User talk:Ed!/12

The WikiProject: Good Articles Newsletter (January 2013)
This newsletter was delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 14:40, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Portland class cruiser is now a GA
Huzzah!

I did leave one message in the review that warrants some attention (or at least I think it warrants some attention). It would be nice if you put in alt-text for the images in the article, as a service to people who have to use screen readers to enjoy Wikipedia. Please consider it.

Keep up the good work,  S ven M anguard   Wha?  23:52, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your review! — Ed! (talk) 14:37, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

OMT
Thanks for joining OMT! Now we have to worry about whom we're addressing when we say "ed". Buggie111 (talk) 14:23, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Hah hah, yes I was worrying about that. I look forward to contributing! — Ed! (talk) 14:36, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Welcome aboard sir :) Glad to have on board for our effort, and we look forward to seeing out there in the field (not that you haven't been their already, we just like to welcome people. Its how we roll, so to speak :) TomStar81 (Talk) 22:42, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah, I didn't see you join. Welcome, and what a nice name you have! ;-) I came by to offer a suggestion for further improvement of the Portland-class cruiser article... Friedman's U.S. Cruisers: A Design History is absolutely indispensable for the US cruiser class articles. It's also ridiculously hard to find and expensive when you do; I've never seen it below $110, although the $180+ prices I see now make that look like a bargain. Good luck, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:38, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Fort Dobbs (North Carolina) review
Ed!, thank you for your helpful comments! I've responded on the review page, and may need some guidance with some of those issues. Thanks again!  Cdtew  (talk) 14:27, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Passed GA. Hey, good work on that article. It's nice to see something so thoroughly research in spite of the trickiness with finding sources. — Ed! (talk) 15:06, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comments! I will try as hard as I can to find more info on the archaeological side of things before putting this through to GA.  I will take all of your suggestions to heart in trying to improve the article!  Cdtew  (talk) 15:19, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

As a follow-up, I was hoping to get your thoughts about a certain source. I've just been able to get ahold of an electronic copy of the 2006 Archaeological report, which summarizes everything that's been done on the site since 1847; I've read through the pertinent sections, and would like to build two or three paragraphs out of it. The only catch is, as far as I know, the report hasn't been widely disseminated. It has an OCLC number and a worldcat entry, but is only available in hard copy a) at the Historic site itself, and b) at East Carolina University's library. What are your thoughts about whether or not this would pass WP:VERIFY?  Cdtew  (talk) 19:45, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * If it's a report that was conducted or funded by the federal/state government, it should not have any verifiability problems. Otherwise, it really depends on the institution, and I think you'll be pretty safe if it's a university. That reminds me, http://scholar.google.com might be a good place to go looking for other academic journals related to the fort. — Ed! (talk) 20:07, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Since you emphasized the need for archaeological information, I was hoping you'd take a look at what I now have in the Fort Dobbs (North Carolina) and Fort Dobbs (North Carolina) sections. I expanded a little with some information from the 244 page report -- I'm, not sure if this is enough, or too much info, but I didn't want it to get bogged down in too many details. Let me know your thoughts!  Cdtew  (talk) 12:26, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Excellent. It's looking much improved with that info. I think you have what you need there. — Ed! (talk) 23:26, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Waldmann list
I nearly completed the list here. Is the format what you are looking for? I am having some issues with translating the German location names used during World War II to what they are referred to today. Can you assist? Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:30, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I've found a few, but I don't know Russian at all. It appears that a few of them (Kutelnikowo, which is probably Kotelnikovo; Krymskaja is probably Krymsky) don't yet have articles anyway. I wouldn't consider redlinks to towns in an instance like this a problem, especially considering the lack of comprehensiveness en.wiki has concerning Russian municipalities. — Ed! (talk) 16:52, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay thanks for the feedback, but generally speaking this is what you were looking for? MisterBee1966 (talk) 17:10, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's exactly what I had in mind. Let me know when you've finished putting it together and I'd be glad to support. — Ed! (talk) 17:12, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Please check the article again. I added the table now MisterBee1966 (talk) 11:33, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your diligence and hard work. Supported the article. — Ed! (talk) 12:28, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Herbert Hart GA nom
Hi Ed!, thanks for your review of this nomination. I plan to take this one to A-class so any feedback is greatly appreciated. I have responded to your comments here. Cheers. Zawed (talk) 08:37, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Passed. Great work on that article. I would certainly say it would perform well at an ACR. — Ed! (talk) 12:27, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks Ed! I see the project class tags haven't been updated, I will take care of those. Thanks again. Zawed (talk) 21:24, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Great! Usually a bot comes along and does that automatically, buy it's been somewhat slow of late. — Ed! (talk) 21:48, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

SSG Romesha

 * Thank you very much! — Ed! (talk) 23:24, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

October to December 2012 Milhist Peer, A-class and FAC reviews

 * Much thanks! I'm sorry I wasn't able to stand for election to be a coordinator last year, but I'll be making a much bigger presence in the project's reviews this year. — Ed! (talk) 15:57, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

James Gwyn
Hi Ed, if you have time, would you be able to take a look at the article James Gwyn and recommend any changes necessary for its DYK nomination as well as areas to focus in preparation for A-list? Cheers, Mkdw talk 04:17, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Clinton Romesha
Hello! Your submission of Clinton Romesha at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! — Maile (talk) 22:52, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Responded. — Ed! (talk) 15:08, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

GA Reviews
Hello! Just wanted to drop by and say that I have responded to your four Office reviews that you looked over for me! Thanks!--Gen. Quon (Talk)   04:55, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Passed them. Great work! As you may have noticed I'm an Office fan myself, so I've been happy to see so many of those articles getting quality treatment. — Ed! (talk) 17:51, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * I thank you very much! I'm very proud to have been able to work on this article. — Ed! (talk) 02:21, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

It's not a table
It's a list, albeit an illustrated one. Lists are very difficult to make into prose. So I'm wondering now when you'll finish the edit to that purpose.

There seem to be an awful lot of these kind of rules that I keep tripping over, and I'd be obliged if you'd point me to where they are kept or the style manual or whever it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RTO Trainer (talk • contribs) 21:02, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I've responded on your talk page. — Ed! (talk) 21:49, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXII, January 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) 13:03, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Mochitsura Hashimoto
Hello! Your submission of Mochitsura Hashimoto at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 17:06, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your help on this one! — Ed! (talk) 12:44, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

The Office
I believe I've addressed all the problems for "Training Day" and have nearly completed with "The Target". -- NoD&#39;ohnuts (talk) 23:04, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Great! I'll wait till you're done with the Target and then pass both at the same time, if there's no rush. — Ed! (talk) 02:59, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, now I think I've finished with "The Target". Thanks for reviewing them! -- NoD&#39;ohnuts (talk) 17:33, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Passed both. Great work! — Ed! (talk) 12:43, 29 January 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) 01:02, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

GA Review
Hi! Just so you know, i'm currently doing a review of your article Mochitsura Hashimoto. Please see my comments so far on the review page. Thanks! Retrolord (talk) 09:30, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your review! — Ed! (talk) 00:41, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Mochitsura Hashimoto
— Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:02, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Drive Award

 * Thanks! — Ed! (talk) 00:50, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Clinton Romesha
KTC (talk) 19:30, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

RfC: The use of medal ribbon pictograms in articles
I believe you are misrepresenting the verdict of this RfC to say that it supports unboxed ribbons as opposed to small ribbons in a boxed context. Several editors supported inclusion IF small and/or in a collapsible box. The infobox is a box and ribbons therein are unobtrusive. To greatly increase the size of the ribbons and include them in the body of the article is inconsistent with WP:ICONDECORATION. What that policy supports is less ostentatious boxed ribbons in contrast to using Wikipedia as someone's chest. I cannot imagine Britannica or a respected newspaper engaging in these glorification practices that attempt to recreate the uniform on the page. We are here to inform, not decorate. See "Appropriate use": "Icons may be helpful in certain situations: Repeated use of an icon in a table or infobox" See also "Inappropriate use": "Do not use icons in general article prose"--Brian Dell (talk) 18:50, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I was a big proponent of using infoboxes or dedicated table graphs for military decorations, but I was in a pretty small minority in the RFC. See the comments toward the end of the section; essentially most MILHIST users think the images are too prominent in an "awards and decorations" section, but they're too small to be useful as you're proposing to display them -- the link is right there, and the only reason the images should be included alongside it is demonstrating what the ribbon looks like. If it's too small to be useful as a visual aide, it's decoration. ICONDECORATION and NOICONS may or may not run afoul of the decoration section, but that's been a fiercely debated subject at MILHIST without consensus for years. — Ed! (talk) 20:47, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't believe that the consensus verdict was "too small to be useful"; if that were so I would think that there wouldn't be any icons in the infobox at all.  The US Army icon actually has text on it that is entirely unreadable, unlike for the ribbons where one could make out enough distinguishing characteristics to readily recognize them.--Brian Dell (talk) 22:04, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, people at MILHIST seem to be pushing for exactly that; no icons in the infobox at all. If you think there's a possibility the consensus has changed I welcome a discussion of it again at WT:MILHIST, but we had another discussion just a few weeks ago about military symbols in articles, here. It didn't cover the infobox specifically, but read through it and you'll see a lot of people pushing that military symbology is of limited use unless it's relating something that can't be found by clicking on the link. — Ed! (talk) 22:16, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Leroy Petry GAN
Ed, I've started to review articles, to try and pay back what I got out of the process already. I've reviewed Leroy Petry. Most of my comments are somewhat trivial, and I think the article only really needs some minor work before I'm comfortable listing it. I'm watching the nomination page, so feel free to respond there!  Cdtew  (talk) 20:48, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Responded. get back at me with any thoughts. Thanks! — Ed! (talk) 02:32, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Leroy Petry

 * Thanks! — Ed! (talk) 19:41, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * By the way, did you see the information I left regarding the permanent orders which may pertain to Petry's Valorous Unit Award? He may actually be authorized to wear it with oak leaf cluster, but that might be OR. But as far as I can tell that's two text sources that verify wear of at least one as a permanent wear item.
 * Also, I have filed a FOIA request to see if we can get the service records of Petry and Giunta, so we can have something solid to work off of.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:47, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Ed!
I saw you're very involved with reviewing and content writing in regards to Military history related articles. I'm working on improving the references on the Norman conquest of southern Italy article (in my userspace) and while doing that I added in some content, removed a little bit of content and changed some content. Now... I admit I'm not the best content writer and I want to improve upon it but I was wondering if you wouldn't mind chipping in your two cents regarding feedback if you wouldn't mind. Or if you think anyone else could be helpful in this arena and think they wouldn't mind offering their .02 that would work too. Thanks for your time, — - dain - talk    02:09, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Some background would be helpful, you jump right into the invasions, but there's some pre-history to the invasions that could be added to establish a little more what lead to them. The lead paragraph should just summarize the article; it shouldn't provide any background that isn't already a part of the article (per WP:LEAD.) It would also be helpful to add some of the implications of the conquests. There was a brief note about architecture which I believe was one of the most significant. I think some other cultural implications might have resulted from the invasion which could be included. — Ed! (talk) 13:40, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Ahh, brilliant! Thanks for the valuable input. For the "you jump right into the invasion", in the first section it deals with three differing 11th century sources of how the Normans arrived in the southern Italy. Do you mean that should be broken down perhaps into level 3 sections each from one of the sources? Or simply that there should be something else in the article prior to the sources describing the events of how the Normans arrived in south Italy? Good point on bringing up the Norman architecture, another result of the conquest was the Norman-Arab-Byzantine culture that arose and I could add in that section with a see also link below the section header and a summary of that page basically. Would it be appropriate to finish the article by mentioning how the Normans essentially "lost" the Kingdom of Sicily (by marriage) to the german Hohenstaufen dynasty? Thanks again! — - dain - talk    02:16, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Glad to say this one was ready to pass as submitted. Always happy to see more great contributions from you. -- Khazar2 (talk) 03:21, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Much thanks Khazar! I'm always happy to contribute. — Ed! (talk) 13:01, 27 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)

WikiCup 2013 February newsletter
Round 1 is now over. The top 64 scorers have progressed to round 2, where they have been randomly split into eight pools of eight. At the end of April, the top two from each pool, as well as the 16 highest scorers from those remaining, will progress to round 3. Commiserations to those eliminated; if you're interested in still being involved in the WikiCup, able and willing reviewers will always be needed, and if you're interested in getting involved with other collaborative projects, take a look at the WikiWomen's Month discussed below.

Round 1 saw 21 competitors with over 100 points, which is fantastic; that suggests that this year's competition is going to be highly competative. Our lower scores indicate this, too: A score of 19 was required to reach round 2, which was significantly higher than the 11 points required in 2012 and 8 points required in 2011. The score needed to reach round 3 will be higher, and may depend on pool groupings. In 2011, 41 points secured a round 3 place, while in 2012, 65 was needed. Our top three scorers in round 1 were:
 * , primarily for an array of warship GAs.
 * , primarily for an array of did you knows and good articles, some of which were awarded bonus points.
 * , due in no small part to Canis Minor, a featured article awarded a total of 340 points. A joint submission with, this is the highest scoring single article yet submitted in this year's competition.

Other contributors of note include:
 * , whose Portal:Massachusetts is the first featured portal this year. The featured portal process is one of the less well-known featured processes, and featured portals have traditionally had little impact on WikiCup scores.
 * , whose Mycena aurantiomarginata was the first featured article this year.
 * and, who both claimed points for articles in the Major League Baseball tie-breakers topic, the first topic points in the competition.
 * , who claimed for the first full good topic with the Casting Crowns studio albums topic.

Featured topics have still played no part in this year's competition, but once again, a curious contribution has been offered by : did you know that there is a Shit Brook in Shropshire? With April Fools' Day during the next round, there will probably be a good chance of more unusual articles...

March sees the WikiWomen's History Month, a series of collaborative efforts to aid the women's history WikiProject to coincide with Women's History Month and International Women's Day. A number of WikiCup participants have already started to take part. The project has a to-do list of articles needing work on the topic of women's history. Those interested in helping out with the project can find articles in need of attention there, or, alternatively, add articles to the list. Those interested in collaborating on articles on women's history are also welcome to use the WikiCup talk page to find others willing to lend a helping hand. Another collaboration currently running is an an effort from WikiCup participants to coordinate a number of Easter-themed did you know articles. Contributions are welcome!

A few final administrative issues. From now on, submission pages will need only a link to the article and a link to the nomination page, or, in the case of good article reviews, a link to the review only. See your submissions' page for details. This will hopefully make updating submission pages a little less tedious. 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) J Milburn (talk) 11:54, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

The Office
I believe I have completed work on the two GA-nominated episodes of The Office: "Suit Warehouse" and "Junior Salesman". -- NoD&#39;ohnuts (talk) 22:39, 5 March 2013 (UTC)NoD'ohnuts
 * Glad I've been able to review so many of your GAs. Keep up the good work! — Ed! (talk) 01:26, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

David M. Shoup
Hi! Just letting you know, I have started my review and there are a few points on the review page that need addressing. Could you please take a look? Thanks!  ★ ★ RetroLord★ ★  09:05, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Responded to your second round of comments. Thanks again! — Ed! (talk) 12:16, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Article Feedback deployment
Hey Ed!; I'm dropping you this note because you've used the article feedback tool in the last month or so. On Thursday and Friday the tool will be down for a major deployment; it should be up by Saturday, failing anything going wrong, and by Monday if something does :). Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 23:13, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know! — Ed! (talk) 01:26, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Norman Schwarzkopf, Jr.
Hello Ed from Australia, great work on Storming Norman, it well deserves GA. AWHS (talk) 12:14, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your review! — Ed! (talk) 12:16, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXIV, March 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) 03:49, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 March newsletter
We are halfway through round two. Pool A sees the strongest competition, with five out of eight of its competitors scoring over 100, and Pool H is lagging, with half of its competitors yet to score. WikiCup veterans lead overall; Pool A's (2010's winner) leads overall, with poolmate  (a finalist in 2011 and 2012) not far behind. Pool F's (a finalist in 2010, 2011 and 2012) is in third. The top two scorers in each pool, as well as the next highest 16 scorers overall, will progress to round three at the end of April.

Today has seen a number of Easter-themed did you knows from WikiCup participants, and March has seen collaboration from contestants with WikiWomen's History Month. It's great to see the WikiCup being used as a locus of collaboration; if you know of any collaborative efforts going on, or want to start anything up, please feel free to use the WikiCup talk page to help find interested editors. As well as fostering collaboration, we're also seeing the Cup encouraging the improvement of high-importance articles through the bonus point system. Highlights from the last month include GAs on physicist Niels Bohr, on the European hare , on the constellation Circinus ( and ) and on the Third Epistle of John. All of these subjects were covered on at least 50 Wikipedias at the beginning of the year and, subsequently, each contribution was awarded at least three times as many points as normal.

Wikipedians who enjoy friendly competition may be interested in participating in April's wikification drive. While wikifying an article is typically not considered "significant work" such that it can be claimed for WikiCup points, such gnomish work is often invaluable in keeping articles in shape, and is typically very helpful for new writers who may not be familiar with formatting norms.

A quick reminder: now, submission pages will need only a link to the article and a link to the nomination page, or, in the case of good article reviews, a link to the review only. See your submissions' page for details. This will hopefully make updating submission pages a little less tedious. 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) J Milburn (talk) 22:58, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

GL request completed

 * Thanks for your work! — Ed! (talk) 02:02, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

American generals
Hi Ed, don't know if you'e looking for something to kill some time, but if you are, Wesley Clark could do with some TLC. He's been on my watchlist for a while, but I'm not very good at checking my watchlist and I don't know much about him beyond Pristina. Seeing the ACR for H Norman suddenly reminded me that I hadn't been paying Clark much attention lately. Best, HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  23:28, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah, yes I've been eyeing an article on someone from the modern wars, was considering Clark or John Abizaid or Tommy Franks. Will have to take a look around to see if there are sources. I've been extremely busy in the past few weeks and I've had to cut down on Wikipedia time, though. — Ed! (talk) 01:55, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Well Clark passed FAC back in 2007, but the article's been a bit neglected for the last couple of years. There's no glory in bringing an FA back up to scratch, but you'd be doing the encyclopaedia a service. Though of course, real life has to come first. All the best, HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  09:16, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Shoup
Hey, I just passed Shoup. Congrats, it is quite a nice article, good luck with FA if you plan to take it their. I also really like your user page  ★ ★ RetroLord★ ★  03:01, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Many thanks! — Ed! (talk) 03:43, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

AfDs
Hello. Since you participated in Articles for deletion/2012 Buffalo State Bengals football team, I would like to inform you that two articles have been renominated. If you are interested, please see Articles for deletion/2008 Buffalo State Bengals football team (2nd nomination) and Articles for deletion/2007 St. Norbert Green Knights football team (2nd nomination). Best, Edge3 (talk) 14:52, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello. Just letting you that subsequent AfD nominations are posted at:
 * Articles for deletion/2011 Buffalo State Bengals football team
 * Articles for deletion/2011 St. Norbert Green Knights football team
 * Articles for deletion/2010 Buffalo State Bengals football team
 * Articles for deletion/2010 St. Norbert Green Knights football team
 * Articles for deletion/2009 Buffalo State Bengals football team
 * Articles for deletion/2009 St. Norbert Green Knights football team
 * Articles for deletion/2008 St. Norbert Green Knights football team
 * Edge3 (talk) 00:21, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history
Please take a look at this at the bottom regarding the 409th Support Brigade (United States). REgards Buckshot06 (talk) 08:28, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXV, April 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) 15:14, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Duplicate links tool
Hi. I've seen you are GA reviewer and you used this tool. I can't find this tool on tool-server. -- Bojan   Talk  02:55, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The script I use is available here. — Ed! (talk) 00:42, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Uf that only marks duplicate links. I need something that removes them. Ok, thanks. -- Bojan   Talk  03:18, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah. I don't use any tool like that. There is a tool to remove disambiguations, but as far as duplicate links I just use that to spot them and then remove them manually. Sorry I can't be more helpful. Maybe someone else does have a tool like that. — Ed! (talk) 03:21, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Milhist FA, A-Class and Peer Reviews January–March 2013

 * Hey, thanks very much. It's always a pleasure helping. — Ed! (talk) 11:43, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

FA Thanks
On behalf of WP:CHICAGO, I would like to thank you for your editorial contributions to Arthur W. Radford, which has recently become a WP:FA.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:06, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much! — Ed! (talk) 02:07, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 April newsletter
We are a week into Round 3, but it is off to a flying start, with claiming for the high-importance Portal:Sports and Portal:Geography (which are the first portals ever awarded bonus points in the WikiCup) and  claiming for a did you know of sea, the highest scoring individual did you know article ever submitted for the WikiCup. Round 2 saw very impressive scores at close; first place and second place  both scored over 1000 points; a feat not seen in Round 2 since 2010. This, in part, has been made possible by the change in the bonus points rules, but is also testament to the quality of the competition this year. Pool C and Pool G were most competitive, with three quarters of participants making it to Round 3, while Pool D was the least, with only the top two scorers making it through. The lowest qualifying score was 123, significantly higher than last year's 65, 2011's 41 or even 2010's 100.

The next issue of The Signpost is due to include a brief update on the current WikiCup, comparing it to previous years' competitions. This may be of interest to current WikiCup followers, and may help bring some more new faces into the community. We would also like to note that this round includes an extra competitor to the 32 advertised, who has been added to a random pool. This extra inclusion seems to have been the fairest way to deal with a small mistake made before the beginning of this round, but should not affect the competition in a large way. If you have any questions or concerns about this, please feel free to contact one of the judges.

A rules clarification: content promoted between rounds can be claimed in the round after the break, but not the round before. The case in point is content promoted on 29/30 April, which may be claimed in this round. 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) 16:21, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

USS Leary (DD-158)
Thank you for updating the USS Leary (DD-158) article. Before this gets further into the Good Article review process, you might want to look at the second paragraph of the Design and construction section. Aside from the typo on the spelling of speed, the section has a confusing reference to USS Blakeley.Thewellman (talk) 15:07, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks for letting me know. I fixed it. — Ed! (talk) 17:07, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Should the preceding paragraph be changed as well?Thewellman (talk) 00:08, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah, you're right. I lifted those graphs from my work on the Blakely page and wasn't paying attention to some of the names. — Ed! (talk) 02:06, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Rank insignia
Hi Ed, I am interested in helping to write a guideline as mentioned. I imagine it might cover command icons and others - you would know better than I, perhaps. Could it be included as a section of WP:NOICONS? Span (talk) 15:27, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually I'd suggest it be a standalone essay, the issue has been very back and forth for a long time, and there's a lot of things to consider which I think wouldn't apply to most readers of NOICONS and WP:MILMOS. If you prefer, I can help you, I've been involved in a lot of the discussions. — Ed! (talk) 16:15, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * My background is in biogs but not much in military. I am happy to follow your lead. Span (talk) 16:36, 20 May 2013 (UTC)r
 * Putting together an essay at WP:MILICONS. Feel free to add and change anything. I'll finish up those two sections tonight. — Ed! (talk) 17:43, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Great. Thanks Span (talk) 21:10, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Edward Soriano
Gidday Ed, I'm doing a GA review of this chap here. It is noted in the infobox of the article that he received the Distinguished Service Medal twice and a Bronze Star. However, there is no discussion in the body of the article as to when and why he was awarded these medals. From the nominator's comments, it seems this may be difficult to determine without going into speculation and OR. My feeling is that this is information that most readers would want to know and so should be in a GA article. I know you have done a lot of GA reviews and a lot of work on US military bios, so would appreciate a second opinion as to whether I'm being too strict on this. Cheers. Zawed (talk) 10:28, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Done. Let me know if I can help in any other way! — Ed! (talk) 13:07, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that, I appreciate it. Cheers. Zawed (talk) 08:48, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXVI, May 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) 13:07, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Love history & culture? Get involved in WikiProject World Digital Library!

 * Hey Ed! I'm so glad you've decided to join us at the WDL project. You can dive into improving content in this massive todo list I have created. Be sure to watch list your favorite lists, as I'll be adding more content as it's released to the WDL website (monthly). If I can help you with anything just let me know. I look forward to seeing your outcomes. Thanks again! SarahStierch (talk) 16:49, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Happy Memorial Day!


 Zappa O Mati  is wishing you a Happy Memorial Day! On this day, we recognize our fellow countrymen who have fought our nation's battles for the past several hundred years, protecting our freedom and safety. We remember those who paid the ultimate price and we support those who continue to willingly sacrifice their safety for the sake of their country. Happy Memorial Day!

Share this message by adding {{subst:Memorial Day}} to a fellow American's talk page.

Stairmageddon
Finished work on "Stairmageddon". Thanks for the review! -- NoD&#39;ohnuts (talk) 02:40, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Passed. Great work! — Ed! (talk) 08:22, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

"Murder" GAN
I believe I have addressed all of the issues that you brought up in the GAR! Thanks!--<font color="#B22222">Gen. Quon <font color="#708090">(Talk)   22:56, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Passed the GA. Great work on that! — Ed! (talk) 09:38, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

New York class
Hi, do you have Jones' U.S. Battleship Operations in World War I? It would help you a lot in writing this article. :-) Also, you could try searching Google Books for gems like, especially regarding the launching and trials, but I'm not sure how much there will be because it was in the lead-up to WWI. Regards, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 08:17, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks for letting me know that! I can always use more sources for this one. — Ed! (talk) 08:21, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Anytime. United States Battleship Division Nine will help you with that period of their service lives. Also note that you're going to want to limit Google Books' date search parameters to search around the launching and trial dates, or else you're going to get a lot of white noise. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 08:25, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

USS New York (BB-34)
'''Cite error: tag with name "FOOTNOTEJones1995139" defined in tags, which are causing Obsolete HTML tags lint errors.

You are encouraged to change
 * : — Ed! (talk)

to
 * : —<b style="color:black">Ed!</b><b style="color:black">(talk)</b>

—Anomalocaris (talk) 21:29, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Fixed, thanks for letting me know. —<b style="color:black">Ed!</b><b style="color:black">(talk)</b> 01:49, 2 February 2018 (UTC)