:I've been keeping abreast of the scoring page, but I haven't commented much. DYK/GAN drops are good, considering the integral role they played last year, I'm really happy VP is gone in general, the inventive to review GANs was a little scary (I was afraid of sub-standard reviews, etc) until Wizardman offered to review all of them, and I can agree to the multipler rule you've proposed. Yeah, I'll stay on, and hopefully I'll be around more than last year. :-) I've sent you an email on a possible judge, should we want or need another. [[User:The ed17|Ed]] <sup>[[User talk:The ed17|[talk]]] [[WP:OMT|[majestic titan]]]</sup> 21:34, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
:I've been keeping abreast of the scoring page, but I haven't commented much. DYK/GAN drops are good, considering the integral role they played last year, I'm really happy VP is gone in general, the inventive to review GANs was a little scary (I was afraid of sub-standard reviews, etc) until Wizardman offered to review all of them, and I can agree to the multipler rule you've proposed. Yeah, I'll stay on, and hopefully I'll be around more than last year. :-) I've sent you an email on a possible judge, should we want or need another. [[User:The ed17|Ed]] <sup>[[User talk:The ed17|[talk]]] [[WP:OMT|[majestic titan]]]</sup> 21:34, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
::Sent you a couple of emails. [[User:J Milburn|J Milburn]] ([[User talk:J Milburn|talk]]) 00:40, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
::Sent you a couple of emails. [[User:J Milburn|J Milburn]] ([[User talk:J Milburn|talk]]) 00:40, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | '''The ''[[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Awards#A-Class_medals|Military history A-Class medal with oak leaves]]''''' 
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid lightsteelblue;" | By order of the [[WP:MHCOORD|coordinators]] of the [[WP:MILHIST|Military history WikiProject]], you are hereby awarded the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Awards#A-Class_medals|''A-Class medal with Oak Leaves'']] for exemplary work on [[List of battlecruisers of Japan]], [[Almirante Latorre-class battleship]], and [[ARA Rivadavia ]], all promoted to A-class between September and December 2010. Congratulations! [[User:AustralianRupert|AustralianRupert]] ([[User talk:AustralianRupert|talk]]) 04:58, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Nice work, both on this article, as well as Chilean battleship Almirante Latorre! However I noticed that you redirected the old HMS Canada (1913) stub. Are you planning to re-write it into a full-fledged article as well? The first time I read the Canada stub, I especially enjoyed the bit about parts being removed during her scrapping for the repair of Mikasa. Regards, — Kralizec! (talk) 17:45, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Kralizec! I can't find a reliable source for that information or I would have included it in the new version of the article, see WT:OMT#Parts from Almirante Latorre being used in Mikasa? (incidentally, if you can view the NYT article there, I'd greatly appreciate it). I'm not going to write a Canada article because the relevant bits are included in Almirante Latorre – besides the Battle of Jutland, the ship did little in WWI. Ed[talk][majestic titan] 18:15, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 23:04, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ed, I'm sorry for not answering you eralier. Only now I noticed you invitation to help you out with Brazilian warships of the beginning of the 20th century. Unfortunately, there is no possible way I might help you with that since my focus is the imperial era. To be more precise, Brazilian political history during the Empire. I have little knowledge concerning Brazilian weapons, ships, military formation, etc... What could do is translate any passage of a Portuguese-written book if you need to. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 21:46, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Lecen, I actually didn't think you would reply – I meant that purely as a joke! :-) Thanks for the offer, and if I can help you in any way with Brazilian naval history in imperial or modern times, just leave me a message. I am going to be rewriting Brazilian battleship São Paulo soon; if your sources have any tidbits on her, I'd appreciate it! Ed[talk][majestic titan] 22:02, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I know that by the end of the Empire Brazil had a more powerful navy than the United States and I have a book which says that it was the fifth or sixth most powerful in the world. Obviously, once the U.S., Japan and Germany began their arms races in the 1890s and Brazil fell behind as it entered in a long period of political and economical chaos after the republican coup, the Brazilian navy became a mere shadow of what was once. Do you have any book that tells exactly what was the position of the Brazilian navy at the end of the Empire in comparison to other navies? --Lecen (talk) 22:09, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I won't have my books with me until Sunday, but I will check Scheina's Latin America: A Naval History, 1810–1987 and English's Armed Forces of Latin America when I get back. They should have an approximate tonnage number at least. From memory, the Brazilian Navy only had a real period of dominance from 1883–1887ish, when Argentina and Chile's full-fledged naval arms race started coming to fruition. The ironclad Riachuelo (1883) and Aquidabã (1886) startled the United States into constructing Maine and Texas, their first two battleships, because of (not entirely far-fetched) concerns that Riachuelo could single-handedly destroy the entire U.S. Navy, which was centered around totally obsolete Civil War-era monitors. However, the ships were matched by Argentina's Independencia and Nueve de Julio (later Livertad) and Chile's Capitan Prat in 1890, and Maine and Texas were commissioned in 1895. Ed[talk][majestic titan] 03:10, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, as I imagined. In the 1890s Brazil collapsed. The new republican regime was too weak and the government was uncapable of upholding any politic or economic stability. The navy was completely ignored as other countries began improving their own.
Ed, I'd like to know if you could take a look in an article I nominated as FAC: José Paranhos, Viscount of Rio Branco. It is closely related to Pedro II of Brazil. It would be good to see your opinion on whether you support or oppose its nomination. Please, do not feel pressured at all on reading the article. If you do not enjoy the subject or do not have the time I will understand. Don't worry. Thank you very much, --Lecen (talk) 12:42, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the only relatively new ships at the turn of the 20th century were two cruisers and two small, relatively weak coastal defense battleships (Brazilian battleship Minas Geraes#Background).
I certainly can, but I won't get to it until Saturday at the earliest. The lead looks pretty good, though I gave it a copyedit. See what you think! Ed[talk][majestic titan] 03:46, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, tanks for your help. Ed, do you enjoy working on warships-related articles or also in armed conflicts-related articles? --Lecen (talk) 17:35, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still working through it. :-) I would enjoy both, although I've never written a land battle article. Ed[talk][majestic titan] 17:47, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to know what would be necessary to bring Platine War from good to featured. I'm good at biographical articles, not war articles. Certainly the prose is an issue, but I wonder myself if the information is enough. --Lecen (talk) 18:27, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Pedro II of Brazil's article is suffering major vanalism attacks. Is there something that can be done?--Lecen (talk) 01:20, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've protected it for a few hours; the vandalism should die down by then. Ed[talk][majestic titan] 01:40, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ed, could you protect the page again? --Lecen (talk) 17:11, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done. There was a large amount of attempted changes to established facts (like birth years?) rather than simple vandalism... odd. Normally they just blank the entire page. ;-) Ed[talk][majestic titan] 17:21, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
At last I had the chance to read War of the Bavarian Succession as you suggested. The article itself is brilliant. Whoever wrote it did an spetacular job. Unfortunately, I won't be able to do the same with South American military conflicts-related articles. You have no idea of how poor are the articles about Brazilian history in Wikipedia. They are usually too short and full of mistakes. I won't be able to write anything about the War of the Triple Alliance if no one knows nothing about the Empire of Brazil, Pedro II or the Duke of Caxias and so on. Right now I'm writing Empire of Brazil and I had the unfortunate opportunity of understanding how hard, complex and huge are the articles about countries. But I believe once it's done, it will be a fine article. Anyway, I'd like to thank you for all your help. I know how little time we have in here and how much stuff we have to do. Thank you for taking your time and having the patience to review Rio Branco's article. Regards my friend, --Lecen (talk) 13:01, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Happy Thanksgiving & a Question
Happy Thanksgiving, Ed. What do the following articles ahve in common:
Ed, could you please review these articles. I believe that I am doing all of the correct things to rate a B-Class listing. In fact, the last article that I have written that rated a B-Class listing was Operation Grand Slam (NATO) which I also created my first disambiguation page. My long-term objective is to write articles on both numbered and named carrier strike groups, as well as their associated destroyer squadrons (DESRON) and earlier carrier battle groups. However, it is dispiriting to see one's efforts not receiving the appropriate recognition, and the nameless reviewer of these article gives a rating but no guidance beyond a listing a deficiencies. How can you make improvements?
Thanks for your help and Happy Thanksgiving.Marcd30319 (talk) 14:56, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Marc! Since I had a few extra minutes, I went through the articles above and rated all of them B-class except for Western Union Defence Organization. Upon reading through that article, I didn't get a real sense of what that organization actually did, so it needs more work in terms of coverage. The rest of them look quite good, and many of them (especially the strike group articles) would probably have a good shot at GAN with a bit more polishing. Dana boomer (talk) 15:34, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Marc, nice to see you around again. I hope you enjoyed plenty of turkey today! In the future, you can list the articles at the requests page as you write them so that they will be reassessed. :-) Ed[talk][majestic titan] 03:46, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Caldera Bay
Hey Ed! Happy Thanksgiving! I spent most of the day watching the Lions-Patriots game and doing assorted RL work. I was wondering if you could help me with User:Buggie111/Battle of Caldera Bay, a page I started way back when and would like to get to GA. Considering that you are the South american early 20th century naval warfare guru, I thought that you would be able to spice this guy up. Any help? Buggie111 (talk) 21:25, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Buggie, Happy Thanksgiving to you too. I went to my Grandma's and watched the poor Lions lose too. I managed to get $10 from my Grandpa (we made a bet that if the Lions didn't make it to 8-8, he would pay me $10 and vice versa!) ;-)
I should be able to contribute a little. If I remember right, Schenia has a bit in Latin America: A Naval History, and there should also be information in Latin America's Wars (Volume I). Give me a couple weeks though – I have a lot on my plate with one more week of classes followed immediately by exams. Ed[talk][majestic titan] 21:36, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've felt that before. Patriots should be able to get to the Super Bowl. Thanks! Buggie111 (talk) 21:42, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, if I seem to forget and it's like 15 December, just remind me. Ed[talk][majestic titan] 21:45, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's December 17th and I have reminded you. Buggie111 (talk) 18:56, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Elections are currently underway for our inaugural Guild coordinators. The voting period will run for 14 days: 00:01 UTC, Friday 1 December – 23:59 UTC, Tuesday 14 December. All GOCE members in good standing, as well as past participants of any of the Guild's Backlog elimination drives, are eligible to vote. There are six candidates vying for four positions. The candidate with the highest number of votes will become the Lead Coordinator, therefore, your vote really matters! Cast your vote today.
Hi mate, was this a self-assessment of B-Class? If so, I don't doubt that it's worth it but it should be done by an uninvolved party. I only noticed it because I'm verifying the November contest entries and if the assessment isn't strictly valid it doesn't count for November (but could count towards December once the assessment is independently verified). Ed! did a couple similarly and agreed to drop them from last month and put them towards this month -- anyway let me know what you think, it doesn't affect the placings for November, so might be more useful to you counting towards December's score anyway... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:02, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I figured it was an okay application of IAR. No qualms with moving it over, it's not a big deal, especially if there is already precedent. :-) Ed[talk][majestic titan] 05:26, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Newsletter
I'm just finishing off a Human Rights paper; when I'm done I'll get to work on finishing off the Articles and Members stuff for the newsletter so we can have it out in a reasonable time (ie before the end of the week hopefully). Cam(Chat)(Prof) 20:12, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. I should be able to do a little tonight or tomorrow. Ed[talk][majestic titan] 20:52, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
we've got a newsletter to write, and I've got a car to drive off a cliff... (couldn't resist) Cam(Chat)(Prof) 22:10, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Bahamut0013 has submitted an editorial for this month. Unless you have more pressing editorial stuff, I think we should run that (it's fairly interesting; all about military biography deletion policy). Cam(Chat)(Prof) 04:12, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
could you check over the From the Coordinators section to make sure I haven't missed anything big? After that I think we're ready for delivery (only 6 days into the month; that's gotta be some sort of record!) Cam(Chat)(Prof) 04:02, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done, and I converted it all to the new formatting. You missed the front page too. :P I think it's ready to go now, though! Ed[talk][majestic titan] 04:29, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent! You're the guy who knows the mailing procedure; could you message the bots that be so we can send this thing out? Cam(Chat)(Prof) 19:06, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
you had previously commented at t:tdyk under 19 november for the dyk hook for Death panels (political term). you said that the article was pov and used too many quotes. there has been some work on the article and if you can point out improvements on the talk page it would be appreicated. i would like for it to be approved again. i will cut out one long quote in particular now. thanks. Jesanj (talk) 15:39, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
FYI I think it is "fixed" for now, but of course any comments to the talk page would be welcome. thanks. Jesanj (talk) 04:47, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but I don't have the time to look into this further. Ed[talk][majestic titan] 20:59, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Ed17! I think the best approach is to put the command histories link in the External links section of the specific articles, with a Milhist project page as a backup. I don't know how to set up a project page. Marcd30319 (talk) 12:41, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Changing my mind here. I think external links would be fine. If someone wants them, all they would have to do is go to that ship's article – no need for them to be in two places. :-) Ed[talk][majestic titan] 20:28, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ed, more from Buckshot06 and GraemeLeggett. I think my last suggestion is a workable solution. Maybe this needs some adult supervision. :) Marcd30319 (talk) 20:29, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(od) Marc30319, one other issue with that category: it should only contain the Carrier Strike Group and maybe Battle Group entries (eg HST BG or Commander Carrier Division Four (ComCarDiv 4)). It should not contain the destroyer articles (they go in the Category:Destroyers of the United States Navy or similar categories) or the carrier air wings (which should go in Category:United States Navy Carrier air wings, under 'Aviation units and formations of the USN' or some such). Categories should only contain things that are included in the title, not extra articles. The linkages work through the text of the articles. Have I made this clear what I mean? Cheers Buckshot06(talk) 05:47, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Carrrier Strike Groups integrate carriers, their air wings, their escorting Ticonderoga-class guided-missile cruisers, and their assigned destroyer squadrons into a single unit. Also, in the case of Carrier Strike Group Fourteen, the only ships assigned are the Ticonderoga-class guided-missile cruisers USS Philippine Sea (CG-58) and USS Gettysburg (CG-64). It is this force integration that is the raison d'être for carrier strike groups, and these units are permanently assigned to their respective carrier strike group. Therefore, including carrier air wings, as well as the assigned Tico cruisers and destroyer squadrons, within Category:Carrier Strike Group is both appropriate and consistent. Marcd30319 (talk) 16:42, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We well understand your point about IDTC workup and integration of varied ships through a training cycle into one formation under a single ISIC. But do you understand how this would work logically Marc? Every ship that ever served in the Atlantic Fleet would go directly in the Atlantic Fleet category. It makes the categories impossible to use. Buckshot06(talk) 18:44, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do not intend to include every DDG and FFG assigned to an active CARSTRKGRU within this category, just their respective DESRON. Nor do I intend to include the AOE or SSN that may deploy with a CARSTRKGRU. At most, Carrier Strike Group category will encompass 11 CVNs, 10 CVWs, maybe 19 CGs, 11 DESRONs, and earlier CVBGs for historical reasons. Please note that the official web site for each CARSTKGRU lists its flagship CVN, its embarked CVW, and its assigned Tico CG and DESRON, except CARSTKGRU FOURTEEN which has only two Tico CGs. This seems consistent and logical, and it represents current U.S. Navy operational and doctrinal policies as well as ongoing deployment patterns. If this is not agreeable, then I suggest that only CARSTRKGRU articles and their earlier CVBG antecedents be linked to the Carrier Strike Group category, not individual CVNs, CVWs, CGs, DESRONs, etc., which will be listed in the individual article's infobox. Marcd30319 (talk) 20:24, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Whoa, that's a lot of acronyms. I don't think that including ships in the categories is viable – why not simply link them in the article? Ed[talk][majestic titan] 20:51, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think a section called Current Composition 2010 would work. Marcd30319 (talk) 22:17, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OMT in the Signpost
"WikiProject Report" would like to focus on Operation Majestic Titan for a Signpost article to be published this month. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Also, if you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 02:46, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You ask on your personal project page if there's a better name for this article-to-come. I would suggest South American naval arms race, since the term "naval arms race" is already familiar for many because of the German–British one, and because the South American arms race included more than just dreadnoughts, no? Were not a large number of destroyers ordered/purchased? Srnec (talk) 03:44, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I thought of that, but there were multiple naval arms races in South America (ex 1890s between Argentina and Chile), and the principal reason for the naval acquisitions were to obtain dreadnoughts. Otherwise that would be the ideal name... Ed[talk][majestic titan] 04:32, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
travel details
Hi Ed. Mishelle Gonzales, the project assistant for the Public Policy Initiative, has been trying to get ahold of you by email for the necessary travel details for the ambassador training event. Please get in touch with her ASAP.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 16:37, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Planning for next term in the Wikipedia Ambassador Program
Hi again Ed! We're trying to figure out how many students we can mentor next term and how many additional Online Ambassadors will be needed. Based on the revised plan for what participating courses will be like next term, I've sketched out what will be expected of mentors. Please look that over, and then go to the online ambassadors talk page to indicate much mentoring and other ambassador activities you'd like to do next term. Thanks!--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 18:15, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 23:25, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rivadavia class
Hi Ed! Good to know you're still busy with the "minor" navies' battleships. The Rivadavia's articles look good, I currently don't have access to additional sources to add/change anything. Maybe more "free" images of both ships would be needed, I'll try to find some and add them to the articles. Good work! Cheers, DPdH (talk) 06:16, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what I'll be able to get, especially about the Latorre... anyway, images available online should be considered "free" given the time elapsed since most of them might have been taken (more than 50 years in the case of the Rivadavias...); I need to check what Argentinian copyright laws say. Just have a bit of patience, I'm quite busy lately but will have a few free days next week. Regards, DPdH (talk) 06:27, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're really going to edit a protected BLP article without providing a source? Corvus cornixtalk 07:46, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are you serious? Read my edit summary, and feel free to go to Google News and read the 935 articles.[1]Ed[talk][majestic titan] 07:48, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Go to Google news" is not a reliable source. This is a BLP. Corvus cornixtalk 07:55, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The edits you provided are valid. I'll strike my comments on the article's Talk page. I am shocked that an admin would be editing a BLP without providing sources. Corvus cornixtalk 07:56, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry that I don't edit things in one swipe. Please don't ever berate someone over easily provable pure facts that aren't even controversial. Ed[talk][majestic titan] 07:59, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And why was the article protected in the first place? Because unsourced edits were being made right and left. Corvus cornixtalk 08:01, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Which is understandable when it hasn't been announced yet, but when nearly a thousand news sources are reporting something uncontroversial, don't throw process wonkery on someone because you can't be bothered to check for yourself. It's really not appreciated and pisses people off. Ed[talk][majestic titan] 08:05, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, please remember to provide full context in ANI posts. Thanks. Ed[talk][majestic titan] 08:30, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
File:Iowa class aircraft carrier.jpg
Well, that was a fast reply :) I barely even had time to add the image to the working draft I have before you came along and cleared up the copyright. Thanks, I was just a little unsure as to who created the image and did not want to chance putting it up at the commons since if it turned out to be a fair use image it would have been axed. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:54, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. FWIW, the NH&HC has told me in emails that they consider everything held by them as in the public domain. Ed[talk][majestic titan] 09:55, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh damn, I shouldn't have gone back and removed a second div. My apologies – thanks for the fix. Ed[talk][majestic titan] 19:21, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Friendly reminder
Just thought I'd remind you that in the OMT piece to run in the signpost you had volunteered to write the current events at milhist part, but nothing has yet been firmly developed in that section. It is not a life or death thing, but I thought I'd remind you about it since time is a factor :)
On an unrelated note, I'm nearing completion of the "Iowa class battleship version 3.0 rewrite", as I am calling it <Tom chuckles>, but I have come to realize that I will be unable to adequately address all points from the FAR and subsequent improvement discussions due to a lack of better resorces. To this end, I wonder if you and the others could move to help address what will remain when I put the new version up and open the PR for it. I think what I have now is better than what is there currently, but I know for a fact that I lack the resources needed to address some of Brad101's points (among others), and I strongly suspect that there is information in the G&D book and the Friedman books that would help the article but that I can not add to the article because I do not have any of the books. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:02, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, Tom, this popped up on my watchlist. I'm home on winter break at the moment, but when I get back to Carleton on January 2 I can immediately get my hands on a whole series of books via interlibrary loans that can probably give you a hand. I end up having access to the entirety of the Ontario University Library system (23 universities in all), so I'll see what I can find. Merry Christmas! Cam(Chat)(Prof) 07:26, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well I took an impromptu five-day break, and obviously I never got around to it. My apologies. Friedman focused more on the design history, so he shouldn't have much more, but there are literally hundreds of sources out there you can get off Ebay, Amazon, or a good library. Ex. Warship International, federal government sources like "Notice of Availability for Donation as a Museum/Memorial, the Battleship ex-IOWA (BB 61)." Federal Register 24 May 2010., "The Unstable Dynamics of a Strategic Technology: Disarmament, Unemployment, and the Interwar Battleship" at JSTOR, etc. etc. Search JSTOR and other sources like that; I have access to some things, and Cam might have access to others. If you find something, we can download and email it to you. I'll take a look at the article asap. Ed[talk][majestic titan] 09:07, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Move "Argentina-Brazil War" to "Cisplatine War"
The ed17, I'd appreciate if you could take a look in a present discussion and share your opinion about it. Its in Talk:Argentina–Brazil War#Requested move. And if possible, could you call other wikipedians interested in military subjects to give their votes? Regards, --Lecen (talk) 14:15, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wishing you a very Merry Christmas & Happy Holidays! Wishing you all the very best for the season. Thanks for all your help and support this year. Merry Christmas and may Santa be good to you! – SMasters (talk) 03:43, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply] Click to play!
Behave yourself Ed
I stumbled on to that RFA where you're causing all the trouble. Don't you know that a cabal of sheep get very upset when someone comes along with the wool clippers? Brad (talk) 13:15, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
With those reactions, you'd think I deleted the main page or something. Ed[talk][majestic titan] 02:02, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
With all of the embarrassing incidents that have happened to WP over the years involving admin you would think there would be more suspicious people. In my experience it's usually a waste of time to point out potential trouble because the one you question is too much of a saint in the eyes of the supporters. Brad (talk) 23:50, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They were many suspicious people until there was a massive backlash at trivial opposes. Now I guess it is just as bad, but in the opposite direction. You can see why I rarely head over to RfA and give my opinion. :-) BTW Brad, how are you? Long time no talk. How are the six frigates coming along? Ed[talk][majestic titan] 23:57, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are those your only concerns with the whole article? Or are those just the concerns with the History section? CTJF83chat 18:27, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Glad you're about...
...things are changing, getting updated and stuff. I've updated the main page, the FAQ and the scoring page. Changes so far to the scoring: a small drop in DYK points (10 to 5), a small drop in GA points (40 to 30), removal of valued pictures (the project no longer exists), a small incentive to review good articles (2 points for fair sized reviews) and I have posted this thread to hopefully get something final in terms of the multipliers everyone has been talking about. I'm assuming from your most recent post that you intend to stay on as judge, which is great. I'll drop Fox a note too. J Milburn (talk) 21:02, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've been keeping abreast of the scoring page, but I haven't commented much. DYK/GAN drops are good, considering the integral role they played last year, I'm really happy VP is gone in general, the inventive to review GANs was a little scary (I was afraid of sub-standard reviews, etc) until Wizardman offered to review all of them, and I can agree to the multipler rule you've proposed. Yeah, I'll stay on, and hopefully I'll be around more than last year. :-) I've sent you an email on a possible judge, should we want or need another. Ed[talk][majestic titan] 21:34, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sent you a couple of emails. J Milburn (talk) 00:40, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
.png)