Hi, Ed! Hope that I am not look over the situation regarding this article (see [discussion page], as well as [DYN nom] for this article. I know that NortyNort is performing all due dilligence regarding this article, but I think that my reasoning regardiong the dating ond nomenclature of this event to be sound. Let me know what you think. Thanks for any assistance on this matter. BTW - Great images of the Alaska by Colosseum.Marcd30319 (talk) 13:31, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Hey Marc! Nice to see you again. If most of the sources use "operation", then our article probably should too. The date issue should be easily fixable, I would hope. ;-) Ed (talk • majestic titan) 19:48, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
The article is under consideration for re-naming 9http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requested_moves/current#July_31.2C_2010 here, with my response. It sees clear that NATO convention in the 1950's is to call its combined exercises "Operations." It is clear that the article is not to be considered for DYK, and based on the last two article that I have submitted, it is highly unlikely that I will do si in the future.Marcd30319 (talk) 21:47, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
No, it will be considered until it is explicitly rejected. It appears that the hook is now 'approved' and will appear on the main page after an administrator selects it for one of the queues. It may take a few days, but it will appear, no worries. :-) Ed (talk • majestic titan) 06:26, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
We are half-way through our penultimate round, and nothing is yet certain. Pool A, currently led by Sasata (submissions) has ended up the more competitive, with three contestants (Sasata (submissions), Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) and TonyTheTiger (submissions)) scoring over 500 points already. Pool B is led by Casliber (submissions), who has also scored well over 500. The top two from each pool, as well as the next four highest scorers regardless of pool, will make it through to our final eight. As ever, anything you worry may not receive the necessary attention before the end of the round (such as outstanding GA or FA nominations) is welcome at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews, and please remember to continue offering reviews yourself where possible. As always, the judges are available to contact via email, IRC or their talk pages, and general discussion about the Cup is welcome on the WikiCup talk page.
Planning has begun for the 2011 WikiCup, with open discussions concerning scoring and flags for next year's competition. Contributions to those discussions would be appreciated, especially concerning the flags, as next year's signups cannot begin until the flag issue has been resolved. Signups will hopefully open at some point in this round, with discussion about possible changing in the scoring/process opening some time afterwards.
Earlier this round, we said goodbye to Hunter Kahn (submissions), who has bowed out to spend more time on the book he is authoring with his wife. We wish him all the best. In other news, the start of this round also saw some WikiCup awards sent out by Suomi Finland 2009 (submissions). We appreciate his enthusiasm, and contestants are of course welcome to award each other prizes as they see fit, but rest assured that we will be sending out "official" awards at the end of the competition. If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox and The ed17 22:50, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
You are being contacted because you have in the past participated in the Valued Picture project. The VPC project is suffering from a chronic lack of participation to the point that the project is at an impasse. A discussion is currently taking place about the future of this project and how to revitalize the project and participation. If you're interested in this project or have an idea of how to improve it please stop by and participate in the discussion.
Sorry to bother, but Midshipman needs a media review prior to promotion; I was wondering if you could help out here? Most of the images were already checked in the previous review, so it should be pretty easy (I hope!). Kirk (talk) 12:53, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi, it's not a bother, but I'm probably not good enough to determine if files like File:Midshipman-SA.png are PD or derivative works, so I'll have to pass. Apologies, Ed (talk • majestic titan) 15:57, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Sorry for the constant pings, but do you have any GA/FA noms up? Or any planned ones? I can't sleep and I need work. Thus, I am antsy.
I can't find your todo list (if I could, this would not be here). Perhaps it has been eaten by the monster.
I'm not stalking. For real. *serious face* Tell me the moment it gets on your nerves. Oops, too late! —La Pianista♫ ♪ 06:36, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Pianista, you could help me with the AfC backlog...Pretty please? pretty pretty please with sugar on top? Okay, that was sickening. I'll stop now. sonia♫ 06:41, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
I'll do it, assuming that a maraschino cherry comes with it. PLEASE TELL ME that the cherry is included. —La Pianista♫ ♪ 06:43, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
'k, take two. pretty pretty please with powdered sugar and a maraschino cherry on top? Better? sonia♫ 06:47, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Muchly. But that still doesn't help the freaking huge amount of reading I'll have to do to actually wrap my brain around all these rules. :p However, I'd still have to read just as much, if not more, had I been over at one of Ed's "battle-cruiseships." Yes, I just deliberately insulted you, Ed. Score!) —La Pianista♫ ♪ 06:53, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
(e/c) @Sonia: Yay, I did it! So what if it's just a redirect, don't judge me. Big things come in small packages. Actually, in this case, little Latina models.
@Ed: Looking. And how would I "take that"? Your battle cruise ship (aka the Elationship quite obviously a badass name) exploded itself. —La Pianista♫ ♪ 07:16, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
If you look closely, ED, with your supposedly acute vision (maybe maybe?) you'll see there is no piano aboard that ship, Ed. Hence, if there is no piano, I am not there, Ed.
Btw, thanks for the list, Ed, but I was hoping for some sort of heads up when the FAs come, Ed. Because, really no offense intended, Ed, but I find the articles in the rudimentary stages to be a little hard on the noggin, Ed. —La Pianista♫ ♪ 07:34, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
And sonia, I'm at the AfC, and I'm not sure what to do. All responsibility seems to have been pushed to the authors - cite this, fix that, etc. Am I missing out on something? —La Pianista♫ ♪ 07:37, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
I know you aren't there, silly; it was shooting at your piano, which is off in the distance. Rivadavia-class battleship is going up to FAC right now, and ARA Moreno will probably follow after I add more from a Spanish-language book. Ed (talk • majestic titan) 07:56, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Watchlist'd Moreno, tackling Rivadavia for, oh, maybe another half hour before I eventually get killed for nocturnal-ism. :D (You'll be seeing lots of that face, since I guarantee you I'll be laughing on several occasions throughout the copy-editing process.) Zing! —La Pianista♫ ♪ 08:04, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Ed is the dear leader? On a side note, Xin chào, người Việt! I'm just a bụi đời, though, so don't go spilling the Viet all over me. I'd be embarrassed if I'd have to use the translator. :D —La Pianista♫ ♪ 07:16, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Well, I got founder rights in #wikipedia-en-milhist. I wouldn't term myself as the leader. Haven't been on irc in quite awhile (hence YM's note). I'll try to get on tomorrow after work, YM, sorry. 07:28, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Nice timestamp. —La Pianista♫ ♪ 07:34, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
For providing the cite for one of the most epic DYK hooks I've ever seen. Cam(Chat)(Prof) 05:31, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
I owe the hook's viewing results to you. Thanks for suggesting the alt. Cam(Chat)(Prof) 05:31, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
You're welcome, I'm glad it did so well. 11k in a non-lead slot is beyond awesome for any day besides April Fool's. I'm sure all of them were quite impressed with such a great article! :D
I've found that two major things can drive up views: it has to be odd enough to make a reader think "what?" (ex USS Connecticut (BB-18) and a conspiracy cover-up theory = 17.6k views), and/or you need to tie it to something everyone knows (ex tying Japanese battleship Tosa to the Yamato class = 13.4k). Basically, I'm saying to be like the media and over-sensationalize everything. ;-) Ed (talk • majestic titan) 05:54, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
First, sorry for being late by about three weeks :) Anyway, I still don't have any ideas on how to improve ARA Moreno and Rivadavia class battleship (since both are A-class and I have no idea how an A-class article can be improved since I've never worked there). What do you want me to do? ≈ Chamaltalk¤ 08:48, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Well, just anything. Approach it how you would a FAC, I guess. Is it [mostly] accessible to a layman? Etc. Thanks and no worries about being late. :-) Ed (talk • majestic titan) 04:20, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Sorry again; I was hoping to do it be tuesday but looks like I will need another day or two. It might already be a FA by the time I comment :) La Pianista, I don't want to hear that from someone who pulled the same stunt more dramatically than me :P ≈ Chamaltalk¤ 02:05, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
No problem Chamal, whenever you have time. And Pianista... do you need some ice for that burn? Ed[talk][majestic titan] 03:21, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Which burn? The one Chamal inflicted, or the one you made with the link to Wiktionary? What am I, an illiterate? Oh damn...I asked for it. —La Pianista♫ ♪ 03:36, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, wasn't sure how well a home-schooled pianist would do with a pop-culture slang term... Yup, I went there. Ed[talk][majestic titan] 03:52, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
...
*applies ice* —La Pianista♫ ♪ 04:37, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Sorry to bother you, but just wanted to let you know that your signature didn't print out correctly on ITN/C. Also, no ITN credit was given? (Not that I particularly care for such things, but I guess there are people who consider them real meaningful contributions.) Cheers! —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 09:35, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
It's no bother! Thanks, and I haven't given out credit before because it's hard to tell just who updated it, but I can if you would like. :-) Ed (talk • majestic titan) 09:40, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
I would like to bring to your attention the WP:ERRORS discussion regarding this posting; see Talk:Main_page. The blurb is incorrect, and the study has been misinterpreted. User A1 (talk) 16:08, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the note. I posted it because (a) the article had been updated (b) the New York Times reported what the blurb said and (c) there was consensus to add the item. I am not the person to judge whether the blurb was factual; I left that to the NYT. Regards, Ed (talk • majestic titan) 18:33, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Hey there Ed. Can you help me out with this article here? No really writing but giving me some advice on what needs to be fixed/tweaked and how. Is the General Characteristics section too long? And I cannot find any sources about it's pre-war actions (it was commissioned in 1912 though...) is that a problem? Any comments would be helpful for me :)--White ShadowsNobody said it was easy 01:42, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
I'll try to tweak it tomorrow, the sectioning needs some work (too many for such a short article!) Some comments: characteristics look okay. Did you try searching for the movements of the squadron rather than the battleship herself? You'll have to prove why refs 1, 6, and 14 are reliable. "The" before the ship name is used inconsistently, I'd remove it. Postcard image has no source. Some odd and possibly encyclopedic phrasing eg "no less than eighty air raids" Ed[talk][majestic titan] 07:36, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
OK thanks for offering to help me out. I'll look up the movements of the squadron as soon as I can but I'm traveling today so I'll likely get back to normal editing tomorrow.--White ShadowsNobody said it was easy 15:04, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Reliable or not: Robert K. G. Temple on Chinese and world history[edit]
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion on Temple's reliability here. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 08:40, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm afraid you have just demonstrated yet another reason why I am particuarly sceptical about not only those who aspire to adminship, but for those who already are. Learn to keep your personal comments in the right place. That RfA was NOT mine.--Kudpung (talk) 12:09, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm afraid you demonstrated why RfA is so difficult to pass nowadays. Digging up articles from three years ago is pretty trivial. At the place I work, I may have had many problems three years ago with cash register drawers being short ~$5 to $10, but that didn't stop them from promoting me about a month ago. Why? Because I had fixed the problem. 13:35, 11 August 2010 (UTC)@ 0
Clarification 'fixed the problem' as in, my drawers now only rarely come in below the number they should be. Ed[talk][majestic titan]3:00, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm afraid I just don't follow your analogy. If you are referring to the RfA, well, the candidate had not fixed the problem at all, and had no intention of doing so. Not only does that not make sysop material, it raises all sorts of other questions. Mine was a perfectly civil comment, and perfectly in context and certainly not sufficient to invite an off-topic personal attack. Your character assassination is exactly the kind of reason why many steadfast, honest, mature editors don't run for office, and in the worst case scenario, leave the Wikipedia. --Kudpung (talk) 20:50, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I am referring to the RfA. In the three years since she wrote the articles you gave, she had greatly improved in her ability to write articles and had demonstrated that knowledge. She hadn't gone back and 'fixed' the old ones, but why should she have to? I don't understand.
I also don't understand how I am character assassinating you. Ed[talk][majestic titan] 03:00, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
With remarks like yours to the other !voters, you expect more people to come forward like lambs to to the slaughter of RfA? I was once threatened by an admin with a block for making a less snarky remark on my own talk page. In my four years and 13,000 largely manual edits, I've never been so insulted. Character assasination was putting it mildly; Vilifying would be more apt, because it was a deliberate attempt at discrediting and denigrating all the work of an established editor with one short sharp cutting statement from behind the armour of your untouchable adminship, and through the vehicle of the very public event of someone else's RfA. You've blott(ed your copy book in my opinion because 1. To be quite honest, you never had any respect to lose for me because you don't know me from Adam. 2. for insulting behaviour against a mature and conscientious editor who made a perfectly legitimate commented vote on an RfA, and 3. for turning an RfA into a continued off-topic discussion. And you wonder why on policy RfCs I advocate not relaxing the bar for adminship, but maintaining it, or even raising it more. An interesting little statistic is that of the ten or so admins I have ever interacted with, four of them are among the most unpleasant and bigoted characters I have ever come across on this entire encyclopedia project. Go figure.--Kudpung (talk) 06:36, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
You make valid points. I've redacted the post in a spirit of good faith, but if you feel I am trying to 'hide' it or something, please restore it. In my four years and 30,000 mostly manual edits, I don't believe I've ever thrown a more damaging insult. The way I phrased that was unacceptable, and I apologize. We have two differing opinions, and I should have left it at that.
@respect, I've read some of your work and looked at your userpage at some point in the past. I don't remember any details; the only major thing I remembered was your name, and that I respected you as someone who had written good content, something which should be our main focus (as a project).
I promise you that I am not unpleasant and bigoted. :-) I hope you allow me the chance to prove this to you at some point. Ed[talk][majestic titan] 07:02, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for the apology. To be quite honest I never expected you to even bother because you have unfortunately already posted the fact that you have no respect for me all over the Wikipedia, and in doing so , forced me beyond the bounds of AGF. The immeasurable damage you have done to my image and any possible Request for Adminship that i might have made in the future is done, in one fell swoop, and my immaculate record is permanently damaged. There is little left for me to do now than to retire from the Wikipedia, because nobody will now ever take seriously any of the help and advice I give, or the quality of my content and contributions to policy making. Thank you for that too. I won't bother complaining to ARBCOM because admins like you have a full metal armour. All I can hope and suggest is that in future you stay away from anything that needs your use of the tools, and RfAs, until you have reeducated your sense of judgement.--Kudpung (talk) 07:31, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
You're welcome; you deserved it. However: I did not post that comment all over Wikipedia; you have not surpassed AGF in your discussion with me; it's my image that has suffered; and I don't see how your "immaculate record is permanently damaged" given that I attempted to retract the comments and apologized. I would be extremely surprised if someone judges you based on a single comment made by me rather than you, and I am certain that me 'losing respect for you' would not be a cause for any damage to yourself.
Now, having said that, if you truly believe all of what you just said, I implore you to start a thread on WP:ANI regarding my actions, as I believe that I should be accountable for all of them. Although if you do so, please be aware that I may not be able to respond for 24 or 36 hours, depending on what happens with my impending move back to college. Kind regards, Ed[talk][majestic titan] 08:32, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
I've had a close look at your contribs and I've come to a couple of conclusions. I'm a retired teacher and university lecturer. What motivated me throughout my career was the fact that I always enjoyed excellent relations with my pupils and students; I'm not particularly proud of it, but it certainly did give my colleagues reason to be envious. I say this because it's most probably my professional bias that makes the issue of maturity so important when I !vote on RfA. It is a fact that the 'nasties' in the corps of Wiki policemen are generally the teenagers who have slipped through the net and mistakenly been promoted by the closing crat. It's also a fact that because I'm aware of my prejudice against young sysops, the last thing I take into consideration is a candidate's age, indeed, I am often not aware of it. However, when I detect naïvety and/or a lack of maturity, I look into the age issue, and I'm usually not wrong. If I had been interested in !voting a year or two ago I would almost certainly have opposed both of your RfAs. This is because where a lot of editors are campaigning for lowering the pass level for RfA, I am actually advocating raising it more, but at the same time, strongly suggesting that we find some way of improving the quality of the voting, and severely reducing the humiliation factor. This would involve putting curbs on the fan clubs and on the people who place drive-by uncommented Supports. Editcountitis is also an issue and as you may have noticed, Soxred has taken his edit counting tool off the tool server because of it, and because of the current flood of RfAs. It's a miserable feeling when someone comes down on you like a ton of bricks, like I did yesterday, for something you did wrong, but did without any malice aforethought. I'm sure that's what happened with your misplaced complaint about my !voting comments. You are already an admin so it's hypothetical, but if you were running for office today, I would almost certainly support your nomination, and I would like to think that you will be participating in some of the debates whose goal is to improve the RfA system. I'm really sorry if I made you feel ill at ease and probably also ruined your day.--Kudpung (talk) 02:06, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Kudpung, that means a lot. I'll add a full reply later today; RL is calling me back. Ed[talk][majestic titan] 11:18, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
I would have opposed my first RfA too, though I'm not sure about the second. :-) Editcounting is one of the more bone-headed things to oppose on, I think. I can live with 10,000 mostly automated or 4,000 manual, so long as the quality of them are excellent and they've been here for a reasonable amount of time.
Yes, it wasn't a good feeling, and no, I meant no malice—but it was a shortsighted and under-thought comment that I should not have made. Thanks for the apology, and I hope I see you around sometime. Kind regards, Ed[talk][majestic titan] 04:52, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
I warned about the dangers of lowering the bar. Now that !X has done it in one huge step, everyone is stampeding to the admissions door. I won't be doing my self-nom now - I would be scared of getting trampled to death in the crush! --Kudpung (talk) 06:55, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Well, we have to agree to disagree on this one—while X!'s close was close numerically, I really do think that some of the opposing rationales were extremely weak which moved it into the normal discretionary range. The stampede was caused by User:WereSpielChequers's recent Signpost article. I don't think the RfA close had an effect on the current spate of RfA's. :-) Ed[talk][majestic titan] 06:04, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
The only thing that applies is the fourth bullet; my signature isn't rendered by {{User:The ed17/Signature}}, but {{subst:User:The ed17/signature}}. Still, that's a holdover from the extremely old days. I guess I can copy/paste it into my preferences. :-) Ed[talk][majestic titan] 02:56, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Ja. Just letting you know because I remember, once upon a time, that I got called off for it. —La Pianista♫ ♪ 03:29, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
..at advertising OMT over at the signpost. We do need more members. Come to think of it, just guessing, how many months/years do you think it will take until every battleship/battle cruiser/list of battleships(or battle cruisers) are at least to GA/A status?--White ShadowsNobody said it was easy 02:42, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Assuming our current trends keep up, I'd ballpark some time before I finish my undergrad degree. (sorry. Yes, I'm talkpage-stalking, but this just popped up on my watchlist.)Cam(Chat)(Prof) 05:07, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
I think it'll be about three years if Parsec and Sturm keep up their ridiculous pace and we contribute articles when we can (WS, I know you're distracted by U-boats, no worries... :P). Ed[talk][majestic titan] 11:18, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Ed, Tom asked me to finish up the preparations for sending out the Bugle, but I could use some help. The only thing left to go is the descriptions of the newly-promoted articles here. I could use some help with trimming the descriptions of the A-Class articles to match the FAs and a blurb needs to be written for the battlecruiser list. After this is finished, we need to let Tom know so he can arrange for the distribution. Thanks, -MBK004 15:46, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
I trimmed down the A-class blurbs and added one for the battlecruiser list. Parsecboy (talk) 14:17, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Sorry I vanished on ya. I had some RL issues, and also moderatly burned-out. I'm back now, but I won't be posting quite as much as I used to (still some RL issues, alas). - The BushrangerReturn fireFlank speed 19:34, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Don't be sorry, I was just worried about how suddenly you disappeared. :-/ Glad to see that you are still alright. Hope the RL stuff works out quickly, friend. Ed[talk][majestic titan] 11:18, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
I just wanted to particularly thank you for your post on my RfA. I feel like the point you made regarding my answer to Q7 emphasized that, although it may have come across as a bit combative, it wasn't intended to offend or seem defensive. I also appreciate your offer of assistance -- it's good to know of editors that are particularly willing to help me out. Again, thank you! — GorillaWarfaretalk-review me! 03:03, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
You're welcome! That offer is open anytime. :-) Ed[talk][majestic titan] 11:18, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi guys, if you couldn't tell, I've had a rather busy RL in the last few days, and that's probably going to continue. Rest assured, I'll reply as soon as I can. MBK, I'm probably not going to be able to help with the newsletter in time; is EyeSerene around, perhaps? Ed[talk][majestic titan] 03:30, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
First article created, would like your thoughts[edit]
Hi, I saw you were online as you just made an edit several minutes ago so I decided to ask you this.
I just finished up creating my first article, Operation Marlborough, and I would like to ask for your thoughts on it. I'm wondering if you have any suggestions for me on how to improve it or to proceed with it. An obvious answer would be to expand it, yes, but that's all the information I can find as of now. Oh, and I recently joined WP:MILITARY, so I'm hoping to create more articles for the project and improve existing ones.
Your honest opinions wanted, thanks. Xcalizorz (talk) 20:11, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Hello there! It looks quite good. A couple comments:
Killing three insurgents doesn't exactly deal a "deadly blow to the Iraqi insurgency."
By what definition was it "one of the most successful counter-insurgency operations undertaken by British forces since the beginning of the War in Iraq." The number killed?
Some of the wording, like "The remainder of the group's mission was to cover all other escape routes incase of immediate retreat from the operation if all else failed, backed up by troops from Task Force Red, an Special Forces Support Group quick reaction force, standing near by incase of emergency", is awfully close to the sources'. See WP:Plag. Ed[talk][majestic titan] 20:23, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Points taken, looks like I've got some more editing to do, but hey, it's a start, right? I was actually hoping I'd make some errors so I wouldn't make those some mistakes later on. Anyway, thanks for your comments Ed, I'll be sure to follow up on them... after that, I'm interested in putting this up for WP:DYK after more editing, as I think the article nearly meats DYK standards. Oh yes, and by the way, I didn't need that snazzy "Talkback" box on my talk page, I'm watchlisting your talk page. ;) But I see that it has its uses. Xcalizorz (talk) 20:33, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
We've all got to start somewhere. :-) Feel free to list it at T:TDYK; don't be too afraid of having it rejected, as the reviewers will give you a chance to fix any problems they find. Ed[talk][majestic titan] 04:52, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Already added. Again, thanks for taking the time to help, as I see you are quite a busy admin at work. Xcalizorz (talk) 08:44, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
You're welcome; ask anytime. I'm not really that busy on-wiki, it's real life that is killing me. :-) Ed[talk][majestic titan] 06:15, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Ed, Some questions have been asked about the images on my Indefatigable FAC at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/HMS Indefatigable (1909)/archive1. Could you drop by and take a look since you have more experience with this sort of thing than I do? Plus, you know people who do copyright issues and can ask them for advice if necessary. A quick look through the Commons talk:Licensing archive didn't bring up anything of use.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:25, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
I've commented. The Brassey's image will have to wait until we see if Jappalang made inquiries into the publication records of the company for commons:Template:PD-UK-unknown. The UK govt images are certainly PD. Ed[talk][majestic titan] 04:43, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Burzaco, Ricardo. Acorazados y Cruceros De La Armada Argentina. Eugenio B, Buenos Aires, 1997. ISBN987-96764-0-8
Arguindeguy, Pablo. Apuntes sobre los buques de la Armada Argentina (1810-1970). Comando en Jefe de la Armada, Buenos aires, 1972.
Almirante Latorre
Fuenzalida Bade, Rodrigo (1968). La Armada de Chile; desde la alborada al sesquicentenario (1813-1968), Santiago, Talleres empresa periodística "Aquí está".
Hello, The ed17. You have new messages at Yoenit's talk page. Message added 11:44, 19 August 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Thanks for your support at my RfA, which has been closed as successful. I can't take full credit for Manitoba, though - it was already written when I got here, I just took it through GAN and FAC. Thank the early birds instead ;-) Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 15:58, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Well, still. You did good work on it. :-) Use the tools well! Ed[talk][majestic titan] 03:07, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
I'll start with the usual apology for being late :) I think it's almost two months this time... Anyway, Rivadavia class battleship is at FAC now (therefore beyond common mortals like me) so I took a look at ARA Moreno. I don't know much about battleships or South American politics in the early 20th century, so I guess this is from the viewpoint of a complete stranger to the article's subject.
Background section - Were there tensions between Argentina and Brazil around the time Brazil decided to buy the dreadnoughts, or were they simply nervous about their neighbour getting too strong? If there were tensions it might be worth mentioning, just to make it clear.
Any details on how and why New York Shipbuilding was chosen for building the ship?
The lack of information on armament, armor etc seems a bit strange to me in a battleship article. Are they not added yet, or are they only added to the article on the ship's class?
Construction and trials section - In the line the former believed that the British were going to be given the ships as soon as they reached Argentina, "they" means the British or the ships?
International armament companies attempted to influence Argentina into selling them to one of the smaller Balkan countries, from which they would find their way into the war - Same as before; does "they" mean the armament companies, Argentina or the US? It sounds to me like the armament companies were trying to get the US involved?
Just curious, but why did so many accidents occur on the way to Argentina? A problem with the ship/crew or just bad luck?
Is it necessary to include details of Justo's visit to Brazil that are not related to the ship? It kind of stands out in the Service section, since none of the other journeys are described in detail.
It's not much and I don't know if it'll be any help, but that's all I have for now. I have some almost-free-time now, so I'll take a look now and then :) ≈ Chamaltalk¤ 14:52, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Chamal, any comments on any article are always appreciated! I'll try to address these in the next few days, when I have time. I can quickly answer one, though: no sources even speculate as to why all the accidents occurred. Not sure why, but they don't. Ed[talk][majestic titan] 04:25, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Milhist A-class and Peer reviews Jul-Dec 2009[edit]
Pool B's winner was Casliber (submissions). Awarded the top score for featured articles this round, Casliber writes primarily on natural sciences, especially botany and ornithology.
Pool A's close second was Sasata (submissions). Awarded the top score for featured pictures this round, Sasata writes primarily on natural sciences, favouring mycology.
Pool B's close second was ThinkBlue (submissions). Awarded the top score for good articles and topics this round, ThinkBlue primarily writes content related to television and film, including 30 Rock.
The second wildcard was White Shadows (submissions). Someone who has helped the Cup behind the scenes all year, White Shadows said "I'm still in shock that I made it this far" and writes primarily on Naval warfare, especially U-boats.
The third wildcard was Staxringold (submissions). Awarded the top score for featured lists and topics this round, Staxringold primarily writes on sport and television, including baseball and 30 Rock.
The fourth wildcard was William S. Saturn (submissions). Entering the final eight only on the final day of the round, William S. Saturn writes on a number of topics, mostly related to Texas.
We say goodbye to the six who fell at the final hurdle. Geschichte (submissions) only just missed out on a place in the final eight. Resolute (submissions) was not far behind. Candlewicke (submissions) was awarded top points for in the news this round. Gary King (submissions) contributed a variety of did you know articles. Suomi Finland 2009 (submissions) said "I'm surprised to have survived so far into the competition", but was extactic to see Finland in the semi-finals. Arsenikk (submissions) did not score this round, but has scored highly in previous rounds. We also say goodbye to Ian Rose (submissions), who withdrew earlier this month after spending six weeks overseas. Anyone interested in this round's results can see them here and here. Thank you to Stone (submissions) for these.
Our final eight will play it out for two months, after which we will know 2010's WikiCup winner, and a variety of prizes will be awarded. As ever, anything you worry may not receive the necessary attention before the end of the round (such as outstanding GA or FA nominations) is welcome at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews, and please remember to continue offering reviews yourself where possible. As always, the judges are available to contact via email, IRC or their talk pages, and general discussion about the Cup is welcome on the WikiCup talk page.If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox and The ed17 23:16, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Sasata (submissions) has ended up the more competitive, with three contestants (
Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) and 
TonyTheTiger (submissions)) scoring over 500 points already. Pool B is led by 
Casliber (submissions), who has also scored well over 500. The top two from each pool, as well as the next four highest scorers regardless of pool, will make it through to our final eight. As ever, anything you worry may not receive the necessary attention before the end of the round (such as outstanding GA or FA nominations) is welcome at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews, and please remember to continue offering reviews yourself where possible. As always, the judges are available to contact via email, IRC or their talk pages, and general discussion about the Cup is welcome on the WikiCup talk page.
Hunter Kahn (submissions), who has bowed out to spend more time on the book he is authoring with his wife. We wish him all the best. In other news, the start of this round also saw some WikiCup awards sent out by 
Suomi Finland 2009 (submissions). We appreciate his enthusiasm, and contestants are of course welcome to award each other prizes as they see fit, but rest assured that we will be sending out "official" awards at the end of the competition. If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox and The ed17 22:50, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Takashi Kurita ~ Hablame compañero 05:33, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Sturmvogel_66 (submissions). Awarded the top score overall this round, Sturmvogel_66 writes primarily on military history, favouring Naval warfare.
Casliber (submissions). Awarded the top score for featured articles this round, Casliber writes primarily on natural sciences, especially botany and ornithology.
Sasata (submissions). Awarded the top score for featured pictures this round, Sasata writes primarily on natural sciences, favouring mycology.
ThinkBlue (submissions). Awarded the top score for good articles and topics this round, ThinkBlue primarily writes content related to television and film, including 30 Rock.
TonyTheTiger (submissions). Awarded the top score for did you knows and valued pictures this round, TonyTheTiger writes on a number of topics, including baseball, American football and Chicago.
White Shadows (submissions). Someone who has helped the Cup behind the scenes all year, White Shadows said "I'm still in shock that I made it this far" and writes primarily on Naval warfare, especially U-boats.
Staxringold (submissions). Awarded the top score for featured lists and topics this round, Staxringold primarily writes on sport and television, including baseball and 30 Rock.
William S. Saturn (submissions). Entering the final eight only on the final day of the round, William S. Saturn writes on a number of topics, mostly related to Texas.
Geschichte (submissions) only just missed out on a place in the final eight. 
Resolute (submissions) was not far behind. 
Candlewicke (submissions) was awarded top points for in the news this round. 
Gary King (submissions) contributed a variety of did you know articles. 
Arsenikk (submissions) did not score this round, but has scored highly in previous rounds. We also say goodbye to 
Ian Rose (submissions), who withdrew earlier this month after spending six weeks overseas. Anyone interested in this round's results can see them here and here. Thank you to 
Stone (submissions) for these.