User:The ed17/Archives/61

Star Trek into Darkness talk page
Who are you to decide when a discussion is over? Your status as an administrator does not give you the right to violate policy. Please self-revert your action. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:30, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Violating policy? No. I'm an uninvolved administrator here attempting to clamp down on the drama. The matter was decided today, and we aren't reopening the debate just hours later because you think the consensus will change. If you feel differently, I invite you to post on WP:ANI so that others may scrutinize my actions. Otherwise, or in the meantime, I would ask you to drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. Regards, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:39, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You should have bothered to read the actual debate. There was no consensus to change the article to its current title. That decision was made by the heavy-handed application of sysop priviledges yesterday (a matter that is currently being discussed at WP:AN) and not by the editors working toward consensus. You can't just label a sysop's behavior as "consensus" and then tell everyone to stop discussing the matter. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:46, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I haven't labeled Mackensen's move as consensus—in case you didn't notice, I read and closed the last debate, and consensus was clearly in favor of the current title. Furthermore, the AN discussion is hatted and over. So as I said: please go to ANI for a review of my actions, or drop the stick. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:54, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * "Consensus was clearly in favor of the current title" is incorrect. In the most recent move discussion, only a tiny majority of editors supported the move to the uppercase "Into". Your hat/label essentially instructed editors to ignore these facts and shut up. Surely you can see the problem? -- Scjessey (talk) 21:05, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Going straight by the numbers, it's 15-2. Not exactly a "tiny majority". Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:09, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, stop stirring the glue, SCJ. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:39, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Er... the !vote was 17 supporting "Into", 11 supporting "into". It was closed by Anthony Appleyard on January 9, so yeah - not a significant majority at all. Certainly not enough for a consensus to move. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:47, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Erm, you are one of the two opposes in my 15-2 count, so I don't know if you're willfully ignoring the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Star_Trek_Into_Darkness&oldid=535965039#Requested_move_.28again.29 last move discussion] or ... what you are trying to accomplish. Regardless, this conversation is going nowhere, so please go to ANI for a review of my actions, or drop the stick. I'm not planning on replying here again. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:09, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The "last move discussion" wasn't actually a move discussion at all. It was an on/off discussion that occurred AFTER the move took place. It existed in a viable form for just minutes, and it never had a chance to run the usual course (the legitimate move discussion was 29 days). As far as what I am trying to accomplish is concerned, I think it is important to highlight the abuse of process that has taken place. Telling me to bugger off to ANI for review is all well and good (you know nothing will ever come of it), but I think it is more useful to directly show you what has gone wrong here. -- Scjessey (talk) 03:28, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything wrong, so if you're concerned that what I did was wrong, I will again ask you to go to ANI so that outside editors can review my actions. I don't know what will happen there; no one does. Thank you for your input. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:39, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 January newsletter
Signups are now closed; we have our final 127 contestants for this year's competition. 64 contestants will make it to the next round at the end of February, but we're already seeing strong scoring compared to previous years. currently leads, with 358 points. At this stage in 2012, the leader had 342 points, while in 2011, the leader had 228 points. We also have a large number of scorers when compared with this stage in previous years. was the first competitor to score this year, as he was last year, with a detailed good article review. Some other firsts:
 * was also the first to score for an article, with the good article Hurricane Gordon (2000). Again, this is a repeat of last year!
 * was the first to score for a did you know, with Marquis Flowers.
 * was the first to score for an in the news, with 2013 Houphouët-Boigny stampede.
 * was the first to score for a featured list, with list of Billboard Social 50 number-one artists.
 * was the first to score for a featured picture, with File:Thure de Thulstrup - L. Prang and Co. - Battle of Gettysburg - Restoration by Adam Cuerden.jpg.

Featured articles, portals and topics, as well as good topics, are yet to feature in the competition.

This year, the bonus points system has been reworked, with bonus points on offer for old articles prepared for did you know, and "multiplier" points reworked to become more linear. For details, please see WikiCup/Scoring. There have been some teething problems as the bot has worked its way around the new system, but issues should mostly be ironed out- please report any problems to the WikiCup talk page. Here are some participants worthy of note with regards to the bonus points:


 * was the first to score bonus points, with Portland-class cruiser, a good article.
 * has the highest overall bonus points, as well as the highest scoring article, thanks to his work on Enrico Fermi, now a good article. The biography of such a significant figure to the history of science warrants nearly five times the normal score.
 * claimed bonus points for René Vautier and Nicolas de Fer, articles that did not exist on the English Wikipedia at the start of the year; a first for the WikiCup. The articles were eligible for bonus points because of fact they were both covered on a number of other Wikipedias.

Also, a quick mention of, who may well have already written the oddest article of the WikiCup this year: did you know that the Fucking mayor objected to Fucking Hell on the grounds that there was no Fucking brewery? The gauntlet has been thrown down; can anyone beat it?

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 00:27, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Newsletter omission
I claimed the first Featured Portal credit at 4:12 UTC, 31 January 2013‎, the first FPO credit in several years, if I am correct. I am disappointed that the recent newsletter missed that.  S ven M anguard  Wha?  03:13, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi, that's something to bring up with J, who does the newsletter. I can tell you that the newsletter was drafted before you claimed the featured portal, and I'm sure it will be covered next month. Regards, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 17:44, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Allowing it to happen.
Not only are you scuppering my freedom of speech, but you are essentially condoning his crap. I bid you good day. RAP (talk) 17:39 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * There is no guarantee of free speech on Wikipedia; we have civility guidelines to follow. Should you have a problem with my actions, I invite you to bring scrutiny from outside editors on WP:ANI. Regards, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 17:44, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * He was being rude to the people who disagreed with him and i felt the need to point it out. I left it on his talk page at first, but he chose to ignore it and delete it. He does not want to accept it, and i wanted to see if anyone else felt the same way. He called us "fanboys" for wanting the title "Into", and i get crap for being disrespectful to him. RAP (talk) 17:51 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I didn't call anyone a "fanboy". I deleted the comment you left on my talk page because it was wrong. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:19, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Explain to me this as well as this similar accusation from another editor, something you deleted as "bullshit". RAP (talk) 4:21 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:FREESPEECH. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:12, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

GQG
Regarding your request for a different hook at Did you know nominations/Grand Quartier Général (1914–1919) — I've suggested one and asked the original nominator for input. Would you please comment on my proposal? Nyttend (talk) 05:47, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * I still have a few more comments to resolve, but thanks Khazar for your review! :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:31, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * My pleasure. -- Khazar2 (talk) 22:37, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
In the light of my stellar experience with admins over the last however long, I'm trying to figure out what to say here. &tilde;danjel [ talk &#124; contribs ] 03:32, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * He stopped editing after that day. Perhaps this was a rational choice for him, as it has been for many other editors? He has been unusually busy in his personal life, of course, and many editors would need to take a break under his circumstances....


 * I didn't check his contributions to see their quality. I'm glad that you mentioned that you'll think about my suggestion(s), at least anything constructive I wrote....


 * Again, I'm pleased that you liked David Gilmour in Gdansk. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 19:25, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * That's unfortunate; he was an intelligent editor. While I still don't think that the other party here deserved a warning, I will keep what you said in mind for the future. I'm not a 'normal' administrator, despite what you may think. :-) I just call things as I see them. I'm not always right, and I don't expect to be, but in this case, at least, I think my actions were appropriate. Thanks, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:44, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The other parties labelled Danjel disagreeably and counter-productively. Given that context, perhaps they would have been willing to accept a short note of concern from you, justly or to give you a chance to get Danjel to reconsider his retaliation/parody/escalation (after you had addressed his concerns about others having drawn first blood)?


 * I have a generally favorable impression of you, else I would not have written the above note. At worst, you have a few times failed immediately to stop an uncharacteristically wrong act from a friend. Being either tired or nonplussed, I've done the same with a "nut juice" comment from a friend. Nobody is perfect. The Signpost issue was more of your timing and my being irritated with a number of events, but was overblown. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 21:28, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I suppose the biggest problem I had with that is I didn't have any contact with TP before that entire debacle, yet you still said that we were good friends simply because we have similar general areas of interest. I'm happy to put it all behind us, though. :-) Watched the music video for Gilmour's solo song "Blue Light" today... wow. That was definitely made in the 80s.Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:49, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I wasn't pigeonholing you with TP, but with GS, etc. To be pigeonholed with TP would be an honour that I'm not quite ready to bestow upon you. ;) (I won't do the social network analysis, for which automated tools exist. It's not necessary for you to have addressed an editor to be closely associated with him or her.) About The Signpost, it's good that you used examples, to avoid namby pamby journalism, but we obviously think of different examples of incivility, even when trying to be NPOV and fair. It was good that you redacted the FA comment after SG complained. So your sins have been venial, and you have done your share of penance, already, so "peace be with you".  Kiefer .Wolfowitz  12:18, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, that's good to know. :-) Happy editing, Kiefer! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 16:16, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 February 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 00:43, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Argentine–Chilean naval arms race
Nyttend (talk · contribs) 00:02, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

"Best title"
Might want to let Cirt know, he came up with it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:02, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Will do, thanks. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 15:35, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

re SP title this week
Thanks very much! I really appreciate your stopping by with those kind words! Cheers, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 15:39, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * You're welcome! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:12, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

SI 110: Introduction to Information
Hi Ed, I've been seeing a lot of "Copyediting" edits on my watchlist related to SI 110: Introduction to Information recently. Most of the students seem to be choosing from the same small set of, fairly high-profile, articles like Computer science or Turing test to do their copy-editing assignment. While at least half of the edits seem to be improvements, there is also a fair amount of dubious ones (changing UK to US spelling, making small grammatical changes that seem mostly motivated by wishing to make a change rather than actually improving the readability of the text, changing prose into bulleted lists, etc.)

Don't you think it would be more productive to direct them to less developed articles, where they would have a better opportunity to do some real copy-editing. —Ruud 16:49, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note; I will leave a message for the professor. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:12, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Hoaxes
I'm zipping along to try and get the hoaxes article done in time for the next publication cycle. In the meantime, you should review what's there; I'm sure it's going to need additions and modifications before it will be ready for publication. Regards, Res Mar 01:39, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Looking now. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:12, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I've made copyedits and added some hidden notes. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:44, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks Andrew! If anything, though, you should be getting the barnstar. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 08:30, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

This Month in GLAM: January 2013
Unsubscribe · Global message delivery 20:35, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Expenditures
Hi Ed,

Rauch's table is in my talk page. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 12:57, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

In the media
Ed, there has been a complaint about my writing a piece on the Wikimedia UK story as part of this week's In the media. It's probably best if you have a close look over what I have written, though I assure you I have not strayed one iota from the sources, including the Wikimedia Foundation blog, and the piece is a balanced summary of them. At any rate, whatever you decide or change is fine by me. Best, Andreas JN 466 21:01, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Re: When you get a chance...
You mean the 3 column layout? It works nicely on my laptop screen, though it's probably best suited to cases when there's only one frontpage-able photograph. - Jarry1250 [Deliberation needed] 20:18, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Re: Arb Report
Hi Ed, sorry to have to do this, but I'm unable to finish the Arb Report - something came up which demands my attention and will mean that I will not have enough time to complete the report on-time, if at all. I know I started it rather late and that's my fault and for that I apologise again. Perhaps User:Steven Zhang could finish it off, as I understand you are quite busy yourself. Apologies once again!  James ( T •  C ) • 5:58pm • 06:58, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Zhang is on a wikibreak, so we'll just have to catch up next week. Good luck with your RL issues; they rightfully come first. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:42, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah, that's a shame. Sorry to have to let you down. I haven't had enough time since Sunday (AEDT) to take a good look at the cases, much less write a summation of the statements. I'll see if I can finish it post-publishing as I feel this is too important to shrug off.  James ( T •  C ) • 9:29pm • 10:29, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I can't publish an incomplete report. ;-) I'm hoping to publish in about 12 hours. If you can't get it done by then, I'll just delete the page, and we'll work for a fully comprehensive report next week. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 16:03, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

More press for the Signpost/statistics

 * And I commented there also to ask for your thoughts. Best. Biosthmors (talk) 20:47, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * And again, if you get a chance. Also, WP:5000 now includes quality information. And WP:TOPRED now exists. What about a two to three sentence blurb in the Signpost announcing this? Best. Biosthmors (talk) 19:14, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll add it to NAN this week. Thanks, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:06, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Did you mean Wikipedia Signpost/2013-02-18/News and notes that one or the next? Thanks! Biosthmors (talk) 18:30, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Ack, I forgot. It's added now, and you have my apologies. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:00, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * No worries. Thank you! Biosthmors (talk) 18:49, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Unprotect request
Star Trek Into Darkness; I think things have calmed down, and there's a stale (5 day old) edit request on the page. NE Ent 00:21, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Oops, sorry, I missed this. It looks like the protection has expired by now. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:53, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, sorry, misread the history -- saw "indefinite" but didn't realize that was for move, not edit, protection -- wouldn't have bothered you if I'd realized it was about to time out. Thanks. NE Ent 02:28, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 February 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 06:53, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

26–32
Ed, I think it might help to say, "paragraphs 26–32", just to avoid confusion with the page number 26 mentioned immediately prior. Great write-up. Andreas JN 466 07:46, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah, good catch, and thanks! Also, I'm replying to your email now. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 07:48, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

WT:Wikipedia Signpost/2013-02-04/Special report
Nice! There's been a big uptick in mentions of the Signpost in the press, thanks for raising the bar and getting us noticed. - Dank (push to talk) 13:24, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I expect that'll be temporary. Most of the things we cover have little interest to the regular world. ;-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 16:16, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I never thanked you
Hi Ed. I just realized I never thanked you for the help on the 4 millionth article blog post. When I posted that draft, I only did so because I thought people seeing an IP write would encourage them to jump in. I'm not a writer, so as the time got closer and closer, I started to get nervous that my draft would go up unaltered. I was very relieved when you came in and cleaned it up. Kinda like coming to the rescue. Anyhoo, I just wanted to say thanks for your help with that. Also, thanks for all the many long hours you've donated to the project and especially your work on the Signpost. I appreciate all you've done. Best regards. 64.40.54.46 (talk) 14:18, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi there, it's nice to see you! I don't feel like I did that much work&mdash;you did the lion's share of it. But thank you nonetheless. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 16:16, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * It was the quality of your work that mattered. It was like I made a stub and you turned it into an FA. You have that quality touch that I wish I had. Thanks again. 64.40.54.22 (talk) 07:27, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikimedia Highlights from January 2013
Highlights from the Wikimedia Foundation Report and the Wikimedia engineering report for January 2013, with a selection of other important events from the Wikimedia movement


 * 1) SUBJECT

About &middot; Subscribe/unsubscribe &middot; Distributed via Global message delivery, 06:50, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Wikimedia Foundation highlights
 * New program offers financial support for projects by individual Wikimedians
 * Successful migration to new data center
 * New partnership grows the reach of Wikipedia Zero to 330 million mobile users
 * Wikivoyage becomes newest Wikimedia project
 * Data and Trends
 * Financials
 * Other movement highlights
 * Asteroid named after Wikipedia
 * EU-funded RENDER project releases editor support tools
 * Wiki Loves Monuments exhibition in Polish railway station
 * Review of management and conflict of interest issues at Wikimedia UK

Unprotect request
Hi Ed... could you please unprotect my user page because I, in all my wisdom, protected it indefinitely when I left last time :) Chamal T •C 15:19, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Done. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:06, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Signpost
As requested, here's the details of the next Wikipedian in Residence post (with bonus shipbuilding interest!). I've left a note on the suggestions page, but as we're nearing press time, I thought I'd better mention it directly as well.

Thanks again, Andrew Gray (talk) 17:01, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * If I lived in the UK, I'd probably be applying for that. ;-) Thanks Andrew. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:06, 18 February 2013 (UTC)


 * De nada. There's a couple more to come, but none so personally appealing, I fear ;-) Andrew Gray (talk) 21:34, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

FAC
Hello sir, we would like your suggestions on the fac. Featured article candidates/Priyanka Chopra/archive1. Please, review it and represent your thoughts. Thank You. Prashant  ✉  18:34, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why I'm be canvassed to review a FAC you didn't even nominate, but I don't have the time to weigh in right now. Apologies, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:06, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 February 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 17:48, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Star Trek Into Darkness
You reverted my edits to Star Trek Into Darkness without explination(that I can find). I'm not sure if you revereted because I did a bad job at ending the quote and removing the citation (my bad) or you beleve the content should be there, could you respond to this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Star_Trek_Into_Darkness#-encyclopedic.2C_non-neutral.2C_non_third_person_content? -Thanks CombatWombat42 (talk) 18:28, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Responded there. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:00, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

WR Brown FAC
Hi Ed, I have one support on the FAC for William Robinson Brown, as you had a number of questions and comments that I think we have now addressed, would you like to pop over and see if we have fixed the things that you commented on? I think we got them all, though there is a friendly but continuing discussion of whether and how to add a pounds-to-dollars conversion if we find a good source for 1918 conversion rates. (Dollar amount is out, but can be put in if we get a proper RS for it) Montanabw (talk) 17:42, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I've supported now. I'm sorry for forgetting about it! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:44, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * No problem, thanks!  Montanabw (talk) 00:28, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

WWII Template
Hi The ed17, I noticed your recent reverts on the WW2 template. It is an order of the allied forces. What is the reason for reverting such edits? (Slurpy121 (talk) 23:49, 24 February 2013 (UTC))
 * Typically major edits to that template require major discussion on the talk page, because there are more people who would rather talk about the order of countries than improve the article. Regardless, there was a consensus to list the ROC before France. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:35, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

User:TMLutas
Please undo your autopatrol. The articles are not fine, they're all unsourced and devoid of content and don't even have full stops. They should be deleted.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  09:19, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm removing it; while I wouldn't be (and wasn't) horribly worried about formatting errors for the autopatrolled right, I was under the mistaken impression that the articles were all notable. Thanks for the note, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 11:00, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, they did have infoboxes, but were unsourced and with basic grammar errors (no full stops). Easy to overlook though, thanks.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  11:57, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXIII, February 2013
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) 07:18, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 February 2013
<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) 04:23, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

User:J Milburn/Notes
Take a look, see if there's anything you'd like to add. I've included some notes about the WikiWomen's History Month as it seems to be something that may be of interest to a number of WikiCup participants, and seems to be a great chance to encourage some collaboration. If you think it's not too related to the WikiCup, I'm happy to pull it. J Milburn (talk) 14:14, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * 340 points? Jeez. I've tweaked it a bit, and it looks good to me. Feel free to change the OMT bit I added&mdash;it's not meant as a subtle plug, just that I wanted to avoid a tedious "battleship and battlecruiser warship GAs" wording. It could probably be shortened to just "warships" if you want. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:13, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Since about half of my GAs were ironclads, perhaps warships is a better term overall.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:05, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks; I honestly couldn't tell you the difference. They're all just floating weapons to me... J Milburn (talk) 00:14, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Bit your tongue, Sir! We burn people at the stake for talking like that!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:26, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * J ... we can't be friends anymore, sorry. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:57, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Due to my stupid Signpost-related error, this newsletter has gone out to a lot of people it shouldn't have. If it's convenient, please put an apology on the next Signpost to its subscribers... Feel free to point the finger at me... J Milburn (talk) 11:26, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * As someone blocked the bot, looks like around 160 people who have not signed up for the letter will have received it. J Milburn (talk) 11:41, 1 March 2013 (UTC)