User:The ed17/Archives/52

The Bugle: Issue LXXIII, April 2012
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:49, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 April 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 05:36, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

This Month in GLAM: April 2012
Unsubscribe · Global message delivery 19:13, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 07 May 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 01:47, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Could you please look into this situation as an admin
Hi Ed,

Could you please - with your admin hat on - look into the mess around the casualty figures in the War in Afghanistan (2001–present) and Civilian casualties in the War in Afghanistan (2001–present) articles?

As a result of a lengthy discussion across multiple boards (disclaimer: initiated mainly by me) there's a very clear consensus that the casualty figures which had been included in these articles are totally unreliable as they'd been calculated on the basis of the contents of Wikipedia articles listing casualty report (and didn't even reflect the actual sum of the casualty reports!). The main location of these discussions is at Talk:War in Afghanistan (2001–present) and Dispute resolution noticeboard.

Despite this, users and  keep edit warring these figures back into the articles. They have ignored multiple warnings against doing this on their talk pages and the articles' talk pages, and it's been dragging on for days now. I tried posting a report of this at WP:AN3 a few days ago, but it didn't get actioned (presumably as it wasn't an easy to investigate 3RR breach).

Could you please look into this and take whatever action you regard as being appropriate?

Regards, Nick-D (talk) 11:17, 8 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Blocked for 24 hours - let me know if the behavior resumes once the block expires. Parsecboy (talk) 12:12, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks Parsec! Hope that solves the situation, Nick. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 15:30, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I've sent you an email
 Rcsprinter  (gossip)  17:23, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Signpost to inactive editors
Someone really ought to clean out the Signpost delivery list a bit. The MiszaBot/EdwardsBot cycles are a bit silly. :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 22:11, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That may not be a bad idea, but is it possible to code a bot to do that? I don't think many of us want to go through the list and manually check all of them... as fun as that sounds. ;-) We have the same problem with the Bugle and the Milhist membership list as a whole, incidentally. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:14, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I generated a list of inactive Signpost recipients a couple of weeks ago... it's about 10%, as I recall. One moment. - Jarry1250 [Deliberation needed] 22:53, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, can't seem to find it now (maybe longer ago than I thought?). Regenerating... - Jarry1250 [Deliberation needed] 23:06, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually 191 editors (or ~20%) haven't edited in the last six months but are still subscribed. We could message them all and then unsubscribe them? - Jarry1250 [Deliberation needed] 23:15, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a good plan to me. Thanks Jarry. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:05, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, eliminated 15 where the bot (i.e. I) misunderstood the username being provided, but the rest of the names are here. Any thoughts on a message? I can think of two legitimate reasons why you might want an inactive account to be signed up: you read but don't edit, or you for some reason have your newsletter posted to the talkpage of an laternative account. - Jarry1250 [Deliberation needed] 23:08, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd just say that 'your account has been flagged by a bot as being inactive. If this is not the case, or if you'd like to continue receiving the Signpost anyway, please add your name LINK|here. Thanks!' Or something like that. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:45, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Carrier Strike Group articles - Assigned unit section - serial text format v. bullet text format
Ed12, FYI.

NickD, there has been a misunderstanding about the listing of units (i.e., carrier, cruisers, destroyers, air wing) assigned to a specific U.S. Navy carrier strike group. You may not be aware, but a previous discussion on listing this information within a separate section via a bulleted format for enhanced readability and to avoid serial linking problems, and a consensus was reached by all interested stakeholders. I have looked the archived peer review for Carrier Strike Group Seven, and I do not see any recommendations to list the assigned units in a serial fashion in the opening paragraphs as opposed to the previously-agreed bulleted format in a separate section. It has been suggested that you are the source of this format change. Can you clarify this situation? Thanks! Marcd30319 (talk) 23:08, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll watch Nick's talk page but I really haven't been following the articles recently. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:05, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Understood and my apologies. Buckshot06 is waving the bloody flag of WP:OWN which is unfortunate.  I thought we had reached a consensus, and I hate to relitigate this.  It's about readability, and many military articles, such as Seventh Air Force, United States Seventh Fleet, United States Army Europe, Commander Land Forces, Moscow Military District, and Leningrad Military District, use bulleted text to list assigned units within a formation. BTW -  Didn't I just prove your point about the readability of serial linked text?  :D  Have a great day, sir. Marcd30319 (talk) 11:22, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * What part do you feel needs to be bulleted? The "Historical background" section isn't too terribly because the links are broken up by text, at least... Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:45, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I was think just the current assigned units like what we discussed originally. You nailed it exactly that as proposed it was cluttered and hard to read.  Also, I have never seen the listing of units (i.e, ships, aircraft squadrons, etc.) in any any military article, and more typically, this information appears in a separate unit or organizational section, such as seen in Leningrad Military District.  See below for my suggested solution. Marcd30319 (talk) 14:53, 16 May 2012 (UTC)


 * the ED17 - FYI

Ladies and gentlemen, I have heard your call, and in the interest of comity and consensus-building, which I have shown here and here, thus conclusively disproving WP:OWN, allow me to offer the following description for the "exact composition of a strike group" noted to be added as the third and fourth sentences of the opening paragraph of a carrier strike group article: "A carrier strike group is an operational naval formation that deploys together.  Permanently assigned units of a carrier strike group typically consists of an aircraft carrier that acts as the flagship, an carrier air wing embarked onboard the carrier, a squadron of destroyers and frigates, and at least one Ticonderoga-class guided missile cruiser." This is a clear explanation of the composition of a strike group," which is the goal of Buckshot06 and Nick-D, while retaining an assigned units section for the specific composition of a specific carrier strike group which is consistent with similar B-Class articles like Leningrad Military District which lists its units under a Subordinate Units section. This approach provides a clear, uncluttered, consistent general overview of the composition of a strike group carrier while retaining the specific information of the units assigned to a particular carrier strike group.  This approach can be the basis for building a consensus of this issue, and I have taken the liberty of incorporating this phrasing into the other carrier strike group articles, except Carrier Strike Group Two, pending discussion. Again, as noted, I have addressed previous issues in a constructive fashion, and I think we can do so here. Marcd30319 (talk) 14:53, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi The ed17, in accordance with User:Nick-D's suggestion, I've raised the issue at the WP:Dispute resolution noticeboard. The thread is "Carrier Strike Group One, Carrier Strike Group Seven". Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 07:52, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 May 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 23:57, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Dead link in Algeria wikimedia report
Hi Theed17, just wanted to alert you in case you didn't already know, of this. The link to the story doesn't work - it doesn't appear to exist. Who in wikimedia should one talk to to get the story back up? Sorry for leaving a nasty black line in the story, but I didn't know what else to do. Regards Buckshot06 (talk) 23:27, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Fixed(ish), thanks for the note. For future reference, a hidden note (the tages  ) works better so there's no visible output on the page itself. You can do the same in articles so it reads the same, but editors looking at the edit window can see the issue. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:45, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Saw your article in the Signpost...
...and wanted to say congratulations again! You'll do great :3 – GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:04, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, it'll still be a learning process though. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:56, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Congratulations also from me Ed. Nick-D (talk) 08:08, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Ditto -- now that your power has become global, are you still going to be slumming it at the old Bugle...? ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:26, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I may have to lower my participation even more, but if that's okay with you, I will! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:14, 22 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Congratulations on your nomination to editorship of the newspaper representing one of the largest media entities in the world and thank you for accepting the nomination. It is a huge job. Even though I try to be bold starting an op-ed section is a bit too bold for me but I am intrigued by your vision to do this. I hope that you get a good response to it and I am glad you are willing to try this innovation. If it does not make you crazy first then I think it could become popular.  Blue Rasberry    (talk)   17:52, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks! It will be a large job, but I think I can handle it. There's a tentatively good idea below, so we'll see if that works out! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:14, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Congrats Ed! Best of luck running things over there. Does this mean no more battleship articles? :P Parsecboy (talk) 19:48, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Heh, I hope not, but the SP will monopolize my time. I'll still participate in all the projects and help where I can though! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:00, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Congratulations! Given your amazing work at the Bugle, I'm sure you'll do a great job managing the Signpost! Kirill [talk] 19:52, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks Kirill! Be sure to keep me abreast of what's happening in WMDC and I'll try to get the major points included in the SP! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:00, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 May 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 04:04, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Signpost opinion piece
Hi, I have an opinion piece which I have been developing, and it is located here. I am submitting this in response to the statement on your article in which you announced your tenure as the editor-in-chief of the Signpost, and also opened yourself to requests for op-eds. I believe that the one I am sending you fits the categories you allowed for op-eds in your article. If you accept this article, please send me information with which I can improve it to a quality suitable for publication.

Respectfully yours, Wer900 talkessay on the definition of consensus 04:05, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi there. Seeing as you've already wrote most of it and put it under the opinion desk, would you mind me starting a discussion there so other Signpostians can comment as well? I have a few reservations about the piece itself, although I'm certain that the topic is broad and appealing enough to run. For one, I wonder if it is compromised by a lack of viability... that is, if your library would be superseded by, or worse, compete with, the FDC when it comes into being. What would set this apart? (it was my understanding that this could be one reason for the FDC to grant money, though I'm not positive if that is/was set in stone) There's also more minor things that have to do with the idea, not the piece, e.g. I seriously doubt the WMF or Arbcom itself wants the latter to have jurisdiction/oversight over something like this, and commenters focusing/battling over these minor points could weaken or derail the idea behind the piece. I also wonder if the other major road towards achieving your end goal, open source initiatives (cf. "Wikimedia and the "seismic shift" towards open-access research publication"), should be mentioned and/or rebutted. While I could see the two ideas working together in real life, the two ideas are at odds with each other, and not mentioning it at all leads back to commenters not focusing on your main idea.
 * ...hopefully all that makes sense. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:56, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Certainly, you may start a discussion on it, but, looking at the points you have brought up, I would like you to urge those discussing not to focus on the minor points as much as the main goal of the piece, which would mean that the minor points are reviewed almost to death and the main piece is not well-reviewed - certainly not the goal of a discussion like this one. As for the FDC, it seems to be an advisory body with a name not representative of its true powers - I looked at the page for it, and it doesn't seem like it will do much funds dissemination itself. As for open-access publication, while that would most certainly be nice to have more of them, there are, and there will always be, non-free sources which are simply beyond the reach of individual Wikipedians. And the Library wouldn't be superseded entirely by this open-access initiative - it can still point to open-access sources and make it easier to locate such sources. Not only that, there are numerous academic journals, and different researchers publish in different ones. In order to access all of the literature you need free and non-free sources, as papers are generally only published in one journal. Wer900  talkessay on the definition of consensus 14:56, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I've seen this and will reply tonight! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:31, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, but that is my point – you want the debate to revolve around your idea, not the specifics. Generalizing the proposal to focus on the idea is best for these early stages; if it gains support, that is when you would want to add specificity. If you decide to keep how funds will be disseminated, you may want to include arguments for the WMF outsourcing its money to possibly anonymous administrators for allocating. I'm not sure they would be keen on that. :-) But anyway, I'll move this over to the op-ed desk so that others may put in their two cents. Regards, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:42, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Featured content this week
Hi Ed, regarding this edit, I had left the gender ambiguous as Lemurbaby has nothing on the subject on her userpage and I didn't want to out her. She's fixed it now, and I guess she's fine with it, but just FYI. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:38, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that was my mistake, I did it without thinking. Apologies. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:31, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Mail
-- Lord Roem (talk) 11:59, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXIV, May 2012
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 15:32, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Education assessments mention in the Signpost
Ed, would the Signpost be interested in mentioning this effort to track education program impact? There is also going to be an effort to measure any negative impact from the program, by posting a message to the talk pages of the same set of articles asking for feedback. A draft of that message is here. I am keen to give these efforts higher visibility because of the huge impact the program is having and will have in the future. I don't think a lot of editors realize that thousands of students add a huge amount of content every semester, and I think if they did this program might draw more attention. To be honest, the volume of work being done by the students is so high I think you could justify a regular section in the Signpost, once a month during semesters perhaps, to highlight EP events, issues, and achievements.

Another reason I'd like to see the Signpost mention the assessments is I'd like to recruit more editors to do it -- it's much quicker than a GA assessment; it's more like deciding if an article is a B or a C. If you're interested, let me know; LiAnna is the person who put together the metrics and would be the right person to ask most follow up questions, but I'll help if I can. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:09, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey Mike! The three main stories for News and Notes are set for this week, but I'll add as much as I can in the In brief section. The SP ran an "Education report" twice, but as you can see here, that effort fizzled out relatively quickly. If you or someone else can commit to writing that section on a regular basis, I think we'd be glad to have it back. I'll let you or LiAnna (or both!) know if I have questions. Thanks! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 07:27, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That sounds good -- I'll check to see if someone from the WMF can commit (I can't, unfortunately). I'll let you know.  Thanks -- Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 10:09, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, someone from the WMF or someone heavily involved in the program is an issue, because the report would need to by written by someone who is relatively neutral... I'm hoping you see where I'm coming from. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 16:58, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Question
Hi Ed, I have a question: should I include Requests for amendment and clarification? The Scientology and Rich Farmbrough rulings are up for amendment/clarification at the moment. I'm not familiar with how this operated in the past so I thought I'd ask. —  James ( Talk •  Contribs ) • 5:36pm • 07:36, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * They're typically in a section like "In brief" at the bottom, though there would obviously be exceptions for crazily controversial ones (etc). Looking at the archives, the sections has been named "Other requests and committee action", though I'm not sure if that was Roem's name or a traditional one. If you like that section title, feel free to keep it! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 08:52, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Alright then, thanks Ed! :) I'll bear that in mind for next edition. —  James ( Talk •  Contribs ) • 7:27pm • 09:27, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 May 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 09:28, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Anything to add?
Latest. I got a name wrong on the last one and had to send my bot around after it... J Milburn (talk) 15:47, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, assuming you got the names right this time around, it looks good to me! :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 16:46, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Made a small error- Casliber's points are over half from the article, not almost. Nevermind. I can't see them until I've clicked send... J Milburn (talk) 23:53, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Heh, it looks like you've cursed yourself! That's not too bad though, and it's not like I didn't miss it either. ;-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:07, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

WikiCup 2012 May newsletter
We're halfway through round 3 (or the quarter finals, if you prefer) and things are running smoothly. We're seeing very high scoring; as of the time of writing, the top 16 all have over 90 points. This has already proved to be more competative than this time last year- in 2011, 76 points secured a place, while in 2010, a massive 250 was the lowest qualifying score. People have also upped their game slightly from last round, which is to be expected as we approach the end of the competition. Leading Pool A is, whose points have mostly come from a large number of did you knows on marine biology. Pool B's leader,, is for the first time not our highest scorer at the time of newsletter publication, but his good articles on The X-Files and Millenium keep him in second place overall. leads Pool C, our quietest pool, with content in a variety of areas on a variety of topics. Pool D is led by, our current overall leader. Nearly half of Casliber's points come from his triple-scored Western Jackdaw, which is now a featured article.

This round has seen an unusually high number of featured lists, with nearly one in five remaining participants claiming one, and one user,, claiming two. Miyagawa's featured list, 1936 Summer Olympics medal table, was even awarded double points. By comparison, good article reviews seem to be playing a smaller part, and featured topics portals remain two content-types still unutilised in this competition. Other than that, there isn't much to say! Things are coming along smoothly. As ever, if you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. 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 or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 23:47, 31 May 2012 (UTC)