User:The ed17/Archives/58

USS Hawaii for FAC?
What do you think about spiffing up Hawaii and sending it to FAC as a co-nom? Not a whole lot of work to be done, I think, but I would like to get rid of the Pike citations and reformat the cites to my preferred, minimalist style, if you're agreeable.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:03, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * That's fine with me. I'll help where I can, but most of my sources are at home, though I have scans of Friedman's U.S. Cruisers that I should be able to cite. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:08, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * S'OK, I don't expect that it will need much work, other than misc. clean up and trimming of some extraneous details in the design history since that's really the province of the class article.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:05, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair enough! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:06, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Done some work on this like adding a description of the ship and general clean up, but I'm rather stymied by my lack of Scarpaci. Do you have a copy on hand? If not, I think that we'll have to postpone this article until one or the other of us gets access to the book.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:28, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * When I wrote the article, Scarpaci was available under Google Preview... but, apparently Scarpaci considers Google Books to be "an illegal download... Please do NOT buy". It's on Amazon for $117... grumble. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:53, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd just go with the existing text, but compare Scarpaci with Friedman, pp. 374-77. Maybe Friedman conflates the 1946 and 1948 proposals, or perhaps one just evolved into the other, but I'd really like to see exactly what Scarpaci has to say (with sources). Especially since Garzke & Dulin don't really cover this early proposal very well. This may put the kibosh on sending this to FAC anytime soon unless we just delete Scarpacci entirely, which I'm reluctant to do without actually seeing what he had to say.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:50, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, there's also the issue that Nimble Books LLC is a vanity publisher, which I didn't realize when I wrote it. If we can't prove Scarpaci is a reliable historian for these topics, we would have to remove him anyway. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:00, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Good point, although do you remember if Scarpaci provided any sources? I'd be happy to delete his material if he didn't, but if he did then we'd have to rethink things, because I'd swear that I've seen positive reviews of his other books in Warship or Warship International.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:14, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * He used some sources – he referenced Friedman a few times – but I don't remember if he went into primary sources. I doubt he did (he's an artist by trade) ... but you just never know. He has an "Art by Wayne" Facebook page – should we try leaving a message there? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:31, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Good idea, but I'm not on Facebook. Why don't you leave a message and explain the situation. Maybe he'll be willing to scan us the relevant pages or something.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:35, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Have you had a chance to query Scarpaci?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:49, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, with no reply as of yet. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:55, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I spoke too soon&mdash;he just replied. Everyone's out of copies because he's reworking and expanding it, and he wants to publish the new edition in late spring next year. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:11, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Any chance that he'd be willing to send us scans of the page or two on the Hawaii proposals so we can use them in the article? Otherwise we'll have to delete all references to his book.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:40, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm in email contact and am waiting for a reply. He offered to send me the Alaska sections of the unfinished new book, but I said that I can't reference that on WP and would need the published work (we can always update it later). He also said that he's found nine conversion proposals. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:55, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Nine?! Wow, now I wonder how Friedman missed them or if he just sort of merged them into each other. Probably most are very preliminary stuff like sketch designs, etc. If he can send us the pages on all of the Alaska class, and not just Hawaii, that would probably allow us to take the others to FAC as well.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:32, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * That's the same reaction I had! He says there were nine proposed conversions for the three ships, and that finding the information is extremely difficult. I suspect that when the new edition is published, it will literally be the only non-primary source to cover them. Hopefully I'll receive a reply later today. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:48, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Ping.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:06, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, sorry, I never did get an email reply from him... but he did reply via Facebook (last night, in fact) that the updated book should be out in the beginning of January 2013. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:02, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, I guess that we'll let things be until then. But, unless one of us wants to buy his book, we'll need publishing data, plus scans of the relevant pages to add his new material to the article.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:43, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll email him after it's published to see if he's still willing to send scans, but of the published book this time. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:06, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Signpost opinion piece
Hi. I added an item to the Opinion desk page -- just letting you know in case you somehow fail to notice it. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 18:12, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note, I'll reply asap. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:41, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

This Month in GLAM: September 2012
Unsubscribe · Global message delivery 18:43, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * From the team: Results of the This Month in GLAM survey (part 2)
 * UK report: GLAMcamp London; brief news
 * Spain report: Edit-a-thons in Spain
 * Italy report: Smithsonian Institution, Brooklyn Museum and WikiAfrica
 * Germany report: WikiCon; GLAMcamp London; Science 2.0
 * Sweden report: Sweden report
 * Switzerland report: Botanical Garden Lausanne;CERN
 * India report: Wiki Loves Monuments 2012 in India
 * Mexico report: Edit-a-thon at the Salón de la Plástica Mexicana
 * Africa report: A month in Africa's GLAMs
 * Open Access report: Open Access per default; Open Access Media Importer tests finished; Preparations for Open Access Week
 * Calendar: October's GLAM events

Admin, not
Hi, Ed -- didn't want to edit the Signpost piece myself, but I'm not actually an admin. Can you fix? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:15, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Whoops, I could have sworn you were. It's fixed now, and thanks for the note! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:18, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 08 October 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 21:35, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Fall of Constantinople
Could you explain why you've protected rather than semi-protected this article. The request put in at WP:RFP by Alesandro57 was for semi only. As you'll see from the article history since about 2 October, the issue is with a user based in Dubai who edits either as an IP (so far, 3 different addresses: User:92.96.187.169 User:86.96.57.58 User:2.51.207.103) or, so far, as User:Paracetamol 23 or User:الطبيب الراحل.23. Semi-protection would cover them if they edit as an IP or non-autoconfirmed and there's AN3 if they get an autoconfirmed account, although that doesn't seem likely. DeCausa (talk) 15:24, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * True, but because it's technically an editwar, I felt that having full protection would be the most fair. It's only for three days. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:46, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, fair enough. But just to be clear it's one user being disruptive (socking, accusations of vandalism, strong POV, refusal to use talk page, and breaking 3RR - 7 reverts yesterday) and being reverted (over the last 10 days) by 4 other users, plus yourself and Cluebot, none of whom breached 3RR (or, IMHO, edit warred) DeCausa (talk) 08:55, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Op-ed
Hi Ed, that article looks great. However, could I suggest that you tweak the bit about the book reviews: while I agree that the reviews are largely Australian and WII centric, this reflects the interests of the contributors (eg, mainly me so far). I'd suggest that you tweak this to note that the solution is more people submitting reviews (or someone buying me books on more varied topics!). Regards, Nick-D (talk) 07:01, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry Nick, I didn't mean to offend you! I had a call for more people before saving, but I (obviously!) I lost it somewhere. I've added it now, along with a modified byline (bolding makes the author more obvious) and a byline at the end, which you are free to remove but I think should be included on future op-eds. We did for a few issues last year, but they disappeared. Your choice. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 07:17, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks Ed. I wasn't offended! - I just wanted to use this as an opportunity to recruit more reviewers :) Thanks for adding a byline. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 07:23, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

As you asked for what military historians might think about Wikipedia and military history in it I can answer you for the german ones. I met a number of the most prominent ones in september and talked to them about Wikipedia. And, except really young ones who just made their PhD or are still in it, most ones were only aware that Wikipedia exists and thats all. I will write an op-ed about the symposium where I met them so how do you think, should I include a few sentences about that in it? --Bomzibar (talk) 08:02, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Please do! My op-ed questions were meant more rhetorically to get people to think outside the box (e.g. outside Wikipedia), so your op-ed fits perfectly with that goal. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 08:24, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Recent sock tagging
I have resisted my initial instinct to just revert these tags, as that would probably just inflame things further, but I deeply resent the tagging of Jack's accounts the way you've done, in the middle of a contentious discussion. There is absolutely no benefit to Wikipedia whatsoever in this (not hyperbole: there really is no benefit whatsoever); the only possible result is more bad feeling on each side, and kicking Jack when he's down. I pray that wasn't your intention, but that is certainly the effect. Please revert yourself on this, it would be the decent thing to do. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:50, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that tagging User:Br'er Rabbit isn't diplomatic, but the tagging of the other accounts – which I do note is standard operating practice here – would have resulted in the same thing, given [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Br%27er_Rabbit&action=edit&oldid=512700073 Br'er's user page]. In addition, the 'contentious discussion' is to ban him. There's quite literally no chance of unblocking Br'er Rabbit right now, and I suspect Jack's already scuttled the account in any case.
 * For the other accounts, the tags were typically already in place before Br'er decided to overwrite them ([//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Puputan&diff=503044386&oldid=436720569 example]) in June/July of this year. I sincerely doubt that this 'kicks Jack while he's down', and I see no reason to treat his sockpuppets as anything but that. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:09, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * So... you make a bunch of contentious edits... see that they're contentious... say "oopsie" at AN... and then leave them in place... secure in the knowledge that if anyone else besides you reverts the edits, all hell will break loose? What a fucking dick move. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:16, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you serious? What I did say is that I saw the discussion only after I tagged them all. I never said that I'd raise hell if someone reverted me. Jesus H. Christ, some people take Wikipedia way too seriously. I truly don't care that much. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:22, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 October 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 22:14, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment on my talk page
That's why I no longer write for or edit the Signpost anymore, in case you wondered. I did so with joy until I realized the reality. MathewTownsend (talk) 23:44, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not quite sure what part of my comment you are referring to, as I doubt you stopped commenting on Signpost articles because I thought you should look at yourself before blaming everyone else. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:15, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * well, I'm not sure what you meant. But my writing the "Featured content" and editing the other pages of the SignPost ceased because of the general atmosphere on wikipedia. MathewTownsend (talk) 13:09, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * for example, do you think an editor constantly attacking me is ok? Just wondering what the "rules" really are. MathewTownsend (talk) 18:29, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Nikkimaria (talk) 18:52, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * (responding to [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:The_ed17&diff=prev&oldid=518865436]) No one's expected to understand everything, but there is an understanding that you are able to civilly interact with others. If you don't understand something, you are free to research it (all of the pages are either existent or in the history). We are happy to give you general summaries, but you cannot expect us to lay everything out, letter by letter, word by word, without us getting extremely frustrated with you. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:39, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Measuring the burden placed on the community by the US & Canada Education Programs
Ed, would the Signpost be interested in mentioning this, given the recent coverage of the Education Program RfC? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:20, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'll put it in an IB. Thanks for the link, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:37, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Drmies' Talk Page
I'm just trying to get a straight answer about how I've been "dishonest". I already said that I don't support the ban on Malleus, but I also don't support admins making personal attacks of that nature. Don't you worry - I'll not post in that thread again. A total waste of time. Cheers... Doc  talk  06:29, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm well aware of what you're trying to do there, but everyone really needs to take four steps back from that subject. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:37, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem! I'd rather do stuff like this when I can anyway, but I don't often get the opportunity like I did tonight. What a great (IRL) show that was, in the best city in the world! I sometimes get sucked into the WP bullshit because I'm a, and everyone loves a soap opera, right? I'll try to keep my opinions to those who might actually listen to them from now on. Cheers, Ed! Doc   talk  06:46, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, you're lucky – we don't typically get acts like that here. ;-) No worries on the opinions, but let's not further drama by making them, eh? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:55, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Sage advice - I give you my word I'll say nothing more about this situation anywhere else. You are way the hell up there in Michigan: I have a friend from Alpena, and I thought that was pretty remote. If you ever get to NYC (again?), I'll definitely tell you all the coolest things to see, though even just the Met could take weeks to do properly. Cheers :> Doc   talk  07:08, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 'Way the hell up there' is an understatement. ~150 inches of snow each year – no big deal. ;-) I lived out east when I was a young lad, but never got to NYC. Only got to Boston last year, actually. Pretty sad. I'll be sure to leave a note on your talk page if/when I get out there again, though! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 07:36, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Please do! As a note: I've added the following to my user page -

Retired (from the Drama)

This user is no longer interested in other people's personal Wikipedia dramas.


 * Dozens of editors have had their "watcher" count decrease by 1. I've come to realize that I really don't care what happens in the wiki-lives of of others, and that it's meaningless and distracting soap-opera stuff. I will no longer be commenting on any editor's page that I have removed from my watch list. Many of them were on there simply because they attract and perpetuate drama. It's a liberating feeling. Cheers :> Doc   talk  08:25, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Learning: it never occured to me to watch a page for drama, I watch for interest in a person ;) - thanks Doc for the wording "liberating feeling", much better than "flying carpet", --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:44, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Hehe, sounds good Doc, just be careful to not fall into this trap. ;-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:58, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

TFA
Hi mate, sorry to bother you but noticed you seemed to be active right now. There's a chap here who's used up 3 reverts in short order on Ian Fleming, ignoring suggestions in edit summaries and on his talk page to desist or discuss. I think his last edit should be undone but I'm not in a position to revert more than I've done as it's not outright vandalism. You interested? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:38, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Done - I agree that all or none need to be listed... not just one, especially when it's on the main page. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:45, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXIX, October 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, Nick-D (talk) and Ian Rose (talk) 03:06, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Signpost
At Wikipedia Signpost/Templates/Issue:

Section "Wikimedians get serious about women in science" start with a comma and a sentence fragment: ", denied a degree by Cambridge in 1880 as a woman, and entry as a Fellow of the Royal Society in 1902 as a married woman. "

Section "Wikivoyage migration: technical strategy announced" just has "for your comment" (poor thing doesn't even have capitalization or a period! :) )

Section "Good articles on the main page?; reforming dispute resolution" just has " Current discussions on the English Wikipedia include ".

Section "Is RFA Kafkaesque?" just has a single question mark ( " ? " ).

--Guy Macon (talk) 09:46, 24 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Guy, we always have a slight delay in updating that page while I fix [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost&oldid=519539171 the bot-generated main page] to look like this (/Issue draws its content from WP:SIGNPOST). It should be fixed now. Thanks! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:50, 24 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Just checked and it looks fine. BTW, I always find the Signpost to be interesting and informative. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 10:02, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * No, thank you, it's always fun to get positive feedback! We also have Facebook and Twitter pages to like/follow if you want. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 10:07, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 October 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 12:52, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2012-10-22/Arbitration report
If you're going to revert would you mind at least adding a note as to why you found the title acceptable? Ironholds (talk) 20:06, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * We don't typically change article titles post-publication. 'War' may be hyperbolic&mdash;there's no bullets flying across my computer screen!&mdash;yet we have pages like WP:BATTLEGROUND anyway. Using 'war' isn't an overreaction, in my view. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:47, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure; we also have pages like WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS :). Ironholds (talk) 00:51, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * And can you make up your mind up? It's hyperbole, which is the use of language that is deliberately exaggerating the subject, but not an overreaction, defined as a reaction disconnected in force from the impetus. How can something be one but not the other, exactly? Ironholds (talk) 00:53, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure, it's a deliberate exaggeration because there's no actual violence, but given the context in which the topic (war, battles, etc) is commonly used in Wikipedia discussions, it's justifiable. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:37, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It's a deliberate exaggeration that serves to inflame the situation, push the rhetoric being used on to outside observers and add absolutely nothing to the actual content of the story. This is justifiable iff the purpose of the Signpost is to serve as a gestalt representation of the metapedians involved in [whatever debate is being covered] and swing outsiders towards buying into their thought processes. If the Signpost is about raising the bar of discourse and drawing attention through reporting news accurately and distributing it well, it's not justifiable at all. I'd suggest you sit down and decide which of those two options, as editor, you pick. Personally, I'd rather have a media institution that seeks to raise the bar of the conversation and keep people informed than one with the aim of playing to the existing common denominator. But that's not my decision to make. Ironholds (talk) 01:49, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't believe that; given the low level of discourse, many personal attacks, and (briefly) retired casualties, I think it's an accurate descriptor of the situation at hand. It certainly does not support one side or the other, and the situation's fire has not been fed by Signpost's story (imagery!). Having said that, I'll certainly keep your comments in mind for the future, and we'll try to avoid toeing the line quite so close. Thanks, Oliver. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:43, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Why so aggressive?
Why so aggressive against Still*? He was expressing an opinion (his view), succinctly, not a "block of text". So what? Then you stomped down by removing his user Talk access. It's my understanding there are not strict rules how user Talk can or s/b used, after a block. He wasn't causing disruption by any stretch. (Nor any harm; nor any attack. So, what's the deal??) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:09, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * A blocked user does not get the privilege of [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:StillStanding-247&diff=519663889&oldid=517977165 using his talk page as a soapbox or forum]. He also [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:StillStanding-247&diff=519664451&oldid=519663889 isn't planning on addressing the reason why he was blocked]. Should he change his mind and want to return via the standard offer, he is free to email me or any other administrator to request access to his talk page. Otherwise, we don't need to hear anything more. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:18, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Too harsh. You are perpetuating an overly aggressive environment that discourages editors from voicing an opinion unpopular with Admins, thereby contributing to the general divide and discontent re *all* admins. (The fact Still* and TParis had a big conflict, and TParis is proud of his military career, and you love the military as anyone can see by your User page, wouldn't *bias* you in any regard, would it??) Your move was aggressive and immediate. You have admin power, you weren't protecting the encyclopedia, you were exercising your power to satisfy yourself. I suggest you take the bigger view, and revert your overly aggressive and unnecessary harsh actions. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:24, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You do realize that I was&mdash;for all intents and purposes&mdash;a SS supporter before he essentially got himself banned... right?
 * Moving on. I like military history, which is very separate from my political views. If you have a problem with my action, please open a thread at WP:ANI; if not, I'll leave you to continue inventing my motivations. Regards, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:34, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

64.223.104.226
The 64.223.104.226 is on a crusade to change all biography articles to incorporate birth/actual names in place of/or as the common name. I have already attempted to open a dialogue on his talk page, to no avail and on the Barbara Stanwyck article where I first spotted changes occurring and where I have already hit 3r, at first thinking the edits were incidental. After doing a rudimentary check, I noted a wide pattern of disruptive editing that has been noticed by other editors. What can be done now? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:37, 23 October 2012 (UTC).
 * At a glance it does look rather disruptive, however I haven't the time to dig into it more thoroughly, alas. Perhaps User:The_ed17 could help? - The Bushranger One ping only 01:41, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I am at my wit's end, this IP has changed a ton of articles to insert formal names into the lede line; refuses to discuss the changes and was involved in a 3r at Barbara Stanwyck. Can at least there be a stern message sent (whoops, that's been done). What next, in the words of Princess Leia, "Help me, Obi-Wan Kenobi; you're my only hope." FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:49, 25 October 2012 (UTC).
 * It looks like the IP has been blocked. Sorry I couldn't help you earlier! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:20, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Signpost
Sorry for 'spilling the beans' here — making folks wait is always the best route ... after all, you are running a newspaper! :) Keep it up,  Theo polisme  01:01, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh no, that's not it – we just operate like a newspaper, so we don't update stories post-publication except for copyedits and minor factual fixes. Those who are interested are free to click the link, or we report on it in the week after. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:04, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Heh, of course. In any case, I truly enjoy your coverage... cue the music.  Theo polisme  22:28, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Upper Peninsula miners' strike of 1865
Very nice work! 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 01:23, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:44, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Signpost
I was surprised at this "article".
 * Wikipedia_Signpost/2012-10-22/Arbitration_report

You usually drop a note when you're naming someone. (For clarity, etc.)

Please also see: User_talk:Thryduulf

I'd appreciate your thoughts on this. - jc37 21:06, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm curious as to why "article" is in scare quotes, but I digress. I believe LivingBot used to do notifications for the arb report, but evidently that function isn't working right now. I apologize for that oversight, and I'll work with James to make sure we're notifying people (although this one is unequivocally my fault; I'm just thinking of the future). Thanks for the note, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:14, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * per the quotes: I've read other things you've written (I know I've complimented you in the past), and it typically doesn't come across so opinion-page-like. And this without even going into the oddness of of that particular sentence making it sound like those interaction bans were anything more than one editor's assertion - especially considering emotions were apparently running high amongst many commenting editors, I'm surprised that that was singled out on that way. - I do enough on my own to "win friends and influence people" : ) - (Presumably unintentional) seeming misrepresentation wouldn't seem to be necessary. My comments were not initially that different than those who were supporting MF. The only difference being, I was attacked for it...


 * Anyway, thanks for your attention to this. - jc37 23:18, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, evidently I didn't do as good of a job as I thought I did with the arb report, as you're not the first to say that. ;-) James did the initial draft, but most of the Malleus story was me. That sentence was crafted in that way because multiple people called for a ban between Malleus and MONGO; you + Hersfold were added because it fit the general topic of the sentence. An unfortunate wording that we could have done better with, but I don't think it's earth-shattering either (thankfully). You're doing very good things around the wiki - a minor sentence in an arb report won't negatively affect people's perception of you. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:13, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, no worries. I'm not panicked : )
 * It was just so surprising, since (as I noted) you usually are so good at such : )
 * And thank you, that's nice of you to say. There are days I wonder if I'm trying to walk through brick walls without shadowcat's ability : ) - jc37 00:26, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, unfortunately this proves I'm not perfect. ;-) A Marvel reference? Really? You should meet User:Trekphiler. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:15, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Did someone mention my name? (BTW, Kate's not the only cat to walk through walls. ;p ) Rachel Summers-Richards  I know what you're thinking 04:58 & 05:25, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, but she's such a vision to behold : ) - jc37 05:27, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Clase Almirante Latorre
Hi Ed, sorry my English, as you know, I'm from the es.wp, but I'm originally from Chile. I find it interesting your aid proposal, but I don't understand how you can help. If you could explain better your idea, would be great. In advance :), thank you very much. MercurioMT (talk) 23:12, 29 October 2012 (UTC) PD: ¿You can write in spanish?
 * So you can't help with translation? :( ...we are only two users and we do not have sufficient knowledge of ships to edit the article. However, thanks for the message, but I'm very busy lately, and thank you for work in articles within our Navy. Bye, MercurioMT (talk) 00:12, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

South American dreadnought race
I apologize, I haven't found anything. I have a link to an online archive of Japanese historical records if I can find it. Of course, it's almost all in Japanese. Cla68 (talk) 23:03, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 October 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 10:04, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Rounding off the Cup
I've drafted the final newsletter (please modify as appropriate), and will update it as needed just after midnight. The prizes can be sent out over the coming days; the graphics (apart from first place) are ready, and can be seen here (ignore the names, they're last years). Discussions are ongoing on the scoring page... Other than that, I think we're good, unless I've forgotten anything? J Milburn (talk) 21:16, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, when's the next Signpost? I can get a draft of a possible article to you in the coming few days- an opening bit about this competition, followed by a history and some discussion, including mention of controversies? How does that sound? J Milburn (talk) 21:17, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I've made a few tweaks - feel free to change anything back. The next SP will come out (most likely) on Monday evening/Tuesday morning. We can work on it together, if you want. You can choose between framing it as a regular story or an op-ed arguing its positive effects on the 'pedia (both can include the competition/history/controversy, but the latter allows you a bit more leeway in pushing the positive aspects and responding to the controversy... I'd recommend that route). Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:32, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the star- I appreciate it. I have an hour to spare now, so I'm going to send out some of the prizes, and maybe start on that article... J Milburn (talk) 16:11, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Happy Halloween!
Cheers! :) Like my singing? Ha-la-la-la-la-la-LA-LAAA!!! (talk) 23:21, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks! To you too! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:51, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Upper Peninsula miners' strike of 1865
The DYK project (nominate) 00:02, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

WikiCup 2012 October newsletter
The 2012 WikiCup has come to a close; congratulations to, our 2012 champion! Cwmhiraeth joins our exclusive club of previous winners: (2007),  (2008),  (2009),  (2010) and  (2011). Our 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 goes to, for four featured articles in the final round.
 * The good article award also goes to, for 19 good articles in the second round.
 * The list award goes to, for three featured lists in the final round.
 * The topic award goes to, for three good topics (with around 40 articles) in round 4.
 * The did you know award goes to, for well over 100 DYKs in the final round.
 * The news award goes to, for 10 in the news items in round 3.
 * The picture award goes to, for two featured pictures in round 2.
 * The reviewer award goes to both (14 reviews in round 1) and  (14 reviews in round 3).
 * Finally, for achieving an incredible bonus point total in the final round, and for bringing the top-importance article frog to featured status, a biostar has been awarded to.

Awards will be handed out in the coming days; please bear with us! This year's competition also saw fantastic contributions in all rounds, from newer Wikipedians contributing their first good or featured articles, right up to highly experienced Wikipedians chasing high scores and contributing to topics outside of their usual comfort zones. It would be impossible to name all of the participants who have achieved things to be proud of, but well done to all of you, and thanks! Wikipedia has certainly benefited from the work of this year's WikiCup participants.

Next year's WikiCup will begin in January. Currently, discussions and polls are open, and all contributions are welcome. You can also sign up for next year's competition. There will be no further newsletters this year, although brief notes may be sent out in December to remind everyone about the upcoming competition. It's been a pleasure to work with you all, and we hope to see you all in January! J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 00:46, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikimedia Highlights from September 2012
Highlights from the Wikimedia Foundation Report and the Wikimedia engineering report for September 2012, with a selection of other important events from the Wikimedia movement

About &middot; Subscribe/unsubscribe &middot; Distributed via Global message delivery, 08:00, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikimedia Foundation highlights
 * "Page Curation" tools make it easier to review new Wikipedia articles
 * New volunteer-based model for distributing donation money launched
 * New travel project site, and legal activities
 * Data and Trends
 * Financials
 * Other movement highlights
 * Worldwide Wiki Loves Monuments photo contest with record participation
 * Conflict of interest discussions
 * First EduWiki Conference

Dear sir...
I've written a draft article about the Cup. I'm happy for others to add to it as appropriate, or add to it myself if there's something else you feel it needs. Feel free to move it, format it as appropriate and so on. It's currently saved in my user space. Thanks! J Milburn (talk) 14:59, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll have a look later tonight. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:59, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

ANI thread you should be aware of
Ed, FYI: WP:ANI. I think that this is a very serious misjudgement by Tony1, as it appears that he's using his position on the Signpost to badger an editor who has previously requested that he not post on her user page. Nick-D (talk) 21:46, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Nick-D, this seems to be one of your themes. I remember rather trenchant and personalised remarks you made at the talk page of a SP story I largely wrote. Now this has morphed into "anything Tony does is SP-related". Please, I'm an ordinary en.WP editor. Why is the SP at all relevant here? Tony   (talk)  01:55, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * With all respect Tony, you're not actually an 'ordinary' editor in this field given that you've written several rather opinionated Signpost articles relating to paid editing. The tone of your posts on Laura's page (and especially the decision to press her for a response after she removed your initial post) is exactly in keeping with how an editor would go about preparing another such Signpost article on this topic, and so it's not unreasonable for Laura to have interpreted it as such. Nick-D (talk) 09:29, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Nick, typically we state that we are preparing a Signpost story when asking a question. Also, while the point that he has written stories on paid editing stands, respectfully, you were one of only a few people to claim that this story was opinionated. I don't know how to address this aside from requiring ourselves to put a disclaimer on every post (saying that we aren't doing a story), which seems like a massive overreaction. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 10:14, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Ed, My concern is that Tony was asking Laura questions about a topic in which he's written several opinionated articles. In that context the only good reason he had to repeatedly post questions on her talk page given that she'd asked him not to would be on Signpost business for which he urgently needed to check a fact or get a quote, so it's not unreasonable for Laura to have believed that was the case. Nick-D (talk) 10:24, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I do see where you are coming from, Nick, but I'm not sure how to address it. If we are writing a story, it is identified as such. Obviously we can't expect others to know that, but seeing as we all do now, can we move past it? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 10:32, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Ed, I'd suggest that the regular Signpost contributors work on the assumption that any questions they post on an editors talk page which aren't clearly related to an article/topic/page they're working on together could potentially be seen as an approach for comment related to a prospective Signpost article, and include necessary disclaimers, especially in situations where they wouldn't typically (I sure hope) post on the editor's talk page. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:46, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think our role as community members need to be 'tainted' with disclaimers. What could be a better solution is working with SP contributors to recognize that they are reporters as well, and they should try to avoid ambiguous posts. I believe this will only be needed for NAN and Arb report writers. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 10:58, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair enough; it's your call. I'm thinking of relatively unusual circumstances with the above (I don't think that many editors post inquiry-type questions unrelated to topics they're working on on other editor's talk pages). Regards, Nick-D (talk) 11:05, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, but that can be interpreted differently by different people. :-) Thanks Nick, and have a good night! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 11:39, 5 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Hey Nick, thanks for the note. I don't read Tony's ANI post as improperly using his position in the Signpost. Tony has strongly held and well-known views on paid editing and (erm) 'proper' English, and these views are currently manifesting themselves at DYK and Laura Hale's nominations there. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:59, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Nick, if doing a SP story, I'd be emailing, not posting on a talk page without explicit reference to the story. Any journalist will tell you they get good and prompt responses from a source when the source knows it's next week's news, or might be; and also, if I posted on a page without announcing such, it kind of limits my ability to write about the issue in a journalistic capacity, since balance is a sine qua non on SP pages (except op-eds) in a way that it isn't in other circumstances. Ed makes sure of that, too, in his management of the SP. Tony   (talk)  12:21, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Still-standing grave-dancing
Stop it. Seriously, it's over. He isn't even allowed to post on his own damned page so there is no point in blanking it repeatedly with your little badge of shame. The block notice is on the regular page and that's all that is necessary.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 02:40, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Grave dancing? You forget that I was essentially a SS supporter before all this and really did not like to see his self-destruction. I'd like to see a compelling reason to restore the user page. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:56, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * What you need is a compelling reason to blank it.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 03:27, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Do I? He was community banned for physically threatening another editor. I completely fail to see a compelling reason as to why he deserves any sort of special treatment. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:31, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think he was banned, but I don't think you will find a lack of consensus for your blanking.  little  green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 03:49, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Apologies – indefinitely blocked. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:02, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Not even some of the most vile site-banned sockmasters get this sort of treatment so your talk about not giving him "special" treatment is mistaken. Please revert your blanking.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 04:54, 5 November 2012 (UTC)


 * The fact you easily confused indef block from banned, yet assert to know the issues and defend them here, suggests to me you are biased, and/or don't know policy very well. (Regardless you were "SS supporter before", which is immaterial, and not an argument.) The fact is, Still* told a joke. It was twisted and manufactured into a death threat, for which he was jumped on and accused, including by detractors who liked to see him blocked from editing. (Does anyone realize just how reprehensible and irresponsible that might be!?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:06, 13 November 2012 (UTC)


 * He is indef-blocked, not community-banned, so as much as you don't like it, he is still a part of the community. If your need to gravedance is that overwhelming, then I suggest you seek a formal ban. Joefromrandb (talk) 07:32, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I misspoke, folks, and apologized for it. Your demonizing of me is laughable. Anyway, here was a wide consensus to block SS. You can disagree with the consensus, of course, but that doesn't mean you need to wage war against it. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 07:38, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Brought to ANI. If there's consensus that I was wrong, so be it&mdash;it's just a website, which is something people tend to forget here. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 07:59, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * ...says the man who is so obsessed with insisting a badge of shame remain on someone's page that he's now taken it to ANi instead of simply dropping it. Joefromrandb (talk) 09:22, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * ...seriously? I brought it to ANI so there will be a final resolution, as I think that consensus from outside editors will be in my favor&mdash;though, of course, I could be wrong. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 10:10, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It's excellent form for editors, and especially admins such as Ed, to ask for a second opinion through ANI in situations such as this. Nick-D (talk) 10:41, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Isn't the purpose of ANI to seek Administrator action or intervention? (What action is being sought here?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:00, 13 November 2012 (UTC) p.s. Nevermind (I see now, there was a series of reverts).
 * In this case, the "purpose of ANI" is for Ed's admin-buddies to rubber-stamp his right to gravedance. Joefromrandb (talk) 14:37, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * No, the purpose is for StillStanding's buddies (and the death-to-the-admins brigade) to harass a good admin. I love how quickly ya'all jump to "suggests to me you are biased" as if an unbiased person must surely see it your way.  Ed has apologized for a few misstatements but ya'all are on his like piranhas.  Obvious your own biases are at play here.  You've set your friend on the pedestal as a martyr and refused to think rationally.  Ya'all's argument is a joke at this point.  Keep it up, the more you drone on about admin abuse and desysops, the more folks are becoming desensitized to it.--v/r - TP 17:19, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, TParis. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:45, 13 November 2012 (UTC)


 * TParis, your comments are baiting. (You love drama? You're an Admin?!) Ed, as Admin, easily confused an indef block with a community ban, it didn't offend anybody so an apology was misplaced. But it did show carelessness re his understanding of policy, and combined with his repeated page blanking, was the basis for my comment it suggested a bias. But it is apparently okay for you as Admin, to "jump to" that I have an "obvious bias" and "refuse to think rationally". Yeah right -- not hypocritical at all. The suggestion that I might want to harrass someone, is a personal attack and offensive to me, I really want to AGF you are not doing that. No one has used the phrase "admin abuse" here, only you. So for sure there's no evidence here you have an "us versus them" attitude and battleground mentality ... not at all. (If I were Ed, your "supportive" comments would embarrass me. But that's just me.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 22:45, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Ahh yes, typical. Hypocrisy when someone else does it, but not when you do it.  What do we call that folks?--v/r - TP 23:07, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I stated that Ed's easy confusion between indef block and community ban suggested to me a bias. Then you come in uninvited and say "as if an unbiased person must surely see it your way". No, I didn't say or assert anyone must see it my way, I was only stating for myself. Then you follow up with: "You've [...] refused to think rationally." I could ask in return: "As if a rational person must surely see it your way." But the hypocrisy is obvious to me, so I didn't. Now, you say I've been hypocritical. How so? (Or, do you just like to name-call without basis?) I say get off your drama horse, Mr. Administrator. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 23:37, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Aye, calling Ed biased, then getting called biased yourself, then calling me hypocritical for calling you biased sure isn't hypocritical, now is it? Uninvited?  I wasn't aware that an invite was necessary.  Last time I checked, this was the Wikipedia that anyone can edit and all of our conversations are public.  Name calling?  Again, how is the hypocrisy in your statement not obvious?  I see how I'm being hypocritical.  I'm not trying to be pleasant right now.  If you were willing to discuss this instead of just trash Ed then I'd be open to discussing this point by point.  But check yourself before calling others out.  Your not the purest idol that I should be aspiring to here.  Am I perfect?  No, I don't think I can be Dennis Brown.  Are you?  I'd say you're guilty of exactly what you accuse me of.  I don't see how it's a mystery to you, other than the good ol' fashion WP:IDHT behavior that your friend exhibited.  How about we take this to my talk page, or yours, if you think I'm being hypocritical.  But your argument against Ed is baseless.  He is doing what he thought was right in good faith.  That you disagree with what he thinks is right doesn't make him biased or gravedancing.  Let's have some WP:AGF for Ed, huh?--v/r - TP 23:47, 13 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I explained my basis for saying it suggested a bias to me. You just flat-out accused me of bias, saying it was "obvious", without basis. You misunderstood what I called hypocritical. To say "as if an unbiased person must surely see it 'your way'" (something I never said or thought), and then followup with "You've [...] refused to think rationally", not seeing how you yourself are implying that a rational person must think as you do, was the hypocrisy I was referring to. (I did not call you hypocritical for calling me biased, only asserting that without supporting it.) I didn't say an invitation was necessary on Wikipedia, only that you weren't invited. (You seem to like to get in it with people, including me, which makes me think you are somewhat of a drama queen.) You should read more carefully rather than pinning words and thoughts on people. For example your "death-to-the-admins brigade" was uncalled for. Your casting me as making someone a martyr is offensive. Your claim of calls re "admin abuse" and "de-sysopping" was unjustfied. There's no doubt about your choosing to "not be pleasant". You are an Admin, and let me suggest that you should try and do a little better. You are supposed to suppress warring mentality and battleground, yet you quickly take up an active seat it in. Drama. You seem to like it. I don't. Wikipedia is not here for your emotions. You should have known that at point you nominated yourself at RfA. You accused me of "trashing Ed", and that is a gross mischaracterization of what I said. I have no idea what you mean accusing me of "calling others out", you weren't specific, yet you accused me of not "checking myself" first, whatever that means. You keep introducing new issues I do not want to discuss with you, example, that Dennis Brown is apparently near perfect according to you, when I think he has demonstrated some major flaws. You are trying to put in my mouth that I've contended I'm "perfect", which is nuts, based on what? Based on fair criticisms? Criticisms of crap contributions from you that was uninvited, where you self-describe your intent is to be unpleasant? You accuse me of having an "argument against Ed" that is "baseless". What argument? There you go again. I said (I'm repeating this now four or five times for you) that his confusion of indef block with community ban, as Admin, suggested to me a bias. (And later, combined with repetitive page blankings.) There is no argument there. Yet you accuse of being irrational, trashing him, going off perfect, going off without checking myself, being hypocritical. Drama much? Why don't you go do some Administrative thingies? As long as you have brought forward you're aware you are intentionally being unpleasant, why don't you invest in a little self-correction now, rather than more drama? Or is that your concept of WP, a drama sandbox for those elected Admin? Quite honestly I love to contribute on WP, but the crap and drama here, makes it difficult. Why add to it? (Make WP better, not worse.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 00:22, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

You say you don't like drama, yet here you are. Hypocrisy? You called me a drama queen. How is that not calling names. I hate drama, I didn't ask to be wrapped up in it. StillStanding dragged me into it and ya'all keep moaning over it.--v/r - TP 00:34, 14 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I came here to register that the page-blanking by Ed was IMO excessive and unnecessary. I believe in free-and-open expression, within limits, especially criticism of WP should be tolerated and even encouraged, not suppressed in a triumph of authoritarianism. So how is registering my opinion with Ed, seeking drama? "Being here" is not the same between us. (I came here to register the opinion I just referred to, how is that hypocritical? You came here in emotional defense of Ed, proceeding to do battle by making drama-filled exaggerations and accuses, when in fact I had no desire to discuss anything in particular with you.) I said "which makes me think you are somewhat of a drama queen", and I agree it was somewhat of a name-call, and I'm sorry for that (I apologize). Your actions have been stirring the drama pot here, however, as you have already offered admission your intentions were to be unpleasant. You say you "hate drama" and "StillStanding draggged [you] into it", there you go again with another assertion that is probably false but I have no interest to discuss with you. (Why oh why were you even going to the User page where he made his poorly-considered joke, if you weren't snooping for what others were saying about you? Idle curiosity? Aren't you busy enough doing Admin duties to bother with listening in on others' conversations in case you are mentioned?) I have no idea what you are accusing me of moaning about, I've been clear enough to Ed, above, with what was my only intended contribution here. I've been replying to your stuff, rather than let it stand. I've been asking you to zip it, rather than continue the drama you've created here. You seem to have some still-standing issues with StillStanding-247. That isn't my problem. The page blanking is a new issue that potentially affects *anyone* indef-blocked, and you want to liberally and personally interpret something I didn't say, as a personal slight against you, when none exists. Quit with your stuff here, please, make WP better. Cheers and good luck, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 01:15, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * What's all this then? The length of your screeds is increasing: not a good sign. Have a tea, relax. Come back to it later. Or don't. Yes, later... Doc   talk  05:07, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * IHTS, your assumption of my thoughts and motives is just sad, and you were the one who caused drama here with your hyperbolic and vitriolic posts (I accidentally typed "ban" instead of "indefinite block". Gee, what a terrible mistake and crime; it must have been done on purpose and out of ignorance). I'm all for expressing opinions, and my talk page has traditionally been an open page for anything and anyone, but attributing unwarranted motives to me and TParis has gotten old. If you "love to contribute [to] WP but the crap and drama ... makes it difficult", go write articles on something you're interested in (or on battleships, my pet topic ;-) ) and stop engaging with the wider community on the dramaboards and drama talk pages. I did that for years, and my on-wiki time was much more productive. Anyway, this discussion is over. TParis, I appreciate you defending me, but this'll save us both from headaches. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 07:33, 14 November 2012 (UTC)


 * All I said was, all I ever said was, that your easy confusion between indef block, and community ban, showed weakness in policy knowledge for an admin, and suggested to me a bias might be present. (How you turn that into "hyperbolic" and "vitrialic posts", I have no idea. Neither did I accuse you of making a "terrible mistake" or a "crime". When I refer to shit at WP it is this kind of false accusation, sticking words in someone's mouth, then blaming them for what they didn't say, mean, or think. I haven't "attributed unwarranted motives" if that means making an accusation, since I have made none. I didn't ask TParis to come here and address me or insult me, he chose to do that, I responded, he admitted he came here to intentionally "be unpleasant".) I have no interest with "drama boards", but I do have an interest to keep myself clean from all the crap on WP, and there is certainly no shortage of that, anywhere, including your User page here. Read what I've written and asserted, you'll surely find it minimal. The rest is responding to the fact others like drama and say irresponsible stuff, contributing to the nasty environment & culture at WP, not me. Ok? I want peaceful co-existence on the Wiki w/ TParis and you as well, I have no interest to get anyone hopping mad, but what others choose to get mad about is none of my doing, so your assertion that my minimal contributions (which were nothing more than clarifications of others' exaggerations really) "caused drama", is falsely accrediting blame. (Quite honestly I think the amount of drama on WP is so thick in the culture, many are quite blind to see that participating in it isn't good, contributes and perpetuates it. For example, your false blames highten drama. I would never accuse another editor the way you have accused me here, without solid basis, and, there is none.) p.s. Battleships are cool, I like them. But I'm not qualified to write on them, it isn't my "thing". So improving them is your job, and please do a good job for the Wiki, aren't we all in this together, to improve the articles here? That is my "screed", thank you! Cheers & good luck. Sincere, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 09:06, 14 November 2012 (UTC)


 * p.p.s. Ed, take a look at the ANI board and check out TParis's edit sum: "Fucking genius logic." Then tell me honestly, that you think that isn't contributing to drama. Joefromrandb made a comment about the possibility of a "child" blocking him for exceeding 3RR. So what? Joe didn't name anyone. He didn't falsely accuse anyone of something. What was the necessity to respond as Paris did? (Don't worry, I know the answer: Past 'bad blood'. Fine. But Paris should have risen above the comment, for he is an Admin. Paris chose to ramp up the incivility with his edit sum. He didn't have to. I'm sure you don't approve. Fighting fire with fire should be left to battleships. Not WP editors. Cool is the answer. And improving the encyclopedia. Tell me you agree please. Then tell Paris, too. Maybe Paris needs some of the tea offered by Doc987*. I've been drinking mine all day long. [And BTW Doc ... length does not = 'screed'. I'm just fluid at the keyboard. But thank God more disciplined when copyediting articles. I love the writing discipline articles require, being encyclopedic and not wordy. If you notice my edits recently, there are lots of -nn databytes to them. But if I get in a conversation w/ someone about something interesting or pertinent, well, fluid again.]) Take care, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 09:40, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Hyperbolic? Certainly, you took a typo (indef block vs. ban) to automatically assume that I am both weak in policy and biased. I can assure you that I do know and have known the difference. "Vitriolic" was an unfortunate conflation of your posts with Randy's; I apologize. All of us here have caused drama, whether we like it or not&mdash;the topic kind of ensured that&mdash;and we're all frustrated. I think it's time for all of us to walk away from this part of the discussion while burying the hatchets and moving on, eh?
 * Re battleships, fair enough. I still don't really know how I got into battleships, but over four years I've gone from this to South American dreadnought race. Kind of frightening, really. I suspect the same thing has happened with you. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:50, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * That's funny! You have a couple yrs on me, so my evolution/deevolution ain't that apparent yet, maybe. My favorite battleship pic for years is (USS Iowa BB-61) here, just checked and am glad to see that it's been incorporated in the WP article. (I contacted the Navy yrs ago so know they allow free use.)
 * I'm sorry, since I offended you by questioning your motive, it wasn't my intent. (I didn't accuse you of having bias, just supposed some might be present. Which of course felt like an accuse, you got defensive rather than just shoot back "No bias here. Ok?" [I promise you it would have ended the matter.] Anyway when one thinks about it, there's no way to ask someone "Are you sure there isn't even a little bit of bias present?" w/o to some degree already automatically crossing AGF. I don't think AGF means we s/ suspend or arrest our use of language, rather common sense and tea/coolness take the driver's. Anyway battlelines are quick to be drawn and things go downhill, I think it is a big cultural problem, made up of individuals all added together. Each is responsible for their part. Countering someone who's made an irresponsible accuse, on the WP, seems to them as having violated their "Constitutional Right" [or something]. It's way out of hand.) Sincere, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 10:42, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * That's everyone's favorite pic. ;-) My favorite is on my user page: similar shot, but in black and white of a Brazilian battleship. Everything the US federal government produces is in the public domain&mdash;see Copyright status of work by the U.S. government. It's really helpful (understatement) when trying to find images.
 * It's life; it's not like our thoughts always translate well into text. I suppose my indignant reply didn't help either. You'd think that countering inaccurate accusations would be easy, considering that we record all actions here in the form of diffs, but that's certainly not true. :-) What you could take from this, though, is when to walk away&mdash;the long, heated discussions with TParis above could have been avoided if you had walked away and quit beating the horse carcass (as I think we all knew no one was going to change their position). Just a friendly thought; take it how you'd like. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 12:17, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, the gov't is our friend vis-a-vis pics. (For e.g., all the Hubble shots are free use too!)
 * I actually might see conflict different from you. I think progress is the logical end of discussion, if it isn't curtailed premature, such as one or other party melting down (emotional collapse to irrationality). (For example, even w/ the exchanges w/ Paris here, one can see small measures of progress: he was willing to admit less-than-ideal attitude, I conceded I didn't have a self-image of perfection and that was nuts; he put forth in clear terms he never saw Still*'s joke as a threat, I made clear I didn't approve of Still*'s ill-considered joke. Trouble with my theory is that though it can be useful to generate real results, it takes too long, too much dialogue, too much patience, to be practical. Paris offered to take disagreements to Talk w/ me, and I feel a little bad about not accepting, as I think it could've been healthy for him to get stuff off his chest. But it wasn't clear to me we have issues between us that are well-defined, and I feel uncomfortable in dialogue w/o concrete reference points that can just end up emotional wrangling.) If editors can "have it out" and radiation hasn't melted either party, then they've been honest w/ ea other, and like boxers StillStanding in the 15th round, will have nothing left but tangible respect. It takes discipline and humans are hair-triggered towards emotionalism. But meantime don't forget that we expect all you Admins to be at "higher standard" at all times in all places. ("I'm Jimbo Wales and I approve this message!") ;) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 13:39, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, but such boxing, if done with the wrong person, will be seen poorly and could lead to you getting blocked sometime for disruption (and to be clear, that's not a threat, just my thoughts on the scenario!). Re admins, even that higher standard doesn't preclude us from making simple mistakes. Don't be so quick to assume that what is probably a typo (like indef blocks v. bans -- do you think the RfA crowd would have let me through if I didn't know? ;-) ) is actually an indicator of many unrelated things! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:18, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Disruption wouldn't be factor of course, if the debate described was mutually entered into. (Two parties hashing it out w/ one another wouldn't disturb anyone else, right? Going w/ this idea even further, if participants agreed on ground rules, even permitting free expression [obscenities], that'd also not affect anyone other, so no grounds for civility block. [Yes? The idea of potential benefit of "1-on-1 war-room" fascinates me and I think there's no application anywhere except perhaps between existing friends. Which suggests to me a 3rd party referee might be needed to keep on track, for example obscenties w/o accompanying substantive argument would not be allowed.])
 * Everyone screws up w/ assumptions, so being careful is good advice of course. As mentioned I think a Q vs. accusation is big difference. Also it can be complicated too: when is a typo (usually keystroke but sometimes also word choice) not also something more intriguing? (Ha-ha!) Cheers, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 07:37, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Possibly, but you don't want to be seen as badgering if the other person disengages. Ground rules would be interesting, but I doubt many people would agree to it. ;-) I agree -- and I certainly took your initial posts as accusing me of being biased, rather than simple questions. Wording, especially when text-based, can be really touchy. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 10:58, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't knowingly badger - the very word denotes excessiveness or inappropriateness. Looking at our earlier thread, I was way more aggressive then w/ accusation, hypocritical even, sorry. I think I've lightened up since then, perhaps I biased you then vs me when bringing up similar topic more recently, anyway I'm sure I was upset w/ Still*'s removal then, he is a very good writer. // Interesting that people would shy from war-room rules, it seems everyone carries some hostilities that would be healthy to release in a controlled, safe environment!? Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 13:11, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * But it can come off like that unintentionally. Like I said, we're fine&mdash;worse things have happened in my life!&mdash;but try to keep this in mind for future discussions. Most of us admins are normal people w I am glad we worked that out, though. :-) Still is a great writer, but the mentality he took to editing was just not conducive to a healthy editing environment. I really did try to get him to see that, but alas, he ticked off enough people that when a spark caught (the death 'threat'), everyone piled on. // For the immediate discussion, it could help, but you also have to think beyond that. Does a vitriolic, albeit agreed-upon, discussion poison the well for the next person coming to post to that page? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:16, 16 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I didn't familiarize myself w/ Still*'s editing pattern or content debates re articles, so don't know anything about that and so can have no opinion. (I just know he writes well.) "Ticking off" people doesn't say specifically what policies he violated, if any, ... people can get ticked off for a lot of things, and if they are outside policy, don't constitute a block or ban rationale. (Again, I don't know what editing issues were.) "Mentality he took to editing", of course that's non-definitive, I don't know what you mean, but, neither am I asking you to explain or defend here. "Healthy editing environment", is a ditto non-definitive, can mean different things to different folks, and for sure, if someone doesn't agree w/ an editor about anything, they can say that, or "tendentious", or "battleground", etc., those words are have been abused for block rationale and ANI hangings, this I do know. (In my limited/amateur experience so far, I can see several dangers that have crept into WP and holed up taking permanent residence here. One is the abused BOOMERANG; I won't even call it a concept, because that is giving it too much credit. Another might be the very notion of consensus. [Consensus for what? It should be consensus re policy. But for example policy is not well defined re CIV issues, so, consensus then still occurs, but it isn't re policy, and what fills the vacuum is the human ugly side -- mob bias. That happened to Malleus on several occasions, and since the culture of that sort of thing is present, I'm wondering if Still* wasn't also to some part victim of it too. But again I have not reviewed the specifics of his editing or complaints re same, so have no opinion and am not asking for explanation or justification. I just do not trust the "judicial" process here ... AT ALL ... based on my own experiences even, as amateur or little-experienced editor. I'm quite shocked at the low level of civilization, fundamentally, at ANI. And I also question a whole lot, the independent authority invested in Administrators generally with power to make independent calls re blocking, because it can easily be abused, and because I know the Admin corps are tight knit to not question or challenge another Admin's decisions, unless the blocked editor has high profile like a Malleus, when an Admin might reverse another Admin's decision just for getting the publicity/exposure [ditto publicity/exposure for the original blocker]. A nobody editor has an ice-cube chance in Hades to have a bad block reverted, since there is so much reputation risk inherent when one Admin questions another Admin. [I presume this is *precisely paralleled* in the real world, with local police force constituting essentially a sub-community within their city, where they do not snitch on one another, less they be ostracized and lose any future advancement potential within the force, for the remainder of their career it in. To summarize [nothing personal mind you] I think the independent Admin with block buttons is unworkable, has created much resentment and dissention, and an "us versus them" [Admins versus editors] mentality has already existed here for some time [e.g. see early copy of essay "What They Don't Teach in Admin School"], good editors have been lost [Rich Farmbrough now too], and is it getting better or worse!? To dramatize this others have compared to a Police State demoralizing the editor ranks thru totalitarian-type force tactics, and given that power usually corrupts [unless in the hands of an evolved individual], it is a hard observation to fundamentally disagree with. It will be very interesting to see how the Pedia evolves over the next 5 years ... my own view is the independent Admin with loaded gun [block button] is passe and unworkable and will collapse or cause further degredation to morale. [In Britian the cops only have clubs no bullets, am I right? I don't know the specifics behind it, but it makes sense to me.]) // The war-room discussion would have to be closed to public view; perhaps only Admins could have a look at the discussions in it. (Does that solve poisoning for the next editor? Or did you mean something else?) Ok, cheers, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:49, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Signpost help with tech report
Hi, The ed17! Would you mind if I encouraged the Wikimedia technical community to help out with this week's tech report, given that Jarry1250 is fairly busy?

Thanks, Sumana Harihareswara, Wikimedia Foundation Engineering Community Manager (talk) 17:57, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi, I don't expect that would be a problem. It's also helpful that this is something relatively non-controversial, as we are an independent outlet and, given the anti-WMF view of some Wikipedia editors, we value that. :-) We'll keep an eye on it, though. We'll publish around 16UTC tomorrow, so if it could be done by then, I'd appreciate it! Thanks very much, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:58, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Signpost: Hurricane Sandy
This article was featured in Popular Science: See "Meet The Climate Change Denier Who Became The Voice Of Hurricane Sandy On Wikipedia". -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:52, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for the link! We already have a story drafted. :-) Regards, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:58, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 05 November 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 01:48, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Request
Hi : )
 * 
 * WP:RRA

Sooo, would you happen to have time atm to look this over for clarity? Also, please let me know if there are related policy/guidelines I've neglected to link to.

Thank you : ) - jc37 23:33, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi there. I've done some copyediting (please check), and have a few thoughts for you:
 * While I think it's a good idea, requiring three experienced administrators will guarantee you a relatively significant amount of opposes from people who think admins are corrupt, and that's not a good recipe to get consensus. You may want to pare that down to three editors, including one administrator and two long-term editors? Or just three total autoconfirmed editors (i.e. not socks)?
 * Do you really want to compare it to RfA? While it may be similar, people way read that and oppose it out-of-hand.
 * Having a formal "advise" option may be unnecessary. I suspect that people will do that in any case. However, the closer being able to close it as 'unsuccessful with advice' is brilliant.
 * Does Arbcom want the power to review the decisions? Same with the bureaucrats. It's better to get those questions out of the way now, rather than deal with it halfway through an RfC.
 * It (may) help to add why Arbcom would overturn a community decision. Typically they don't operate against community consensus&mdash;e.g. they don't typically overturn community bans.
 * Why the complicated rules with seven and thirty days? I would just leave them out, but there may be a good reason for them that I don't see? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:37, 9 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the editing and the feedback! : )
 * A lot of this process came out of past discussions at WT:RFA and elsewhere, and are a direct response to previous concerns. (I've noted some at the top of the talk page, and some additional explanations.)
 * To try to take your questions in order:
 * The 3 admins part is simultaneously a win-win and a lose-lose situation : ) - The problem comes from several perspectives and trying to balance between them. On one hand, those who fear admin canbalism preventing an RRA from being started, and those who are concerned about RRA leading to pitchforking or lynch mobs, or just harrassment or wasting the community's time. Since this doesn't replace the existing processes to de-admin, and since this proposal will be DOA without a strong "gatekeeper" feature, I'm leaning heavily on the 3 experienced admins (besides the community discussion, the bureaucrat closure, and the arbcom review). And note, it's been suggested that even more admins be required as gatekeepers : ) - So I'm trying to strike a balance, while trying to follow current Wikipedia practices. We already have a not-uncommon call for 3 experienced admins to close community-wide discussions. So I'm trying to follow that.
 * I know the feeling. The knee-jerk response (for example: those with pre-conceived notions, or who haven't read the whole proposal) will be anti-RfA. That said, I honestly think that having this as a way for the community to remove adminship will go a fair way to help fix the tone and some of the other issues currently at RfA. That aside, I really like the reciprocality of this. RFA is a discussion of trust (or lack thereof), and RRA is a discussion of a question of continued trust (or lack thereof). And I just like the sentiment of: The community giveth, the community taketh away : )
 * advise/admonish are currently results which happen at Arbcom, so I am replicating them here. An important note is that Bureaucrats made it fairly clear that they do not want to have to make "subjective decisions" in a closure. They prefer binary options: successful/unsuccessful; switch flipped/not flipped; etc. So I've intentionally tried very hard to meet that.
 * Whether Arbcom wants the power or not, they already have it. (I'll spare you the past history on this.) So for this process to exist within current policy, it will require the Arbitration Committee signing off on the results. And again, Arbcom review helps by being the final "gatekeeping" as it were.
 * The key part of the 7 and 30 days is the temporary removal (and possible temporary returning) of the admin tools. The whole point of this is to deal directly with the bear in the room. A seat on Arbcom (unlike anything else on Wikipedia) is an elected seat. That means Arbcom members deal more with Wiki-politics than anyone else on Wiki save maybe JW in the past. So with that in mind, we need to realise there is no way to "force" arbcom to come to consensus, or even to decide to review an RRA. So it seemed wise to have a "pocket veto" factor. (Which also allows Arbcom to silently assent as it were.) And also, the deadlines are because we shouldn't have an RRA opened interminably simply because it's taken Arbcom 6 months (so far) to decide about a particular review.
 * Sorry for the length. I tried to be as concise as possible : )
 * If you have anything else you would like clarified, I would be happy to. - jc37 01:33, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't want you to think I am ignoring you – I have seen this and will try to respond tomorrow. Sorry for the delay! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:57, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, in order:
 * If you have a response that you feel will satisfy naysayers, then I suppose this problem is fixed. :-) Just be ready to provide it early, so that you don't get a wave of anti-admin opposers before they understand.
 * Your problem is that 'knee-jerk responses' might be the ones who decide an RfC.
 * Which is true, but adding so many options is going to complicate the process. We want this as simple as possible (I assume). I would structure it as support/oppose, with an explicit 'advise' option for a bureaucrat if they see a dominant theme in one or both section(s).
 * They do, but RfC commentators are going to want an explicit confirmation of this from an arb. Better to ask sooner than later. Besides, if Arbcom comes out against this (for some reason I can't fathom?), any RfC is going to be sunk anyway.
 * Again, it's the issue of being overly complicated, but you have a good reason for it. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:31, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You hit the nail on the head. I've found after doing several of these community-wide proposals that regardless of the stated reason, if someone wishes to oppose a proposal, they're going to oppose. And no amount explaining/clarifying helps (Not that I don't try to help anyway : )
 * and I'm trying to keep this as basic as possible, while trying to address as many concerns as possible.
 * I will take a look at the process explanation and see if I can make it clearer.
 * I'm wondering if maybe creating a flowchart might make it easier to understand? - jc37 19:45, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * A flowchart or some sort of image would be good – people tend to pay more attention to those than large amounts of text. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:34, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Which of course brings us to a part of Wikipedia that I'm not often interacting with. Images. Any suggestions who might be willing to help out with this? - jc37 02:19, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah. The only thing I can do is basic image copyrights. ;-) The Graphics Lab is typically a good place to start. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:26, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Trouble brewing
See contributions from a newcomer with a political bent. FWiW, the user name is also controversial. Bzuk (talk) 14:50, 11 November 2012 (UTC).
 * I wasn't online, but it looks like he/she was dealt with quickly, which is good. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:35, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Rollback
Hi Ed, You very kindly gave me rollback recently becuase of all the work on the Bond pages. It's been great and hugely useful, so thinks for that. Is there a chance you could also consider granting it for too? He covers an overlapping set of articles to me and has to deal with a fair amount of rubbish too, so it would be great if he could help out when I'm not around. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 19:31, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * He looks trustworthy, so it's done. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:35, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Cheers Ed - it's much appreciated! - SchroCat (talk) 09:36, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Anytime! Let me know if I can help with anything else. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:40, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Ed, many thanks for that. I'm not sure ill use it much having looked at the guidelines, but its still quite a handy to have should I come accross vandalism at any point.  I'm not sure I fully understand it yet and have been experimenting with it on my user page. I'm gonna stick something in my sandbox later and have a play around with it if that's within the rules. --   Cassianto Talk   11:00, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

This Month in GLAM: October 2012
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Unsubscribe · Global message delivery 02:54, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 November 2012
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">
 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 14:32, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Education Program:University of Guelph-Humber/Currents in Twentieth Century World History (2012 Q4)
I saw you signed up as an OA. Cool! Please let me know if you have any feedback on the extension. Note that you can go to Special:OnlineAmbassadorProfile to create a profile for yourself. (A bug is already filed about the "leave page" warning you'll get when you try to save.)--Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 19:27, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I hadn't been paying much attention to EP this year, but this class' description is relatively close to my pet favorite area of history... so I couldn't resist. :-) I've created a profile as well. The extension looks okay so far, but I'm waiting to see what happens when students are added. Is the Guelph class even active? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:08, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not active yet, although it's supposed to start any time now. It's the extension guinea pig because it was getting started so late.--Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 20:59, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

USS Washington
http://www.navweaps.com/index_lundgren/Kirishima_Damage_Analysis.pdf

Coudl be fairly relevant. I'm going to resume work after finals. It'd be good to finally geet it up to at least GA. NativeForeigner Talk 19:59, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Nice to hear from ya, NF; it's been a long time! That will be helpful. I'll get my sources together next time I'm with them so we can finally finish it. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:08, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Ed's availability
Everyone, I believe Ed is away this weekend and on restricted internet. We can expect him to drop in from time to time, but sustained engagement might have to wait until next week. Tony  (talk)  03:55, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Just confirming that, I may be able to check in occasionally but for all intents and purposes I will be offline until Wednesday. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 07:03, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 November 2012
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">
 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 00:57, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

South American dreadnought race improvements
Hi Ed, Great work with continuing to improve this article after its successful FA nomination! Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:01, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It's more of a nasty, time-consuming obsession, but thanks. ;-) Also, if you're bored, I'd love your (non-American) opinion on Linda Tripp and my AfD nomination there. I'm not canvassing for your opinion, but would like to hear your thoughts – is my view on BLP1E is different from most of the other people here? Thanks, as always, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 10:10, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Classic case of WP:BLP1E IMO - while I imagine that acres of newsprint has been devoted to Ms Tripp, there doesn't seem to be anything which isn't directly related to the Lewinsky scandal. Nick-D (talk) 10:23, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * See, that's what I thought too, yet there are four 'keeps'. No matter how many sources there are, I take BLP1E to mean that if the only source of notability is their non-central role in an event, they should be included in the event article, and in this case I think the central players are Lewinsky and Clinton. Well, we'll see what happens after seven days. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 10:30, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Articles like this are hard to delete as people tend to implicitly apply the 'I've heard of them' rule (which I'm guilty of doing at times!). Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:44, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Problem in Almirante Latorre article
Ed, This statement needs to be cited: A substantial amount of parts from Almirante Latorre were used in the restoration of the Mikasa. I only noticed because I'm getting the Mikasa article reviewed and need to add this information to it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:03, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi. That statement was in the article [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chilean_battleship_Almirante_Latorre&oldid=361121311 before I started working on it], but I was never able to source it. It looks like it was re-added [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chilean_battleship_Almirante_Latorre&diff=412276804&oldid=411248060 here] without me knowing... Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 07:49, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't have access to the NYT non-free archives, but I thought that you do. This might have useful info on the Mikasa/Latorre connection. If you get a chance, can you email it to me to assist with the former article.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:37, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Which article were you looking for? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:37, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Japanese battleship Mikasa; this relates to my comment at Talk:Japanese battleship Mikasa/GA1. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 04:45, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I got that, Nick. ;-) I was wondering what NYT article Sturm was looking for. If it's this one, it's a two-sentence article basically stating that the ship arrived in Yokosuka on the 29th. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:48, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, OK. I actually have an electronic subscription to the NYT (it's the perfect thing to read on buses in Canberra!), and the stories about Mikasa being restored in the late 1950s don't provide information on this (they're focused on donations from USN personnel stationed at Yokosuka). Nick-D (talk) 07:16, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Featured content
I'm pretty swamped with RL stuff this week and Tony1 is "burned out" according to his status. Do you think you could find someone to take over this section, at least for this week? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:31, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * That's fine, I was in the same spot last week. :-) I was planning on knocking it out myself this week. What is the normal date range you do? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 10:54, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * For this week it should be 18 until 24 November. And now back to Lacan. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:56, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. You go worry about RL, and we'll have your back for this week. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 11:16, 24 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I could do it, as I've done quite a few of the Featured content in the past with Crisco, and some were mostly done by me. Tony complimented me for my work. And I used to routinely edit the other articles in the Signpost before publication. MathewTownsend (talk) 20:46, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * If you would like to, please feel free to go ahead. Thanks! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:46, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Project Cloud Gap
Hey Ed, I wrote this up under compulsion and while stealing talk page templates from Nuclear disarmament I saw that it might be a matter of some interest for MILHIST. So it's yours now! ;) Happy post-Thanksgiving, Drmies (talk) 13:06, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Drmies. So, you have a few problems. :-) The project is "Project Cloud Gap", while the studies done after the fact were named Summary Report on Field Test 34: Demonstrated Destruction of Nuclear Weapons and Project Cloud Gap and CG-34: Demonstrated Destruction of Nuclear Weapons. The Field Test was done during the program, not after, and the conclusions were part of the study, not part of the field test. Does that make sense? Also, if you want to add more information, the FAS page you use as a source has the entire study online. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 13:55, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't have problems: you do! You're MILHIST, Ed, I'm not. Mind you, I didn't say the test was done after the program... Also, Cultivating Confidence has the full name as I put it in the lead. I did see that study, but it's primary and, how do I say this gently, it's boring (military history, you know). When I started it, prompted by Uncle G, and the first hit I saw had "secret program", I was getting ready to be fascinated, but it turns out to be less exciting than expensive dreadnought programs. Drmies (talk) 14:42, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see how it is! All government programs tend to be relatively boring, unfortunately, and the reports/studies done after them tend to reflect that. I'm sorry you were disappointed.(and yes, straight military history isn't very exciting either, which is why I try to include some political history... but yes, I agree that I'm more interested in it than most people). Of course, if you are looking for exciting dreadnought races, I'll be happy to point you at a few. ;-) There's the always-popular Anglo–German race, a Greco–Ottoman race, or the post-war Anglo–American–Japanese race... among a few others. Get to work! ;-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:46, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

You have been suggested..
But for what?

Please see this thread where it happened. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 21:54, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

TPS
Thank you for your excellent talk page stalker services, as always. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:35, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry it took me so long. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:56, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 November 2012
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">
 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 09:57, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXX, November 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 Nick-D (talk) 01:26, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Information
I noticed your username commenting at an Arbcom discussion regarding civility. An effort is underway that would likely benifit if your views were included. I hope you will append regards at: Requests for comment/Civility enforcement/Questionnaire Thank you for considering this request. My <font color="#FF4500;">76 Strat (talk) 05:58, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * I love that this was sent at roughly the same time I decided to insult your age. ;-) Thanks very much! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:16, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I told my daughter last year that I was 108. She added correctly and now I'm 109. It's useful to have kids: I make them get the paper and pick up things for me. Drmies (talk) 18:18, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Children are their parent's slaves. I'd like to protest that, but I feel like I'll be doing the same in a few years. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:43, 30 November 2012 (UTC)