) 05:05, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle
I'm suffering from complete and utter Writer's Inspiration Block at the moment w/ regards to the "from the editors" section. Would you be able to jot something down for the section? I'll add my 2c after that. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 19:51, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I've got class soon, but I'll add some after (after 8 eastern time) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:53, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll be at debate until about 9 (we're in the same timezone), so I'll double-check anything after that. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 20:37, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Harry S. Truman Carrier Strike Group and John C. Stennis Carrier Strike Group
Ed, I hate to air my laundry, but BuckShot60 has been ceaselessly in altering Harry S. Truman Carrier Strike Group and John C. Stennis Carrier Strike Group, and his fixation on trying to merge these two articles into as-yet unwritten article on U.S. Navy Carrier Division/Carrier Group articles. Please review my posting to Buck's talk page below, as well as my reasoning, approach, and objectives. Since 1992, carrier battle groups like the Harry S. Truman Carrier Strike Group have been more integrated unlike earlier carrier battle formations (Carrier Division/Carrier Group) which are merged operationally into either Task Force 77 in the Far East or Task Force 60 in the Mediterranean but are administrated via their Carrier Division/Carrier Group. Based on his splash page, Buck's expertise appears to be in military ground formation, and naval forces can be confusing, particularly as it pertain to the U.S. Navy. Please review my talk page, too, and the two article's histories. Sorry to toss this your way, but you maybe you can sort things out. Thanks! Marcd30319 (talk) 01:04, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Harry S. Truman Carrier Strike Group
Buck, allow me to outine my approach and objective and my intentions for this article and the other carrier strike group articles:


 * It is to create an article on Carrier Division Two and integrate the Harry S. Truman Carrier Strike Group (HSTCSG) with the other carriers that have been part of CarDiv 2/CarGru 2: YORKTOWN, ENTERPRISE, USS FRANKLIN (CV 13), USS LEXINGTON (CV 16), USS WASP, USS ESSEX, USS BENNINGTON, USS BOXER, USS ANTIETAM, USS PRINCETON, USS TARAWA, USS LEYTE, USS CORAL SEA, USS ROOSEVELT, USS INTREPID, USS RANDOLPH, USS INDEPENDENCE (CV 61), USS CONSTELLATION (CV 64), USS SARATOGA (CV 60), USS JOHN C. STENNIS (CVN 74) and USS JOHN F. KENNEDY (CV 67). This list is from GlobalSecurity.org which was undoubtedly a cut-and-paste from the old GarGru 2 website.


 * The reason that I am treating HSTCSG differently is that it was formed after 1992 when the U.S. Navy mandated greater integration of its surface warfare and air warfare assets that eventually evolved into carrier strike groups, per Polmar, Ships and Aircraft of the U.S. Fleet 15th ed., 1993. So, HSTCSG is a stand-alone article that will be linked to the master article about CarDiv 2/CarGru 2 with the carriers mentioned above that will be included in said master article.  Therefore, it seems appropriate to have HSTCSG as part of Carrier Group Two in the Infobox which will be linked it the CarDiv 2/CarGru 2 master article, which will again include the other carriers.  Also, any admistrative/operational issues are addressed in the Overview section of the Article.


 * I will also take this approach with other Carrier Strike Group and Carrier Division precursors, as well as any post-1992 CSG/CVBGs.

The bottom line is that I request that you allow me the opportunity to finish this long-term project. The more time I spend going around these incidental edits, the less time I have to finish this objective. If you want, I am sure Ed17 can supervise this since he has expertise from coordinating the Titan project. If you have any suggestions, please drop off any suggestions at my rockin' new talk page, and I promise to respond ASAP. I have put a lot of effort into these articles, and I want to move forward. I am juggling a new job and many other responsibilities, and I'd like to make my Wikipedia contributions to be a more manageable process. Your forbearance and trust can go a long way to accomplishing both tasks. Thank you for your time and insights.


 * To make sure I am clear here, Buckshot wants the articles to be renamed to reflect what their military designation (eg "Carrier Strike Group Two") was? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:49, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Ed, you can read Buckshot 60's response to the above on my talk page. Enough said. Marcd30319 (talk) 23:20, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Ed, I have attempted to raise my concerns about the carrier strike group articles with Marcd30319 at User_talk:Marcd30319. This discussion may benefit from somebody watching it, and I feel that User:Nick-D, who I would normally approach, would probably be too sympathetic to me. Please be aware the issue is being discussed and that a third opinion may be valuable. Kind regards and Happy New Year from New Zealand !! Buckshot06 (talk) 05:11, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Hey Buckshot, I'll keep an eye on it, but right now I'm going to wait for a couple more back-and-forths. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 08:38, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

New WikiProject Novels initiative
We have begun a new initiative at the WikiProject Novels: an improvement drive. As a member listed here, you are being notified. Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Novels and WikiProject Novels/Collaboration for more details. Also I would like to remind you to keep an eye on the project talk page at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Novels. Thanks, Sadads (talk) 01:51, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Almirante Latorre-class battleship at FAC
I'll be happy to support this at FAC if my support will do any good ... I can't tell if other reviewer's concerns have been answered or not. - Dank (push to talk) 20:40, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I've been really busy. I'm going to try to address your concerns after this reply, then on to Minas Geraes, then (hopefully) on to Tom. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:25, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Never mind, I'm falling asleep here (I love opening at work) -- I'll get to them tomorrow for sure. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:37, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Almirante Latorre-class battleship
"I don't want a footnoted link. I want to read this in the article. This is a general encyclopedia, and who the ship is named after, and who the ship-class is named after are major general information, not a footnote". My God. Shouldn't there be a school to teach how readers are supposed to review an article? How many times did I see an editor demand that we follow his personal taste only to get his approval?

Anyway, I'm going to review the article. Hope you don't mind. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 13:22, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That was definitely one of the more blunt reviews I have ever received. I like working with reviewers to solve issues, as you can probably tell in my replies to Kleo. I can also stand it when a subject expert (in my case, User:Sturmvogel 66, User:Parsecboy, etc.) comes along and tells me I'm missing or don't have enough of something in the article. Going ballistic over a relatively minor issue doesn't lend itself to collegial collaborations. :-) Thanks Lecen, and I'll try to get over to your FAC tomorrow between classes. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:50, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't worry. I didn't read the article expecting you to look at my nominations. I like the subject. Rest easy. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 12:25, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 January 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 19:39, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

25 DYK Medal

 * Thanks Bushranger! Much appreciated. Hope the wiki and RL are treating you well! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:23, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Wiki's treating me better than RL, but all in all it's OK, I reckon. :) - The Bushranger One ping only 16:15, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Be my mentor please!?
Hi Ed! My name is Emily...I'm a junior at James Madison University. We are doing a project in my Technical Editing class that involves editing articles and, eventually, writing one for Wikipedia. I was hoping you would be my mentor. Let me know!

Thank you!

Ander2em (talk) 20:05, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Hello Emily! I would be happy to be your mentor. Let me know if you need help with anything, either on this page, by email, or on IRC, where my nickname is Ed17. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:11, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * FYI, might want to take a look at my talk page, Sadads (talk) 23:25, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Dom, Don, etc...
Ed, why did you sayd that "dom" is the abreviation of a foreign word? "Dom" or "Don" is a word of its own, not an abreviation. --Lecen (talk) 22:05, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I thought it was short for Dominus (title)? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:09, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No, it has its far origins in "Dominus", just as "Emperor" came from "Imperator". The title "Dom" is also used in English. John Chapman (priest), for example, as you can see in his article, is also a "Dom". So, although not very common in English, it does exist. --Lecen (talk) 22:42, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, sounds fine with me! :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:20, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * So, should it really be in italics? --Lecen (talk) 00:21, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * In this case, no. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:29, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I need you help
Ed, first of all, thank you for the comments on my use page. Also, I need you help and advise on Buckshot06. See below:

User_talk:Marcd30319

Also:

User_talk:Buckshot06

I know that Buckhot06 is an administrator, but I want some stability in the articles that I have written, at considerable time and effort on my part, before I can undertake any new articles. He has "created" two article, Carrier Group Two and Carrier Group Seven, using the content from the earlier articles with virtually no additional research. I think the articles regarding carrier strike groups are perfectly adequate, but he is bound and determined to re-write them to his standards. I am a senior technical writer with nearly 30 years of experience in writing, editing, and research. I have worked at a number of Fortune 500 companies, including two defense contractors. I have held a DOD SECRET security clearance. I have been a member of the U.S. Naval Institute since 1975. I am a qualified and knowledgeable writer-editor, not some rookie who needs some guy from New Zealand whose expertise is in ground warfare to tell me how to write an article on naval history. How can I get this guy off my ass? ZI am extremely frustrated, and I feel his efforts to create a dialogue is nothing but a monologue of dictates from the gentleman in question. I need an intervention. Please advise me. Marcd30319 (talk) 21:49, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Buckshot is just trying to assist you in making the article more accessible for the sorry souls that are uninitiated into naval lore. :-) I am extremely short on time and can't take an full in-depth look into this, but I think you guys can find common ground here. He does have a point with article length and some of the repetition between articles – as he says, you may be able to eliminate some of the redundancies by creating a couple new articles, even if they are short stubs. Some of his other concerns don't have merit though, like I'm relatively sure pipelinking is not a server drain. The biographical notes, while unusual in a Wikipedia article, are not specifically disallowed as far as I can tell.
 * Your articles are extremely interesting for me to read, and I'm sure that is true for many other people. Still, Wikipedia is a different style of writing than your other pursuits, and I think Buckshot can help with the wiki-side of your excellent writing, including dividing the articles into conforming with other articles' names and styles (eg like a journal enforcing a common citation style among its article submissions). Why not let him edit CBG3 and see what he does? You may find a common ground to work with each other. Interactions like this are common throughout Wikipedia; it's a forgone conclusion that others will edit 'your' articles with mostly minor edits, but occasionally major ones. Buckshot is not trying to hound you, he's simply doing what he believes is in interest of the encyclopedia as a whole.
 * I realize this isn't quite what you were hoping for, but please – give him a chance to edit and, yes, move the parts of your article around. Collaboration, assisting, and editing each other's writing is how Wikipedia works. It's quite unlike the Naval Institute or industry writing... it's a completely new approach. :-) Your writing will still be there for the world to see, but it may be organized differently from the way you are used to doing it. Your friend as always, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:19, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Dear Marcd30319 (and The ed17). I hear your frustration but I am beginning to be tired of the personal attacks. Please remain WP:Civil. I particularly resent the complaint that my 'expertise is in ground warfare.' I'm able to send you, should you be interested, an article both on the order of battle of the Navy based upon the Standard Naval Distribution List and a massive amount of other research, and an article on the Task Force structure laid down by the USMCEB and administered by the CCEB and AUSCANNZUKUS. Now, as you say, I am an administrator and I am under an obligation to behave particularly correctly, so I have not started to complain about your actions. Therefore please stop insulting me. It will make for an easier dispute resolution task all round. Buckshot06 (talk) 06:47, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

it's go time
Featured list candidates/List of battlecruisers of Japan/archive1 - Cam (Chat)(Prof) 03:55, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 January 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 01:44, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Marian reforms
Hello ed! I have a number of books on the Roman army in general with chapters dedicated to the Marian reforms (AFAIK there is no book dedicated solely to them). I can recommend Emilio Gabba's Republican Rome, the Army and the Allies, which deals extensively with the professional army of the 1st century BC, Goldsworthy's The Complete Roman Army and Roman Warfare and the 2nd volume of The Cambridge History of Greek and Roman Warfare which have some good concise overviews, as well as Blackwell's A Companion to the Roman Army, which focuses on social, economic etc analysis. Constantine  ✍  17:13, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Glad to be of assistance. Good luck with the paper! Constantine  ✍  13:37, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Carrier Strike Group Two
Well, Ed, it seems that E2a2j has merged Buckshot06's Carrier Group Two with the Carrier Strike Group Two article, and in the process, then proceeded to gut the article that I had spent so much time and effort to write (General reorg; merge CarGru-2, CSG-2, and operations. Cleaned up some less-than-notable stuff and things that pertain to the CVN). BTW - There was no attempt by E2a2j to contact me about this. Buckshot06 was courteous enough to do that although perhaps using the talk page of the individual articles would have minimized any confusion. If you have any comments or suggestions, please do so at my talk page. Thanks for your help! Marcd30319 (talk) 23:41, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to see you leave
I just wanted to tell you I responded to your comments but I also wanted to tell you here that I was sorry to see you leave and I hope you reconsider. Now that I am gone I am hoping that some of the other editors will go away and let the project get down to business. --Kumioko (talk) 01:48, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

JBLM
Greetings, please see my comment on the talk page [] and advise. Thanks Srobak (talk) 18:06, 28 January 2011 (UTC)