User:The ed17/Archives/46

WikiCup 2011 October newsletter
The 2011 WikiCup is now over, and our new champion is, who joins the exclusive club of the previous winners: (2007),  (2008),  (2009) and  (2010). The final standings were as follows:



Prizes for first, second, third and fourth will be awarded, as will prizes for all those who reached the final eight. Every participant who scored in the competition will receive a ribbon of participation. In addition to the prizes based on placement, the following special prizes will be awarded based on high performance in particular areas of content creation. So that the finalists do not have an undue advantage, the prize is awarded to the competitor who scored the highest in any particular field in a single round.


 * The Featured Article Award:, for his performance in round 2. matched the score, but Casliber won the tiebreaker.
 * The Good Article Award:, for his performance in round 4.
 * The Featured List Award:, for his performance in round 4. matched the score, but Miyagawa won the tiebreaker.
 * The Recognised Topic Award (for good and featured topics):, for his performance in round 3.
 * The Did You Know Award:, for his performance in round 1.
 * The In the News Award:, for his performance in round 1.
 * The Reviewer Award (for good article reviews):, for his performance in round 3.

No prize was awarded for featured pictures, sounds or portals, as none were claimed throughout the competition. The awards will be handed out over the next few days. Congratulations to all our participants, and especially our winners; we've all had fun, and Wikipedia has benefitted massively from our content work.

Preparation for next year's WikiCup is ongoing. Interested parties are invited to sign up and participate in our straw polls. It's been a pleasure to work with you all this year, and, whoever's taking part in and running the competition in 2012, we hope to see you all in January! J Milburn and The ed17 00:50, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 October 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 18:22, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

This Month in GLAM: October 2011
Unsubscribe · Global message delivery 06:11, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Bugle suggestions
I saw your note about the bugle in your contributions section just now. For what its worth, I would make the following suggestions:

You could feature an Academy piece or help/how to guide once a month, that could be useful to the readers. I recall raising a suggestion some time back to add a section to our newsletter that would serve as a sort of "around the world" section by displaying article from other projects that share a task force with us just so members with interests in the area can scoop out the goings on for their task forces of interest from the other project that co-runs the given TF (for example, a story from WP:US about the release of old documents form the library of congress, or a story from WP:AIRCRAFT about internships at boeing, or a story from WP:JAPAN about military relief efforts related to the earthquake, etc). We could also consider (and this is something of a long shot I admit) creating cartoon section so our readers can view the funnies, though I confess this doesn't really further our project letter much. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:31, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Hey Tom! Long time no see. A 'how to' guide would be nice. I think that the op-ed section would currently take these (think MRG's editorial) but I suppose making a formal division would make people realize we will take these sorts of articles. Hmm. More things to ponder. The "around the world" is not a bad idea, but the task forces aren't really there for groupings nowadays, and I'm afraid of straying into pure news – I'd rather have the time-limited Bugle writers focus on Wikipedia-related material. ;-) I suppose we could do links of to news articles related to current military events, though... another thing to ponder. If someone was willing to draw the cartoons, I'd take it. It would add something other than text (and something that the Signpost doesn't even have!). Know anyone who might be interested? :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:51, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Before September I would recommend bahamut0013 since he was the one who did our titan cross awards, but since he is doing his marine duties in Elysium these days the first person who would come to mind would be the user who created wikiptan. Perhaps in the interest of openness we should hold a contest among the active contributors to see who can come up with the best design submission. Also, one other thought occurred to me for my bugle suggestions: listing open milhist-related articles up at either the reward board or the bounty board. If you guys take the contest route I may endevour to locate a scanner so I can upload an image submission of my own. On an unrelated note I emailed MBK004 to see how he has been lately, but as of yet I haven't got a reply. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:48, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
Mabeenot (talk) 20:33, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

NARA prizes for WikiCup participants
Hi Ed. Since you've done a lot of work that relied on National Archives documents and you're involved with the WikiCup, I was wondering if I might be able to get your take on my idea at Wikipedia talk:WikiCup. Thanks! Dominic·t 21:14, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

EF
Dear Ed17, Can you please have a look at this, and, especially at that. Thank you in advance.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:45, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

TPS'ers
Greetings to my esteemed peers, followers, subscribers, creepers, generally interested editors, and students in the USEP class. I'm going to be mostly offline for the next several days to catch up on schoolwork and do some exciting research in my university's archives on an 1895 strike in Ishpeming, Michgan. Theoretically this means I won't be on-wiki, but I'll probably end up checking my talk page once a day or so. Please be patient if I don't immediately reply, and have a great week. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:52, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 7 November2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 13:26, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

welcome-personal
I saw that you reverted my edits to Template:Welcome-personal, but you didn't provide an edit summary, so I would like know why mentioning adopt-a-user is bad. Thank you and happy editing!  pluma  Ø  02:09, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * We need to keep extraneous text to a minimum or people won't read it. We want a warm welcome and just a bit of introduction, with links to where they can learn more. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 08:04, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I thought it was good to introduce Adopt-a-User, because it prevents new users feeling discouraged about not knowing what to do. I wish I had been mentored because it took me a while to figure out everything just by seeing other users doing it. I definitely don't think it was extraneous. How about having the Welcome message look like it does here. That way, it doesn't take up very much space or reading time, so they will probably read it. If you want to make any changes, feel free to. Tell me what you think so that I can change the template. Happy editing!  pluma  Ø  02:55, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Request to help close RSN dispute
May I request you to please participate in closingthis reliable sources dispute. I request that the arguments be considered on its merits alone. I would like to point out that both sides of the argument feel that retaining/removing the source is important as regards NPOV. Indo-Pakistan disputes are often avoided by editors who hate being drawn into the hassle but we need experienced and dedicated neutral parties to participate, otherwise the augean stable can never be cleaned out. This corner of WikiProject Military History needs people to clean it up. The only way to do it is first of all kill non-reliable sources. (Disclaimer: I am an involved party and I approached you due to your prominent track record in WikiProject Military History). AshLin (talk) 11:39, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit confused. Is a reliable sources discussion meant to come to a judgement or can it be closed without decision? I had meant that we needed someone to kill the issue one way or the other, a reliable neutral editor to decide the merits of the case. It may be that I have mis-communicated to you. We were looking for resolution, not just for closing the arguments which had ceased anyway. AshLin (talk) 19:48, 12 November 2011 (UTC).
 * I've closed the discussion. It's pretty clear what the consensus is, and WP:SPS supports it. See "Pakdef is clearly unreliable per my reading of this discussion and WP:SPS. Note that I was asked to close this due to (I think?) my position as a coordinator of WP:MILHIST." at WP:RSN. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:49, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I missed seeing the little box to the right. My bad. Thanks for the trouble. AshLin (talk) 20:51, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 November 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 23:32, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Mail
--Wehwalt (talk) 22:57, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I've replied. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:36, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

RSN you concluded
Hi, I was a party to this RSN you concluded. I was referred by the user TheBushranger to contact either you or User talk:MilborneOne for the matter, however User talk:MilborneOne did not reply and you, being informed by another editor, finally concluded the discussion. I think you should take into view some important facts (regardless of the conclusion and the reliability of the source in question) because it seems to be resulting in certain bias and disruptive editing. Instead of rewriting, I'll quote my request to User talk:MilborneOne here for you to consider it (since he didn't respond and you were the concluding admin):

Hi, can you conclude the discussion based on information provided (and verifying it) by both sides in discussion on consensus building. I guess you should take into consideration the massive canvassing being involved to tilt the discussion and its consequences. The User:dBigXray has posted a lot of repetitive comments calling in users sharing his POV     (and many other places - I've lost count, one of the Indian project notice board was also there I guess). Another involved user, User:Swift&silent, who already has once been a sock-puppet suspect and warned for editwars & vandalism related to the similar issues    is indulged in the same. A few other editors are being re-quoted in this consensus building from one of the previous inconclusive reviews of the cite also seem to be a tag team/canvassed as pointed out by another user in the same discussion as well as the canvassed editors I gave proofs for are now fully participating. I'm sure User:DBigXray would reply to this with my valid posts like informing the already involved editors labeling that as canvassing (probably including this one). In such conditions I'll like you to act in administrative capacity to handle the related issues and damage caused to the discussion without which it might be hard to resolve. Thanks. --lTopGunl (talk) 19:49, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I think you can see the clear canvassing that resulted in tilting the discussion and has been affecting the related articles apart from the source in question as well. A timely response would be appreciated. Thanks. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:59, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I left a message for DBigXRay. There's no need to name S&S as "once a suspected sockpuppet" if the case has concluded and found that he was not... Even with canvassing, I'm confident the right decision was made here. Regards, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:53, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, yes, I did not object to the conclusion of the article but the on going disruption. Thanks. I hope he takes your message as a chance to refrain instead of doing it again and getting on the offensive again. --lTopGunl (talk) 19:32, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Response to comment my Talk page

 * hi Ed, i got a message on my Talk ,so I thought that i need to clarify my position. First i would request you to please tell me which phrase that i used in informing others was non neutral I see i have been blamed by a person who himself commits the  crime.canvassing non neutral editors for premature closing and canvassing by calling it unfair etc. I would not want to elaborate it any furthur. It is clear that i have used a neutral tone in informing the (only 1)editor about RSN who had once commented on it already. Besides (as evident from his comments on RSN) the above user prefers to make personal attacks, allegations, irrelevant lines etc rather than giving reasonable comments on the issue at hand, (at RSN or any other talk pages he edits). Now that the issue about Pakdef has been correctly resolved there are ongoing attempts to prove the decision Wrong and get other users warned/blocked. I see Vested interest between the user and the source pakdef as the above user had used Pakdef.info numerous times in his edits on wikipedia  inspite of being aware of the fact that Pakdef's reliability was questionable as a result of an earlier RSN discussion, and sometimes as many as 20 times. -- Ð ℬig  XЯaɣ  20:58, 17 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Also its imp to note that my name prominently figures in his edits on other editors talk pages      (grudge and malice ?)  I hope now we are clear about it and now we know who is on the offensive, and who needs to mend his ways. -- Ð ℬig  XЯaɣ  20:58, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Neither of you look good coming out of this; you both have areas you can improve upon. All I ask is that you personally refrain from canvassing in the future. If others are using Pakdef, you are well within your rights to remove it, citing the RSN discussion in the edit summary. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:03, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Future of the US Education Program and the Ambassador Project
There is a discussion about the future and the growth of the US education program along with the future of the Wikipedia Ambassador Project here. Voceditenore (talk) 06:37, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Windy City
A note to my talk page stalkers and anyone else who visits this page – I'm going to be in Chicago with tenuous (at best) internet connections until Tuesday, followed by the annual family gathering for Thanksgiving on Wednesday/Thursday, so please be patient with me getting back to messages left here. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:38, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

10th Single Infantry Battalion (Estonia)
The ed17,

Article: 10th Single Infantry Battalion (Estonia).

I came across the above article in the "Category:Military history articles with incomplete B-Class checklists". It goes to the talkpage of the above article once clicked on. Then if you click on the "Article" link it goes too Maavägi and says it's a "(Redirected from 10th Single Infantry Battalion (Estonia))". Honestly, I don't know what to do about it, since I've come across other articles over the last few days with duplicate talkpages, so I've requested them as a deletion. Then on my last one, the Admin suggested it to be redirected and he reverted all the deleted talkpages and redirected them. Would you be able to take the time to have a look when you have time? I would appreciate it, it would be one less article in the "B class" section for us. Adamdaley (talk) 07:58, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Will do this asap. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:52, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * My understanding is that talk pages can be deleted if no pages link to them (see Special:WhatLinksHere). Worst case is it can simply be redirected and the talk page will be removed from the category. Regards, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:30, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

"Mark Satin" bio up for second FA review
This is to let you know that my thoroughly revised Mark Satin biography has just gone up for a second FA review, Featured article candidates/Mark Satin/archive2. It would not be the article it is today without your kind but firm message about my need to use the proper typefaces on the editing screen (I was a Wiki neophyte). I hope you'll take another look at it, I think you'll like what I've done. - Babel41 (talk) 21:41, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I will try to do this soon, please remind me if I forget. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:52, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Ed, thanks for your note. Not to bug you, but it's been over a week now so I am afraid you may have forgotten.  Best, - Babel41 (talk) 19:31, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh goodness, I missed this message. Babel, I will do my best to review this, but there's no guarantees. It's my 21st birthday today with two papers due this week (one in seven hours!) and finals next week. Real life is kicking my butt right now. Regards, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:43, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

A quick check please
Could you look over this section to ensure that I have not made any solecisms regarding the war, the famously sunken ship, or other events? Mind you, I am trying to be as short as possible, the article is already too long.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:18, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm at a Model UN conference atm, will try to check this tonight. Worst case I will look at it tomorrow. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:51, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No hurry. Thank you.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:03, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I actually did get to this tonight, haha.
 * What revolt? I don't believe you mention it before – I think a link should be enough.
 * Where is Beer in the bibliography?
 * The last paragraph needs a citation.
 * Milhist-wise it looks good to me. It's a pretty good summary of a Milhist topic that still focuses on the person you're writing about. Nice work. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:03, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'll clear those things up.  I forgot Beer?  Well, he's by far the least useful of Hanna's three biographers.  That is what I am trying to do, to make sure the reader knows about these events, which are crucial to Hanna.  I'm trying to do it in a way so that the casual reader, who has heard of Mark Hanna can understand these political events, but keep Hanna's role in there (or failing that, McKinley's) sharply in focus.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:32, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * One more thing: is it pro-war or jingoism? I think it was the latter, but I'm not sure. I can agree on Beer; early-1900s non-fiction tend to not be the most useful sources. ;) It looks very good to me now. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:59, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I would prefer to avoid the "jingoism" term because it carries connotations with it.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:09, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * That's understandable. I just wanted to be sure. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:18, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thx for your work. Could you also glance at the one paragraph on Hanna's rather minimal participation in the Civil War?--Wehwalt (talk) 09:53, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Will do asap. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 17:50, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks mostly good, except that the National Guard wasn't formally created until much later. Were you talking about one of the state-organized units? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:12, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I suppose. The source used the term.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:19, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the regiment's name was a nickname for one of the units listed at List of Ohio Civil War units? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:42, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Not certain. I shall have to look into the matter though. I will check my sources and look online.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:46, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Good luck. Please ping me when the article goes to FAC! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:30, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Arizona FAC
When you get a chance, can you put the newspaper cites into the appropriate template to address Nikimaria's point about not mixing templated and untemplated citations?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:44, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I should get to this tonight. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 17:50, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * This is now done. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:30, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 November 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 01:55, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Done!
I'm really, really sorry for having taken so long to add the extra sources to South American dreadnought race. They are all there now. Kind regards, --Lecen (talk) 00:19, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I did say there was no necessary timeline, so don't worry! Was there any information specific to Martins Filho that doesn't appear in the article? If not, I think I can finally stop bugging you. ;-) Thanks so much, Lecen. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:03, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, I saw nothing of fantastic that you could add to the article itself, unless you have any desire to lose focus and start talking about Brazilian domestic politics in that time, which you obviosly don't. Don't worry about bothering me. If you ever need me, feel free to ask, I really don't mind helping you. Kind regards, --Lecen (talk) 15:57, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Category:USS Triton (SSRN-586)
Happy Thanksgiving, Ed17! I hope all is well with you and yours. Could you look into the deletion of this category, and the stand-up of a category for Triton class submarines? I think keeping Category:USS Triton (SSRN-586) is not an example of over-categorization since it captures a number of subjects unique to the USS Triton while this new Category: Triton class submarine is not only redundant but actually misleading since there is another Triton-class submarine, namely the British T class submarine. I created a disambiguation page named Triton class that handles this situation much better and more consistently. Thanks! Marcd30319 (talk) 15:14, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned on CfD, the Triton class submarine cat is up for renaming to Triton class submarine (1958) to remove the ambiguity. :) - The Bushranger One ping only 20:27, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * ...which has been opposed by the above? sigh! - The Bushranger One ping only 20:37, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * This renaming of the Triton class submarine category was initiated because of the British T class submarine situation which was accommodated by Triton class disambiguation page. So, in order to contort this discussion into the direction that the administrator wants, we are not only going through the speedy deletion of a perfectly utilitarian USS Triton category while the ignoring of an equally utilitarian disambiguation page, but we must also go through renaming of the Triton class submarine category that did not adequately address the British T class submarine situation when it was initially created.  I happen to belive in economy of effort, and I think this total process to be a needless expediture of effort to no great purpose.  Look, I know how things work, and how Wiki-admin will almost always get their way but as the contributor who actually guided USS Triton (SSRN-586) to its A-class status, I would hope for a more collaborative approach. Marcd30319 (talk) 13:07, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry you see things this way; nobody is speedy-deleting anything (once I became aware of the facts behind the case, I struck the speedy-delete-as-recreation suggestion). However I'm not exactly sure why you have a problem with renaming Category:Triton class submarines, which, as you point out, is ambigious at its current location - and the T class submarine has its own category at Category:British T class submarines - and I'm also a bit confused as to how the disambiguation page comes into this? The existiance of a disambiguation page, and its contents, doesn't affect the fact that ambiguous category names should be disambiguated. - The Bushranger One ping only 13:18, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I replied yesterday, but I guess Wikipedia's servers ate it or something? Anyway, Marc -- I've got a cold or the flu, so this Thanksgiving has been interesting. Otherwise it's been pretty good, and I hope yours went well! Now, Marc, disambiguation pages are different from the categories. I agree that the categories should be modified to avoid ambiguity, but (this is directed more towards Bushranger) I'm curious why we are using [Category:Triton class submarines (1958)] rather than [Category:USS Triton (SSRN-586)]. We (should) only have articles on the ship in single-ship classes except in odd circumstances (eg. Almirante Latorre-class battleship), so why are we reversing that for categories? Why not follow the example of USS Nautilus (SSN-571)? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 17:49, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Well...I'll be completely honest, I was unaware there was precedent for single-ship categories. I was basing this on Category:Bainbridge class cruisers et. al. where single-ship classes were classed as "by class". If there's clear precedent for by-ship categories, I'll happy trout myself here! :) - The Bushranger One ping only 00:54, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, for battleships there's Category:Unique battleships for single-ship classes, which actually seems like a good idea. Should we continue that for submarines, making subcategories (eg. the Triton category) for those that include more article than just the submarine in question? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:58, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * That would seem to be the most logical way to do it, I reckon, assuming "Bar class foofighters" isn't followed for one-and-dones. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:31, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, we may want to ask WP:SHIPS about it. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:30, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks
Always nice to see a friendly face on CHU.  MBisanz  talk 15:37, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Heh, thanks! I went through a series of autoblocks after my friends found that they could get me blocked by vandalizing on the computer next to me. They got bored relatively quickly, but it was still stressful to explain the scenario to various administrators who handled my unblock requests. Regards, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:28, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXVIII, October 2011
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 08:52, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 November 2011

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 07:46, 29 November 2011 (UTC)