User:The ed17/Archives/39

Revert on my talk page?
What's the reason for this ? Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 13:02, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


 * See here. Parsecboy (talk) 13:41, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Ah. A note in the edit summary would have been better than a rollback. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 13:44, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Carrier Strike Group Two
Hello, Ed17. Hope all is well. Buckshot06 is at it again. Not only did he eliminate an entire article, Carrier Strike Group Two 2004-2009 Operations, but he seems to be fixated on certain things:


 * 1) Bulleted listing of ships under Force composition in 2011.  Buckshot06 cites[], specifically "Do not use lists if a passage reads easily using plain paragraphs."  However, would not bulleting these ships be more readable as well as making it easier the update the list when ships are taken out or en ter service?
 * 2) Buckshot06 considers Mission capabilties and Command structure as being redundant, but I think their brief inclusion is helpful to the reader.

I could go on, but quite frankly I am growing tired of this nonsense. These articles would not exist without my efforts, and it just proves that power is corrupting and bureaucrats are the bane of creativity. Is there any way to get this squared up. This nonsense is a total turn-off and disincentive for doing anything at Wikiedpia. There is no collaboration, only dictatorial directives. I have worked successful with other editor at Wikipedia, but Buckshot06 is impossible. Please advise. Thanks! BTW - the edit tools do not work. Marcd30319 (talk) 21:53, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, Marcd30319, you could clearly say I'm 'at it again.' But so are you. I specifically requested you to leave CSG 3 alone and present an alternative picture of how these articles could be presented to our readers. You ignored me and proceeded to revert it back to your preferred DOD DANFS heavy ish version. Thus I recreated the alternative at an article that User:E2a2j had already changed - and you'd reverted. You'll remember that splitting out the various operations by five year intervals was your reaction to my telling you that the articles were too long. I've removed the necessity for a split-out article, by removing a large amount of extraneous references etc and material which duplicates other wikipedia articles. It's now under 50k. All I've done is merged the material back in, changed some of the prose around to make it more accessible to those who are not already DOD specialists, and move it toward standard wikipedia guidelines so that it can go towards FA in due course. You appear to have no interest in wikipedia guidelines - only replicating US DOD views on these formations outside a DOD webpage. Wikipedia is not a DOD webpage. I also feel constantly the need to reiterate to you (1) WP:OWN - every edit box has the note 'If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here.' You've said on several occasions that you would rather leave - I suggested you might be interested in Citizendium. The simple fact of the matter is that once you move on from articles like Triton that more people are going to wish to alter the way you present the information. How many times do I have to tell you (1) people will edit your writing so it is closer to the MOS eg - MOS, and (2) you don't need to replicate information already present at other articles - that's what the base article Carrier Strike Group is for.
 * Now, I specifically asked you to leave CSG 3 in this alternative format. Once people look at it and compare the alternatives we get third party views and eventually the community determines what they like best. I will ask you again: please, since the best alternative format article now seems to be Carrier Strike Group Two, please leave that in its amended form. Then eventually we can let the wider readership decide what they like best. Kind regards Buckshot06 (talk) 22:54, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Just one example. I changed 'A detachment of F/A-18C Hornet strike fighters from Fighter Squadron Composite 12 (VFC-12) was deployed to Naval Air Station Jacksonville, Florida, to provide adversary flight training for the Carrier Air Wing Eight during its COMPTUEX and JTFEX training.' to 'A detachment of F/A-18C Hornet strike fighters from Fighter Squadron Composite 12 (VFC-12) was deployed to Naval Air Station Jacksonville, Florida, to provide adversaries for Carrier Air Wing Eight during its COMPTUEX and JTFEX training.' We're supposed to be writing for generalists, not specialists, and it would be good to write good English. Is it such a problem that I make such changes ? Buckshot06 (talk) 23:28, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi guys, I'm in email contact with Marc and I'll be back Friday night to help work this out. I've got a presentation, exam, + two-page page due tomorrow, and evaluations for ~120 employees due Friday... and I'm a bad procrastinator. Connect the dots. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:00, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I'm glad I didn't actually read your full messages until now – I found the changes on my own and came to an opinion before reading what you guys had to say, so hopefully I'm unbiased. The "Mission capabilities" section is redundant, I'm afraid. However, the second and third paragraphs of the command structure section seem helpful, and the ship list is a lot easier to read in a bulleted list. While it is grammatically readable in a paragraph, that many links in a couple lines is brutal to read. As for some of the complex acronyms, we do need to limit them, as most of the people reading these pages will have little to no prior knowledge of military designations. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 07:03, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Ed17m I hope all is well. I did the above changes for Carrier Strike Group One, Carrier Strike Group Three, Carrier Strike Group Nine, Carrier Strike Group Ten, Carrier Strike Group Eleven, and Carrier Strike Group Fourteen.  I recently updated Carrier Strike Group Two, and seeing that the Force composition in 2011 section had not been changed, I updated that section per the above guidance.  When I checked this morning, Buckshot06 undid my change, citing unspecified Wikipedia guidelines.  I thought that we had arrived at a concensus on this issue.  How did we resolve this, again? Marcd30319 (talk) 11:57, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm quite well; it's the summer! Hope you are doing well too. I see you reverted his revert, so let's see if he replies before going nuts. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:51, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Just a quick acknowledgement as I head out the door. 'Unspecified guidance' was the bulletted and numbered list guideline above, and I did so specifically because I asked Marcd30319 to leave one CSG in an alternate format (as per above). That's the gist of it; we can discuss this in more depth later. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 21:18, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Hey Buckshot, thanks for the quick explanation. I really think, though, that the list reads much easier in bulleted form. Obviously it can be rendered in prose, but it is much more accessible in a list. Looking forward to a more thorough reply. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:28, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

India Pakistan cricket
Please can you post it? -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 18:19, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I've already supported and provided as strong a rationale as possible... and no matter what I think of the strength of the opposing arguments, it's still only 4-4 with my !vote. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:30, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Well I suppose I was asking you to act improperly, so fair enough :). -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 18:32, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

WikiCup 2011 March newsletter
We are half way through round two of the WikiCup, which will end on 28 April. Of the 64 current contestants, 32 will make it through to the next round; the two highest in each pool, and the 16 next highest scorers. At the time of writing, our current overall leader is with 231 points, who leads Pool H.  (Pool G) also has over 200 points, while 9 others (three of whom are in Pool D) have over 100 points. Remember that certain content (specifically, articles/portals included in at least 20 Wikipedias as of 31 December 2010 or articles which are considered "vital") is worth double points if promoted to good or featured status, or if it appears on the main page in the Did You Know column. There were some articles last round which were eligible for double points, but which were not claimed for. For more details, see WikiCup/Scoring.

A running total of claims can be seen here. However, numerous competitors are yet to score at all- please remember to submit content soon after it is promoted, so that the judges are able to review entries. The number of points that will be needed to reach round three is not clear- everyone needs to get their entries in now to guarantee their places! If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! 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 and The ed17 01:10, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Milhist FA, A-Class and Peer Reviews Jan-Mar 2011

 * Thanks Ian! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:08, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks for your copy edits on the History of the horse in Britain :o) Pesky  ( talk ) 23:45, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 April 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 01:47, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Make sure that you are checking in on your students work for WP:USPP/C/11/PTE
Hey, just a happy reminder to make sure that you are regularly checking in on your mentees work for JMU'S Technical editing class, Sadads (talk) 11:11, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Questions
Hey Ed. Yes, "incorporação" = commissioning. As for the rest of the sentence, I would render it as "was keel-laid on 17 April 1907, launched 10 September 1908..." the "Mostra de Armamento" is part of the actual commissioning ceremony, which, in this case, took place before the commission was "gazetted".

"Forte" should most certainly be "Fort" in this context! Don't trust Google Translate—help save thousands of starving translators like yours truly ;) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 11:14, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok, now I'm getting scared
Ed, I'm getting worried about DrKiernan's behavior. One thing is to have a different opinion about a subject, but another one is... well, let me explain first. As you know, I have an article which is right now at the FAC page. Yesterday, DrKiernan made several edits with no summary that could explain his reasons. They were even unsourced (See:, and ). For obvious reasons, I reverted them. Then he came to warn me about the 3R rule in my talk page. Eisfbnore came talk to me about it and I explained him what happened and everything was settled. However, DrKiernan's recent messages (See:, and ) revealed that he clearly wants me "out of business". He wants to see me blocked at all costs. Why? Revenge (for what, I don't know)? Or because if I'm blocked he will be able to pass my nomination the way he wants? As you can see, I'm troubled about his behavior and I believe he crossed a line in some moment. What can I do about it? --Lecen (talk) 12:40, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Honestly, not much, as I think both of you could find points in the myriads of "policy" here to support your positions. A question: do all of these need to be translated? I feel like removing them could allow us all to drop the stick. If you think they are needed, I would defer to Dank on the issues with Kiernan. It'll be a lot easier on you. :/ Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:51, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Frederick William III of Prussia, Ferdinand VII of Spain and Maximilian I of Mexico all have their names anglicized. They are not called "Friedrich Wilhelm III", "Fernando VII" and "Maximiliano I", respectively. The Brazilian royals are an exception, since historians prefer to call them by their Portuguese names. However, Wikipedia's readers do not know that. As there are next to those royals' anglicized names their original names, there is nothing that prevent us from saying that "Pedro II" means "Peter II" and that "Maria Amélia" means "Mary Emily" or that "Isabel" means "Elizabeth". There was not a single reviewer who opposed when I successfuly nominated Pedro II of Brazil and no one, except DrKiernan, opposed in Maria Amélia's FAC nomination. Since when DrKiernan is more important than anyone else? I could understand his opposition if I was translating her name wrong, but that's not the case. And I'm tired of these Prima donna editors who got used to get whatever they want. This is one ridiculous article about an unknown 19th Century woman. I could be doing things far more useful but I'm stuck in here because he did not like one thing. --Lecen (talk) 19:22, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see your dilemma a bit more clearly now. Why don't you just ignore his oppose and move on? It should still pass regardless. And FWIW, I don't think it's very common in the US to prefer Amelie over Amelia/Emily. Maybe in Quebec (Francophone!), but not here. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:33, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It was all a matter of taste. He likes "Marie Amelie", not "Mary Emily". If the personal taste of an editor is what counts in a FAC process, I have no idea what we are supposed to do. But forget about it, I'm done with it. And I made that very clear on the FAC talk page. Thank you very much ed, I appreaciate your concern. --Lecen (talk) 16:08, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Interesting post. I'll keep an eye on it. You're very welcome, Lecen. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:55, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Interesting post. I'll keep an eye on it. You're very welcome, Lecen. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:55, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Lexington, etc.
Hey Ed, I replied on my talk re: your question on the German naval mission. On an unrelated note, I just noticed that the 2011 edition of Warship will have an article on the Lexington class battlecruisers, if you were interested in going back to the old article for another run at FAC. Just thought I'd pass it along in case you weren't aware. Parsecboy (talk) 21:00, 8 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh, and another thing: I just ordered Neptune's Inferno, which is supposed to be superb, and US Fast Battleships 1936-1947, which should be useful. I'm thinking I might do some of the American fast BBs once I'm done with Bismarck - do you want to do some more collaborations once you're finished writing the South American BBs? Parsecboy (talk) 21:34, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll get back to you asap on the German navy stuff. Re Lexingtons, I have about three (now four) sources I'd need to get ahold of to get that through FAC, so we'll see. I have US Fast Battleships already, although I don't think I added it to my library; it's pretty good, but the design section of the NCs seemed to paraphrase Friedman for the most part. And yeah, I'm always down for collaborations. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:02, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Sounds good - I still have access to OSU's library (and now that I've been accepted to grad school, will have it for quite some time), so if there's ever anything you can't get through your library or ILL, let me know and I'll see what I can do. We probably both have enough on our plates at the moment, so the collaborations might wait a while. And we still have to finish up the Tosa class so we can turn that GT into an FT :) Parsecboy (talk) 23:07, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks like I have projects for summer. :-) For the Lexington's, I think I need two or three Warship International articles (if I can remember right), but I won't be getting to that article for a while. Thanks! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:55, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'vwe got the old Warship Pictorial, but I'm not sure of the content-picture ratio in that one. Buggie111 (talk) 22:24, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

French warships of WW2
I agree to be a contributor for your project Majestic Titans, as I am, as you have seen it, interested on French modern warships, and specially battleships as the Dunkerque class, the Richelieuclass, including Clemenceau and Gascogne, and the so-called Alsace class battleships. But I am an user on the French Wiki, and when I add on your contributor list, it appears with a red link, as the page « User: Paul-Pierre Valli » would not exist. And I not expert enough in Wikipedia syntax to know how to do.Paul-Pierre Valli (talk) 17:10, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You have to create a page for yourself on the English wikipedia, kind of like you did on the French. Nice to see you helping out with OMT! I myself wanted to work on Richelieu, but lost the book I needed. good luck! Buggie111 (talk) 17:28, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Awesome! If you need any help with anything, feel free to ask me or on WT:OMT. We're a pretty close-knit group of editors, and we're always willing to help out our fellow battleship lovers. :-) I added your name to the list of members. Your friend, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:55, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, I've got Jordan's and Dumas' French Battleships 1922–1956, which should be useful. Let me know if you need any help. Parsecboy (talk) 20:31, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Him or me? The book that I lost was Conway's British, French and Dutch BB's of WWII (or something like that) Buggie111 (talk) 22:26, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Either one, though looking at Paul-Pierre's library below, he probably won't need much help source-wise. Parsecboy (talk) 03:11, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, he's got quite a few sources to work off of! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:12, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

German submarine U-64 (1939)
Hello

As you are my trusted navy-en.wiki-user I want to show you something. I just translated German submarine U-64 (1939) to pl.wiki, and in my opinion that article have couple errors. At least range is incorrect (values are in mile - but probably its mixed with kilometers - range should be probably 12.200 nmi). Also there is no clear information that mines was/wasn`t changed instead of torpedos (1 torpedo = maybe (?) 2 mines). I am sure about range, completly not sure about mines, and in my opinion technical stuff need to be checked.

Can you do this? PMG (talk) 01:26, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 April 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 10:33, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Frank Buckles
I moved everything back on this section of the Frank Buckles article. I was trying to tell a "story" with the pictures and have the quote along the bottom as the "final word" on the subject. With your edits, it threw everything off, plus put the quote into the subsection lines as well, which is frowned upon by FAC people, which is where I intend to take this article. I, do though, appreciate your edits and hope we can work on a happy medium, but as it was, it just threw everything off. -  Neutralhomer •  Talk  • 23:08, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * 'The last word' works fine as a pull quote. Having it all the way across the screen messes with the images, and there are too many images in that section... but you're the author :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:20, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * What is a "pull quote"? I am not the author, I am but one of many authors. :)  We have User:Wehwalt and User:HJ Mitchell doing reviews (Peer and A-Class respectively) and then there is User:Anythingyouwant and User:Joefromrandb working with me on the article, along with a couple others who wander by and make edits and updates.  So, no, I am not the author, just one of many. :)  I would like to keep the images, especially the one of Obama and Buckles' daughter and the one of Buckles laying in Honor.  The other, him being carried to his final resting place, that was put in last night and isn't one that has to be in there, just something that would be nice. -  Neutralhomer  •  Talk  • 23:26, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Pull quote i.e. 33% and aligned to the right. Sort of like North_Carolina-class_battleship, where the pull quote sums up the "Design" section. As for the images, too many is just as bad as too little. Images complement the text, not the other way around – don't overcrowd the article with them! :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:30, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * See, what we had before was this (scroll down to the bottom). That is what it looked like before my changes from last night.  That's when I got the idea for the quote at the bottom and addition of the extra image as the "final word" and "story" idea. -  Neutralhomer  •  Talk  • 23:41, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I put the pull quote in the "See also" section so it didn't interfere with the text and broke up the stacked box. 24% isn't wide enough though. In any case, it's not that big of a problem, just something I was tinkering with! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:49, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I am going to get the person I depend on for opinions on matters like these and see what she thinks. Depending on that, the page might go back to where it was before. -  Neutralhomer  •  Talk  • 00:26, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

How would you feel about having the quote in a template like this: "[T]he hallowed ritual at grave No. 34-581 was not a farewell to one man alone. A reverent crowd of the powerful and the ordinary — President Obama and Vice President Biden, laborers and store clerks, heads bowed — came to salute Buckles’s deceased generation, the vanished millions of soldiers and sailors he came to symbolize in the end."

- Paul Duggan

This would give the quote a better look as it is used with the quote template. -  Neutralhomer •  Talk  • 00:36, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * After speaking with that person that I rely on for how a page should look, I have removed the third picture and put the quote back where it was. -  Neutralhomer •  Talk  • 00:45, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Help!
Hi again, Ed :) I feel kind of lost, so what are the major/minor policy changes that I need to catch up on? Chamal T •C 06:03, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Hey Chamal. I haven't noticed anything big change policy-wise; see Update/1. There's a big focus on newbies and how we are welcoming them. If you decide to do NPP, make sure you are tagging articles correctly. There's also been a strong focus on BLPs, like DYK now allows 2x expansion of unreferenced BLPs. WP:RS is now WP:IRS. We're allowed to italicize article titles now (cf. Minas Geraes-class battleship). :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:19, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * What?? We don't bite newbies anymore? O_o Chamal T •C 08:00, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Apparently we're supposed to welcome them with open arms because new contributor growth is slowing. Fancy that!
 * Oh, and about policy changes, there's a big proposal to restrict article creation to auto-confirmed users only. See the last Signpost. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 08:10, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Heh... wonder why. Thanks :) Chamal T •C 11:05, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Main page appearance
Hello! This is a note to let the main editors of this article know that it will be appearing as the main page featured article on April 19, 2011. You can view the TFA blurb at Today's featured article/April 19, 2011. If you think it is necessary to change the main date, you can request it with the featured article director,. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions of the suggested formatting. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :D Thanks! Tb hotch * ۩ ۞ 06:25, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

 

Design 1047 was a series of plans for a class of Dutch battlecruisers prior to the Second World War. The ships were intended to counter a perceived threat posed by Imperial Japanese aggression to the Dutch colonies in the East Indies. The 1047s were shaped by the need to be able to fight their way though a fleet composed of heavy and light cruisers, and smaller destroyers. It was hoped that this capability would allow the battlecruisers to act as a fleet in being. A preliminary plan was drawn up without foreign assistance, but as they had not previously designed a modern capital ship, and the only information available on modern designs came from public literature and editions of Jane's Fighting Ships, it was missing many of the post-First World War advances in warship technology. With assistance from Germany, a new design was formulated by February 1940. A visit to Italy prompted a rethink of the internal subdivision, which led to a set of drawings dated 19 April 1940. This is the last known design produced prior to Germany's invasion and occupation of the Netherlands. The ships were never constructed. (more...)


 * Congrats Ed! Parsecboy (talk) 18:21, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks Parsec! I stupidly missed the 70-year mark last year, so 71 will have to be good enough :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:29, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I know I've had some centennials go by (mostly because most of the German ships aren't FAs yet). I had hoped to get High Seas Fleet up to FA by the 95th anniversary of Jutland (this May 31st) but I don't know that I'll be able to get it there in time, especially without putting off Bismarck any more than I already am by dragging my feet :) Parsecboy (talk) 01:57, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Go Parsec, go! :p I'd do the HSF first and try for that anniversary unless you want to finish your topic asap... but that's just me. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 14:56, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It's good to see this article on the main page - it really is an excellent piece of work. Nick-D (talk) 08:51, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Ed, I've got the rewrite finished. Dan has agreed to copyedit it once it's ready for FAC (I've got about 2 weeks before the Bayern FAC closes), but since there won't be time for an ACR, do you think you could look it over and see what needs to be fixed? I posted a note over at WT:OMT so hopefully some of the other regulars will lend me a hand as well. Parsecboy (talk) 11:01, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks Nick! Parsec, I'll get to it asap. I have exams coming up and the typical end-of-semester crunch is hitting me. :( If I haven't looked it over by Thursday next week, poke me again. Ed [talk] [majestic titan]

Battle of Caldera Bay
Hey Ed! As your currently ensconsed in the ABC arms race, I was wondering if you could help me push Battle of Caldera Bay to and beyond GA-class. I know that finals are coming up soon, but I'm still curious. I've pasted and hidden some google books refs into the article, but I doubt they will offer much content. Thanks, Buggie111 (talk) 02:39, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll poke around Carleton's library and see if I can find anything as well. They're surprisingly well-stocked in South American history (and Operation Overlord, as I found out last week). Cam (Chat)(Prof) 16:57, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I think Scheina has some information. I'll try to add a bit tonight. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:19, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Uh, this isn't going to happen right now... just found myself crazy behind in school, dammit. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:21, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

IPA
Hi. In Brazilian Portuguese the final 's' is pronouced as 's' or 'z' according to the next sound. Before a voiceless sound, it is pronounced 's' and not 'sh'. It is true that some dialects (mainly in Rio de Janeiro) do pronounce this way but it is not widespread. Lechatjaune (talk) 18:49, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Many dialects of BP maintain syllable-final [s] and [z] as such, while EP consistently converts them to [ʃ] and [ʒ]. Whether such a change happens in BP is highly dialect-specific. Rio de Janeiro is particularly known for such a pronunciation.Lechatjaune (talk) 18:56, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * If you know you're right, feel free to change it back; I'm no expert by any means. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:19, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Newsletter column on FAC reviewing
We'd like to put a column in our monthly Milhist newsletter encouraging people review at FAC, or at least to assist the frequent FAC reviewers. Is there anything that new reviewers could do at FAC that you would find particularly helpful? (Watching) - Dank (push to talk) 18:54, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * New reviewers could help the most by just doing prose reviews. The more complex reviews can be picked up after observation of others doing them, but the easiest hoop to jump through is just reading through and double-checking the copyeditor. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:19, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I've put all the responses together here; feel free to add or subtract. - Dank (push to talk) 03:26, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, IMO WikiProject_Military_history/News/March_2011/Editorials is ready to go, whenever you guys are ready to publish the March newsletter. Feel free to tweak. - Dank (push to talk) 19:15, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Almost missed this. Pinging Cbrown now. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:02, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Mentor
Hi, (".")My name is Shirley Marshall-Kelly. I am a senior at Texas Southern University majoring in Public Affairs with a minor in Business. I am currently enroll in Seminar in PUblic affairs whereby my professor has requested that we either edit or create an article on this site. I am currently seeking a mentor to help me navigate. I would appreciate your mentorship. My email address is shirley.kelly56@undefinedcomcast.net "." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kellysa222 (talk • contribs) 19:26, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Princess Maria Amélia of Brazil
Princess Maria Amélia of Brazil is now a Featured Article. It took months to see that happen and it was an unnecessarily painful process. But it's over and now I'm free to go. But before doing that, I had to come here and make you know that I'm in debt not only for this one full support you gave me but for all the other moments you helped me. I'm really grateful for all that. Thank you very much, Ed. Kind regards, --Lecen (talk) 12:36, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You're quite welcome, and I'll be happy to help more when you return. :-) In the meantime, don't be afraid to sign on and say hello from time to time. Your friend, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:21, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 April 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 06:53, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Gallant Hours-Montgomery-Halsey-Cagney.jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Gallant Hours-Montgomery-Halsey-Cagney.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Damiens .rf 20:25, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Ed17, hope all is well. I wanted to alert you about this proposed deletion.  I think we discussed it previously in connection with the World War Two biopic of Admiral Halsey, the Gallant Hours.  Any help will be appreciated. Thanks!  Marcd30319 (talk) 11:28, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note Marc! I still had the image on my watchlist though, so I would have seen it anyway :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:54, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Ed, I have added the following paragraph to the Production section of the The Gallant Hours article. I think this should resolve any questions about the significance of this image.Marcd30319 (talk) 20:53, 30 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Under his contract agreement with Cagney-Montgomery Productions, Admiral Halsey would receive 10 per cent of the profits from the motion picture. During a visit with his son, William F. Halsey III, in La Jolla, California, Admiral Halsey went to Camp Pendelton where The Gallant Hours was being filmed (pictured). William F. Halsey III later remarked that he was startled at how much James Cagney looked like his father did during World War Two.


 * Reference:

Success! Thanks for the help, Ed17. You might want to review the discusion. There were some "interesting" comments from User:Damiens.rf regarding whose opinion is important and whose opinion isn't. Also, you might want to visit Damiens.rf's talk page.Marcd30319 (talk) 11:49, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program Newsletter: 22 April 2011
Delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 16:37, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

When you get a minute...
I'd like to chat about potential classroom collaborations for Milhist. I'll be in irc://freenode/wikipedia-en-milhist most of the day (lunch will be 11-12ish), or drop a note on my talk page. Thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 14:32, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeahhhhh. I haven't been around for the last couple days, and it'll probably be the same in the next few days. Would you be available this Saturday? Side note: I didn't realize how stupid it was to nominate Sao Paulo when I did, but I should get to the rest of the concerns this weekend as well. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 07:17, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure, Saturday is fine, I'll probably even know what I want to say by then. - Dank (push to talk) 13:34, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 April 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 01:33, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

WikiCup 2011 April newsletter
Round 2 of the 2011 WikiCup is over, and the new round will begin on 1 May. Note that any points scored in the interim (that is, for content promoted or reviews completed on 29-30 April) can be claimed in the next round, but please do not start updating your submissions' pages until the next round has begun. Fewer than a quarter of our original contestants remain; 32 enter round 3, and, in two months' time, only 16 will progress to our penultimate round. , who led Pool F, was our round champion, with 411 points, while 7 contestants scored between 200 and 300 points. At the other end of the scale, a score of 41 was high enough to reach round 3; more than five times the score required to reach round 2, and competition will no doubt become tighter now we're approaching the later rounds. Those progressing to round 3 were spread fairly evenly across the pools; 4 progressed from each of pools A, B, E and H, while 3 progressed from both pools C and F. Pools D and G were the most successful; each had 5 contestants advancing.

This round saw our first good topic points this year; congratulations to and  who also led pool H and pool B respectively. However, there remain content types for which no points have yet been scored; featured sounds, featured portals and featured topics. In addition to prizes for leaderboard positions, the WikiCup awards other prizes; for instance, last year, a prize was awarded to (who has been eliminated) for his work on In The News. For this reason, working on more unusual content could be even more rewarding than usual!

Sorry this newsletter is going out a little earlier than expected- there is a busy weekend coming up! A running total of claims can be seen here. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! 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 and The ed17 19:32, 29 April 2011 (UTC)