User:The ed17/Archives/81

The Signpost: 03 September 2014

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:03, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Could you do me a favor...
and check out the questionables on the top 25 talk page, please?  Serendi pod ous  09:10, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Commented! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 15:56, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

This Month in GLAM: August 2014
Subscribe/Unsubscribe · Global message delivery · Romaine 13:16, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 September 2014

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:57, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Question
Hi Ed, I had asked a question here nearly a month ago but haven't gotten an answer yet, since your a news man I thought you might be able to answer it so I can move forward with the idea. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:09, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Commented! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:53, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

On publishing on Wednesday
Fuck. I think we can combine a bunch of those into a single nom, but it's still going to be a nightmare. I'm going to need help. Adam Cuerden (talk) 06:10, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, 42 of the FPs can be combined into one; it's a single set of US Treasury secretaries. If you can handle those, I can do the FAs and FLs. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:57, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Even combining, that's still 12 FP entries to write, and they're the ones that take the most time. I'll try, but really can't guarantee anything. On the upside, I stubbornly finished restoring Pierce. Adam Cuerden (talk) 09:07, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

FC
Going to lie down a bit. Will finish FC after. Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:10, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Adam! I've finished the FAs/FLs. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:10, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * And I've finished the FPs. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:09, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Publish at will. By the way, of the three lead images, two of them were me fully restoring an image so we could use it to illustrate the article/list. =) Adam Cuerden (talk) 04:21, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * And two are named John, and two are American, etc. etc. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:32, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Womp, womp. Get some ice for that burn, Adam. ;-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:09, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

In short, I think you can justify the title to exclude every single one. Adam Cuerden (talk) 08:12, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Basically. I may have been trolling for comments. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:15, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 September 2014

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:37, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Belle Knox
G4 is for "sufficiently identical and unimproved" recreations. The was recently the subject of a relatively extensive biographical documentary, which is why I started a new discussion rather than nominating for G4, for which in my opinion it is not a valid candidate. Can you please consider restoring the article and re-opening the AfD? VQuakr (talk) 02:42, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi, that's what DRV is for ("if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page"). :-) Best, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 17:42, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I can post to DRV, but the G4 criterion explicitly states, "This excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version." It seems more efficient to simply hold a new AfD than to open a second DRV on the speedy - particularly since the purpose of the second AfD was to discuss whether the new coverage meant the subject was now notable, not to hold a referendum on the previous closure. VQuakr (talk) 02:41, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, but this is what DRV is designed for. It's not always to challenge the closer's interpretation. Also of concern is that it's a BLP, so I'd rather not have this article up for a week (or more) while an AfD goes on. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:58, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * ==Deletion review for Belle Knox==

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Belle Knox. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. VQuakr (talk) 03:34, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CII, September 2014
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) 02:25, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia_Signpost/2014-09-24/Featured_content
I've roughed in the FC for this week. Might end up NOT including all 8 oil paintings; but there honestly isn't THAT much in the articles or lists, and the only other two FPs worth considering are File:Bharata_Natyam_Perfomance_DS.jpg and File:Suleiman_Kova_and_media,_2013_DSM_Building_Collapse.jpg (There's money as well, but we've done a lot of money of late, so I think I'll skip a week on that subject.). FAs and FLs re skewing modern, so limited choices there. Might do the Workman image I've been thinking of restoring that's more square, but, in any case, I'll see how the length looks when the writing's done, and tweak then. Workman's going to be another tribute to Wadewitz, of course. Adam Cuerden (talk) 08:37, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Adam -- I missed this. It's your call on the images; I don't mind either way. I'll try to do the FAs tomorrow, but no guarantee. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:08, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history coordinator election
Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election, which will determine our coordinators for the next twelve months. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:07, 23 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Hmm. I wonder if I should have stood. I've been handling MILHIST's documentation of Featured pictures open tasks for around the last six months. (and updating the showcase for them has been pretty much me on my own for years.) Ah, well. I don't actually need power to do that. =) Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:14, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Ask on WT:MHCOORD; I'm pretty sure we've had late nominations before. I mean, the only downsides are to you personally because you've missed out on the first fifteen votes. :-) And worst case, the coordinators say say no. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:16, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Eh, I don't need a slot, really. I mean Evidence says that I'm not going to get shoved out of what I've been working on anytime soon. I'd rather not displace someone who needs the position to do their work. Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:18, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, your call. There's no real formal authority there; we're mainly around to keep the project going. Quoting from the coordination page, "There is little that couldn't theoretically be done by any other editor, of course—the coordinators have explicit roles in only a few processes—but, since experience suggests that people tend to assume that someone else is doing whatever needs to be done, the most efficient route has proven to be to delegate formal responsibility for this administrative work to a specified group." Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:28, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, I posted and asked. It would be nice to have the role recognised, because then if I go away for a month, the work would still happen. And given I'm disabled and thus can burn out, it would be good to have that in place. (Speaking of which, last week of November and first half of December. Make plans now for FC, because there's every chance I might have at least one week where I can do none of the work.) Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:33, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I don't think MILHIST pays much attention to featured pictures. Which is a pity, in many ways. I mean, I think Operation Brothers at War has had fairly limited success getting articles ready in time for anniversaries, but, had I found out about it sooner, I'm pretty sure that I could have gotten most of the major battles on the main page. Think I can still get the last few on, though. Battle of Franklin's already passing, and I've asked Crisco to save the day. Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:04, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, you're correct. Many laymen (us) who are interested in military history are fetishistic (not the negative connotation of that word) about minute details and the units where they served (divisions, ships, etc.) Most times, that manifests itself as article writing, as pictures just aren't quite the same. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:50, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
 * And, honestly, nothing wrong witht hat, but it'd be nice to work together a bit more. Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:49, 25 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Hey Ed, quick question. Do you think the RevDel on the election page was really necessary? RevDel is normally for something that's potentially harmful (malicious links, libel, private information, etc) rather than just minor silliness, otherwise we'd be RevDel'ing just abut every bot of vandalism. Best, HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  18:47, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, on reflection, that was probably a bit aggressive. Feel free to restore the revisions! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:35, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I've restored them. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  20:05, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Signpost
When are you planning on sending out this weeks Signpost?-- Dom497 ( talk ) 03:01, 27 September 2014 (UTC)


 * It's about three days overdue, just to poke you. --k6ka (talk &#124; contribs) 18:02, 27 September 2014 (UTC)


 * and the Featured content report was behind schedule and took a team effort to finish this week. I have completed the publication process. --Pine✉  05:57, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks to you all! In case you're curious, Dom and K6ka, we've divided some of my Signpost roles now that I'm in graduate school and have far less free time. That means that I won't be the one pressing the buttons on the publishing script each week. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 07:17, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

GA Cup 2014-15
Since the judges encourage me to, I am pleased to invite to participate in the GA Cup 2014-15. You can read everything about it on the project page. The whole goal of the cup is to have a friendly competition and loads of fun. Hope you participate. :) Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 01:24, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 September 2014

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:50, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

All is well
No worries about reverting my edit at NM's user talk. I made my case. She's got to learn to cooperate with others, she's now edit-warring with an actual expert on Bruckner. Montanabw (talk) 18:00, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Belle Knox deletions
The Belle Knox AFD #2 was overturned/relisted at DRV. If it ends up being kept, are the histories of the two versions of the articles mergable? (Are they already the same history and we just can't see the old one?) The old version is significantly more fleshed out than the currently restored version, so if we end up keeping it, I think we would prefer to revert back to the older one, but I didn't know what the process would be for that. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:36, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Belle Knox AFD #2
The second AFD for Belle Knox has been overturned and relisted. As you commented on the original AFD, you may wish to comment on this one as well. As there have been developments and sources created since the time of the original AFD, please review to see if your comments/!vote are the same or may have changed. Gaijin42 (talk)


 * Sorry about the double spam here, you got caught in my AWB list of editors. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:44, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I think it would be good for you to provide an accounting of your actions in the previous AfD, given that you deleted the article against the community's wishes. Everyking (talk) 22:54, 30 September 2014 (UTC)


 * What would that accomplish? Even if we accept that a bad call was made, the best thing do to would be to just move on.  Gamaliel  ( talk ) 23:13, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I always love to see your username pop up, Everyking, so there's no need for the icy tone! I followed what I thought was the correct interpretation of G4, and encouraged an editor who later questioned it to go to DRV. Clearly the community disagreed with me, and it appears that there are enough sources to host an article about her now. I don't have a problem with either outcome. Best, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:25, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The community disagreed with you in the first AfD, but you deleted the article anyway, against the community's wishes. Surely you can acknowledge that was inappropriate. Everyking (talk) 02:08, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't understand your objection. My close was overwhelmingly upheld at DRV, as you're already aware. I'm not sure why you're trying to litigate this a second time, but you really don't need to reply here again. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:52, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * You don't understand my objection? "The community disagreed with you in the first AfD, but you deleted the article anyway, against the community's wishes." What's so hard to understand about that? If you think your actions were appropriate, then say so, preferably on the current AfD. Everyking (talk) 00:47, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * , Ed's closure rationale is all that's necessary. No one is required to give in to your demands for additional explanation of their actions. Your continued hounding of Ed indicates a battleground mentality on your part. Especially since the current AFD seems likely to go your way, this is particularly poor form on your part. Being a sore loser at the DRV was ugly, and being a sore winner now is uglier. Drop the stick and heed your earlier promise to disengage. Lagrange613 03:01, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * What said. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:28, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

WikiCup 2014 September newsletter
In one month's time, we will know our WikiCup 2014 champion. Newcomer has taken a strong lead with a featured list (historical coats of arms of the U.S. states from 1876) and a raft of featured pictures. Reigning champion is in second place with a number of high-importance biology articles, including new FA Isopoda and new GA least weasel. , who is in his fifth WikiCup final, is in third, with featured articles Pictor and Epacris impressa.

Signups for the 2015 WikiCup are open. All Wikipedians, new and experienced, are warmly invited to sign up for the competition. Wikipedians interested in friendly competition may also like to sign up for the GA Cup, a new WikiCup-inspired competition which revolves around completing good article reviews. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. and 22:11, 30 September 2014 (UTC)