|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid lightsteelblue;" | For excellent work on [[North Carolina class battleship|''North Carolina'' class battleship]], [[Brazilian cruiser Bahia|Brazilian cruiser ''Bahia'']] and [[Tosa class battleship|''Tosa'' class battleship]], promoted to A-Class between September and October 2009, by order of the coordinators of the [[WP:MILHIST|Military history WikiProject]], you are hereby awarded the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Awards#A-Class_medals|Milhist A-Class medal]]. –'''[[User:Juliancolton|<span style="font-family:Script MT;color:#36648B">Juliancolton</span>]]''' | [[User_talk:Juliancolton|<sup><span style="font-family:Verdana;color:gray">''Talk''</span></sup>]] 20:34, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Werdnabot automatically archives sections on this page that are older than 10 days. The age of a section is determined by its most recent timestamp (sections without a timestamp will not be archived). A list of all archives can be found here.
I will respond here to comments that are posted here, and, well, elsewhere to comments posted elsewhere. Please don't fragment a conversation just to get my attention—if I comment at a page, it's a very safe assumption that I have watchlisted it. If you are concerned that I might miss a post elsewhere, use {{Talkback}} to notify me here.
This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.
Re:tsk tsk
Hello, The ed17. You have new messages at SpK's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Congrats on getting WP:100 :P You're right about WP:BITE of course. And I completely agree with improving edit summaries (or at least providing one). I'm not sure about your suggestion though (but remember I don't deal with deletions, so I might be wrong). With the frequent backlogs, I don't know how successful such a thing might be. You do get a chance to improve the article while at AFD if you want to, so I think it's at CSD that your suggestion could be implemented. The only categories that this would be applicable in would be where no notability is asserted and there is a chance that they can be improved (but in that case, we are supposed to improve rather than delete :)), and maybe advert-ish articles. The other categories are for more or less significant violations of policy, so I don't think we can keep them. Borderline cases are supposed to be nominated for AFD or at least PROD, in which case there would be time to improve the article and save it. Maybe the key would be to improve the notice templates that are posted on the user talk pages, so that new editors can clearly understand what they have to do. If we were more ambitious, we might make up a wikiproject, preferably in collaboration with the welcoming committee and the article rescue squadron (big dreams, eh? :D) to help newbies out with their articles. But something like that will require a lot of effort, and support from the community too. Take it to the village pump and see what others think about the idea? ≈ Chamaltalk¤03:28, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good thoughts, Chamal. I like the idea about the notice templates, but the problem is better explaining it in a limited space per TL;DR. Maybe I'll take a stab in my sandbox at improving one or two sometime. A WikiProject wouldn't be a bad idea, except that I should not be the leader of it—we'd need someone who is 100% committed to seeing it through. I'd wander off to work on battleship articles or something. :-) The Village Pump is a good idea; maybe I'll take it there after more comments here. —Ed(talk • contribs)16:23, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A couple editors started WP:INCUBATE about two weeks ago. The original idea was to pull some savable articles off AfD and improve them instead of debating and/or deleting. My own vision for the project is to do that, but also serve as an alternative to speedy deletion. Articles that don't meet standards, but are salvageable could be incubated instead of deleted. I believe that doing so would 1) satisfy those who think having bad articles hurts our reputation and 2) reduce byte by effectively saying "your article wasn't good enough, but we want to help you improve it" rather than "your article wasn't good enough so we deleted it."
Another idea that I like is "outlawing" the tagging of articles less than say 30 minutes old - excluding only attack & vandalism pages. The problem with this is it isn't exactly enforceable. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:34, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The only problem I see with that is "[a]rticles that don't meet standards, but are salvageable" aren't supposed to be speedyed. :-) Good thoughts though. As to your second point, I think that is an excellent idea that should be proposed somewhere. "Outside of vandalism, complete gibberish or blatant hoaxes, articles should not be speedyed or AfD'ed until at least a half hour after their creation." ? —Ed(talk • contribs)20:06, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well that open to interpretation, actually. Many of the most active admins will do a GNews search and decline a speedy based on that, but technically any article that doesn't assert importance, or is mostly ad-like, can go regardless of actual notability.
As to the half hour idea, I'll definitely consider writing up something more formal and "shopping it around" to see if there is any support, eventually bringing it to WT:CSD and the village pump if it seems to have a chance. I really think the sticking point is going to be enforcement though. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:01, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to the suck :) In all seriousness though: congrats! I hope that your new found abilities won't distract you too much from help us build content. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:20, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh gods, completely missed out. Congratulations. Don't screw up, and I'll be supporting you (when I'm actually here :D) Icy // ♫23:00, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Heh LP, you paid for $50 for a t-shirt in the public domain? :-) Thanks you two; it's nice to see you both on here, even if it was for fleeting moments. —Ed(talk • contribs)23:20, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Remember you must always follow the rules, except for when you ignore them. You will always pick the wrong one to do. (See #5)
Remember to assume good faith and not bite. Remember that when you are applying these principles most diligently, you are probably dealing with a troll.
Use the block ability sparingly. Enjoy the insults you receive when you do block.
Hullo ed. There's currently something of a fracas at ANI over the mass addition of OCLC numbers to book articles. As I recall you recommending these links for the Manifesto of the Sixteen article in addition to the ISBNs (thanks again for the peer review!), I was wondering if there was a case to make for the mass addition, and if you'd like to share it. The thread is (currently) at Wikipedia:AIN#User:CobraBot. Regards, Skomorokh, barbarian 10:47, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't follow your argument here: [2]. I count three IPs vandalising the article today - all in a narrow range, but surely a temp semi on one article is better than a rangeblock? Philip Trueman (talk) 16:00, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings to all members of the Military history WikiProject, and to those outside the project who receive this news letter as well! My name is TomStar81, and it with a great sense of pride that I assume the position of lead coordinator for the project. On behalf of all the coordinators, both new and returning, we wish to thank those of you who participated in the September elections, and we look forward to working to advance the goals of the project for the next six months.
With the elections concluded, there are two changes. First, Roger Davies has been appointed a coordinator emeritus, joining our first coordinator emeritus Kirill Lokshin. Secondly, for the first time ever, the lead coordinator for the Military history WikiProject will be taking a lengthy wikibreak. For those who were unaware of this, I am an undergraduate student, and will be taking a leave of absence, effective end September, to focus on graduating in December. However, with fourteen coordinators, and two coordinators emeritus, I am confident the needs of the project will be well taken care of. For the VIII coordinator tranche, TomStar81 (Talk)
This month witnessed an all new and improved scoring system and process established in the Contest Department, which has run both smoothly and successfully. A total of 54 articles were entered this month by 11 editors. Parsecboy placed first with an astonishing 143 points, followed by Sturmvogel 66 on 105 points. They receive the Chevrons and the Writer's Barnstar respectively. Honorable mentions go to the_ed17 (41), Auntieruth55 (38), AustralianRupert (17), Radeksz (12) and Ian Rose (11), with our thanks going to Piotrus, Abraham, B.S., Skinny87 and David Underdown, who also fielded entries. All interested editors are encouraged to submit entries for next month's contest; it can be a rather exciting experience!
Awards and honours
The WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves has been awarded to Roger Davies for his outstanding leadership of the Military history WikiProject, including his introduction of the logistics department, his dedication to the Tag and Assess 2008 & B-class Assessment Drive efforts, and his astute advice and never-ending support and encouragement as both a coordinator and lead coordinator.
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIII (September 2009)
The September 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:57, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I had added semiprotection but then removed it about a minute later, thinking my action to be a mistake; I saw that 82.29.* seemed to be the only vandal, rather than 80.41. (who was providing refs). Didn't think about BLP then, though. I gave 82.29.* a final warning at the time, so he can be blocked upon further disruption.
In retrospect, the article shouldn't have been protected at all by me because there was not enough vandalism to warrant such an action. Thank you for the notification. Cheers, —Ed(talk • contribs)06:16, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Basebull Bags protection
Heya. I was going through RFPP and I noted this request by Baseball Bugs to protect his userpage; you declined, probably due to seeing the word "pre-emptively" (don't worry, I would have done the same haha). I've protected it due to policy. Cheers, Master of Puppets - Call me MoP! :D14:10, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That link says "User pages and subpages are protected at the user's request if there is evidence of vandalism or disruption" (emphasis mine). Of course, I can go to protected pages and see this in the log: "User request within own user space ([edit=autoconfirmed] (indefinite) [move=sysop] (indefinite)". Meh, whatever, it's not a big deal. :-) Thanks muchly, —Ed(talk • contribs)14:18, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That part of the policy isn't very relevant to me. I don't say that just because I disagree with it, but I don't see why we would deny protection to someone's page if it's in their userspace; I mean, why wait for a vandal to come along and whack their page before they ask for protection? Thanks for being cool with it, though. Cheers, Master of Puppets - Call me MoP! :D14:22, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, The ed17. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Content noticeboard. Message added 05:30, 9 October 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
