User talk:The ed17

User Talk OMT Articles E-mail

That El Alamein museum essay we discussed...

...is here in draft -- any comments welcome! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:32, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Nice work! As a review, you may want to assess more of what you're describing, but otherwise I like it. Nice anecdotes. :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 18:28, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Ta, added a bit more so think that's a wrap. I've put it under op-ed for now, as Nick did last month, but if a purpose-written op-ed is available we could move my bit to the review section. I'll try and knock off the remaining A-Class blurbs tomorrow night if you want to do the editorial again and perhaps awards/honours... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:03, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

We could always just make a one-off "review essay" section too, because we do have DCI's 'revitalizing WP:HISTORY' sort-of op-ed in the holding section. I can do those tonight or tomorrow for sure. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:38, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry took a while to reply, must've missed that last post. Yes I noticed that draft op-ed so no prob running it as such -- I'll see how I go creating the one-off review essay section without buggering anything up... ;-) I've created the other pages/headers, checked that there were no awards in November (that saved some work!) and finished off the A-Class blurbs with assistance from Hawkeye, so the main thing remaining is From the editors, which I probably won't have time for before Xmas (and I think we'd better get the issue out by Xmas at least)...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:24, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

No worries, I got caught up in the Malleus debacle just before my brother managed to wreck our wifi while hooking up a new computer. ;-) No awards? Strange. I'll try to write up a small bit now and finish it off in a couple hours. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 18:33, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi mate, had a quick look at everything and just tweaked here and there, so as far as I'm concerned feel free to despatch the thing...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:37, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Tweaked a few more things (yes, I'm pedantic!) and I'll get Edwardsbot to dispatch it now. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 10:39, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 December 2011

• News and notes: Anti-piracy act has Wikimedians on the defensive, WMF annual report released, and Indic language dynamics

• In the news: To save the wiki: strike first, then makeover?

• Discussion report: Polls, templates, and other December discussions

• WikiProject report: A dalliance with the dismal scientists of WikiProject Economics

• Featured content: Panoramas with Farwestern and a good week for featured content

• Arbitration report: The community elects eight arbitrators

• Technology report: Visual editor demo launched, hailed as "most important change to our user experience ... ever"; but elsewhere over-hasty deployments criticised

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 04:58, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

story

OK, I've taken your advice. Tony (talk) 08:54, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I feel that's for the best. Sorry for all the hassle on a post that really wasn't intended for me! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 08:58, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

A Merry Christmas for Mr. Ed

Hey, Ed. I wanted to wish you a Merry Christmas. You're a really nice guy and has helped me countless times before and I'm really, really grateful. I hope you're doing fine. Regards! P.S.: I'm right now in my home town in Fortaleza. My book is in Brasília where I live now. I'be back to Brasília on 3 January and then I'll be able to do what you requested. Is that ok? --Lecen (talk) 11:27, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Right back at you, Lecen. Thanks for all your help with my articles as well. That will work – the FAC will run into the beginning of my semester, but I can deal with that. Thanks! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 18:33, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Merry Christmas for 2011

The ed17,

Would like to say "Merry Christmas" for 2011! Hope you have a wonderful day and have good memories with family and friends. Adamdaley (talk) 00:34, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

	Merry Christmas!
	Merry Christmas, Ed! Hope you have a great holiday season. Buggie111 (talk) 00:42, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

:(

Ed

Baw, you ruined Kevin and my Christmas edit to your userpage :( – GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:32, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

You guys edit conflicted me! I'll put the pic at the top of my talk page, ya whiner. :-) Also - no sad faces on Christmas and that's awesome image of the Grinch. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 03:36, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

What a punk. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:38, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Much better :] And yeah, it was the best free image I could find :P – GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:17, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

And to you too

Saw this. Merry Christmas, have a great 2012! sonia♫ 04:27, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Dangit, I missed your talk page while doing rounds of Christmas greetings. Sorry 'bout that. Either way, hope you have a great time with your family over the greatest day of the year! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:09, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Season's tidings!

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:40, 25 December 2011 (UTC).

Merry Christmas!

Christmas, Michigan, is a small town along M-28 in the Upper Peninsula	Merry Christmas
	Here's wishing you and yours safe travels, full gas tanks and good writing in the new year! Imzadi1979 (talk) 22:47, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Re: Interview?

Hello, The ed17. You have new messages at Kirill Lokshin's talk page.
Message added 12:23, 27 December 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

User:EdwardsBot/Spam

Hi. Regarding this edit, you need to bump the key (use 0212) and you used ~~~~, which will sign as the bot, not as you. You probably want to insert your signature code directly and then append a timestamp (~~~~~). --MZMcBride (talk) 14:09, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Heh, that'll teach me to use an old revision. Thanks MZM. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:57, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Fiction and Amagi

I'd like to discuss the reversion of my edit you made to the Amagi class battlecruiser, perhaps you missed that the section title was called "Fiction"?

This edit is absolutely relevant to the Amagi page; It relates directly to this class of ship in the fictional Destroyermen_(book_series), which is notable enough in Wikipedia standards to have multiple pages devoted to the series in the encyclopedia. Let me quote you from the opening paragraph of the Destroyerman page: "The books chronicle the (fictional) adventures of the crews of the destroyer USS Walker (DD-163) and the Japanese battlecruiser Amagi...".

What you reverted was absolutely a relevant edit to the page. I would also like to bring to your attention similar "Fiction" sections in the pages of USS Walker (DD-163), USS Mahan (DD-102), USS S-19 (SS-124), and references to fiction in other pages such as the USS Nautilus (SSN-571) - so there is precident to have references to fiction where the article in question is extensively referred in fictional novels. With that in mind I would like to discuss the return of the "Fiction" section to the Amagi with you in one form or another, since I believe that it meets notability standards. Timmccloud (talk) 16:37, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm still opposed to including anything that has absolutely nothing to do with the real ship in prose. I could agree to a link to the series in a "See also" section, but that's about it. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:57, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I think a "see also" is a fine compromise. Will you do it, or shall I? Timmccloud (talk) 23:31, 27 December 2011 (UTC) :)

It's done! :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:30, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXIX, November 2011

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors – MHotY coming; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at the Congolese Wars Review essay: Ian Rose goes to El Alamein Op-ed: DCI's call to revitalize WikiProject History

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Ian Rose (talk) and Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:14, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 December 2011

• Opinion essay: Openness versus quality: why we're doing it wrong, and how to fix it

• Recent research: Psychiatrists: Wikipedia better than Britannica; spell-checking Wikipedia; Wikipedians smart but fun; structured biological data

• News and notes: Fundraiser passes 2010 watermark, brief news

• WikiProject report: The Tree of Life

• Featured content: Going through the roster with Killervogel5 and a plethora of featured content

• Arbitration report: Three open cases, one set for acceptance, arbitrators formally appointed by Jimmy Wales

• Technology report: Wikimedia in Go Daddy boycott, and why you should 'Join the Swarm'

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 04:27, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Nice.[1] :) Kaldari (talk) 05:06, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, it really was bugging me. :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:30, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

SW talk

Happy New Year, Ed,

I appreciate your respect, and it is truly mutual and I am happy that you are patching things up with the newly renamed Scotty. Yes, he was a bit too tough in that comment, but he has, in general, been far more agreeable of late. So, I try to recognize improvement when I see it. Take care, Ed. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:59, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I do see what you're trying to do, but I felt I needed to highlight that one specific comment he made. Nothing against you intended. :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 10:30, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I know that. Feel free to call me Pollyanna any time you want. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:01, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Re:Contestants

Replied on my talk. J Milburn (talk) 02:12, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Talk page stalkers: NARA on-wiki ExtravaSCANza participation

Hey TPSers, how are you all doing? I'm asking you all to take a look at User:The ed17/NARA to brainstorm ideas and a structure on how we can help the National Archives ExtravaSCANza. My hope is that the success of this event will ensure that others will be organized in the future, even without Dominic as a Wikipedian-in-Residence, so we all benefit from the high-quality, formerly non-digitized media uploaded to the Commons. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 10:43, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Ready to go...

Ok, I've signed up everyone as of now, revealed the pool and sent around welcome messages. (See this, in case it's helpful. At the very least, it has a pre-typed welcome message!) I think it's pretty much ready to go. As I say, doing this now, as I am busy this evening. Happy new year! J Milburn (talk) 17:49, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Cock-up with the welcome notes, caused a little bit of drama. My fault. Should all be fixed now, I hope it doesn't marr the competition. J Milburn (talk) 19:05, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Nice job! Sorry about the late reply, I saw this last night and decided I wasn't in a very good state to be editing. Doesn't look like it was much of a mistake, we'll be fine. Happy New Year to you too! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 03:56, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

snark

What I would have preferred to say over there was a comparison to the Wicked Witch of the West sending out her winged monkeys. Fly my pretties... fly! cackle cackle Brad (talk) 05:03, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Eh, it's no different from any other clique here on Wikipedia. I'm sure that if one of Parsecboy's articles were FARed, you, me, SHIPS, and the battleship editors would be doing the same thing. :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 07:11, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

You must be joking, Ed, I'll never have an article FARed ;) Parsecboy (talk) 12:13, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

You won't, you were just an example. ;) I probably will at some point (Nevada and Alaska need to be rewritten), but we'll cross that bridge when we get to it. :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 16:16, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

If that article was packed with puffery and lacked citations then I'd be the first one to fire a volley at it. I was just going to mention Nevada to you. It's creeping up the list of FA's with maint tags. And Illinois is troublesome. Release your monkeys on those. Brad (talk) 20:10, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I'd do the same, but the point in choosing Parsec is that his articles don't have that. For that matter, I don't think yours do either, but I was trying to use someone not named us. Anyway. That's worrisome. Nevada probably only needs a modest cleanup and heavy copyedit, so I'll get around to it eventually. I'm a little more worried about Alaska because I missed a lot of sources plus it needs a total rewrite. I think those are my only two FAs with significant issues, though. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 00:58, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Nevada I believe has some Global Security or FAS sources in it so those should be deleted with fire. As for Illinois I'm reluctant to start the FAR process on it because I'm sure that I've gained a reputation for being the "Iowa class articles killer"™. Yet the article is an embarrassment. Brad (talk) 07:12, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Gah, why did I use those? The Nevada class GlobalSecurity refs will be easy to remove; weirdly it's the SSBN refs that I'll have trouble with. I'll probably have to troll through primary documents on HyperWar to find replacements, if I do. What BB-65 and 66 need is to have someone take four hours and merge them into the class article. Doesn't stop the problems with some of the other articles, though. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 07:47, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually there are some rather serious topics on the talk page of Nevada that should be addressed. The article passed FA over three years ago like Constitution did. I've been doing work on Constitution to keep it to current standards. Just the name of the game I guess. Brad (talk) 04:12, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Paperwork, paperwork...

For checking. I've cleared it now; I let a GA with minimal work this year slide (no names), and gave someone a note about slapdash GACs, in addition to a few removals (GACs not closed and things from last year, for instance). Same sort of stuff as last year. J Milburn (talk) 14:01, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I suspect we'll get a decent amount of this for the first week or so. Also, thanks for implicitly reminding me to put the log back on my watchlist. ;-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 16:13, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 January 2012

• Interview: The Gardner interview

• News and notes: Things bubbling along as Wikimedians enjoy their holidays

• WikiProject report: Where are they now? Part III

• Featured content: Ghosts of featured content past, present, and future

• Arbitration report: New case accepted, four open cases, terms begin for new arbitrators

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 16:36, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

A-class criteria

I'm fine with all of the revisions you suggested. These were just temporary anyway; I'm not an expert at things like this and I'm glad to get some feedback. My major concern is improving and recognizing the quality of articles, and I felt that this might be a way to go about it. DCItalk 17:07, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

This Month in GLAM: December 2011

This Month in GLAM – Volume I, Issue XII, December 2011 USA report • UK report • Italy report • France report • Spain report • Netherlands report Australasia report • Russia report • Israel report • Africa report • Event calendar Read this edition in full • Single-page Headlines USA report: Cultural Partnerships co-ordinator for the US, fine art editathon and QRpedia case study UK report: GLAM Ambassador visits Germany; Wikinews given tour of Scottish National Portrait Gallery re-opening Italy report: Creative Commons conference France report: GLAMcamp in Amsterdam, Wiki Loves Monuments in the National Museum of Middle Ages Spain report: GLAM-Wiki conference in Girona; Catalonian painting donation Netherlands report: GLAMcamp Amsterdam Australasia report: Australian Paralympic Committee and other Australian and New Zealand GLAM efforts Russia report: Wiki Loves Monuments in Russia Israel report: Wrapping up 2011 Africa report: WikiAfrica: Cultural institutions contributing to African knowledge on Wikipedia To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

Unsubscribe · Global message delivery 17:17, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Dreadnought race

Don't worry, Ed. I haven't forgot about the favor you asked me. I returned today to Brasília. Tomorrow I'll start working on the article. I won't let you down. Thanks for everything. --Lecen (talk) 00:44, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

WikiCup logging

Note that I disabled logging because I wasn't sure if it was going to be used; would you like me to reenable it? - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 23:07, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

That'd be great- I've been using it! J Milburn (talk) 23:39, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Same! I think the page will spiral upwards in bytes in a couple weeks, but by then we can hopefully spotcheck five and delete the rest. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 00:39, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Dreadnoughts

Hey Ed, I left you some more comments in the manly section. Best, Drmies (talk) 05:28, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Mail

Hello, The ed17. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Buggie111 (talk) 17:01, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

João VI

"Consensus to move"? What? How did you figure there was consensus. There was no consensus! For crying out loud! Walrasiad (talk) 02:33, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I read the discussion, looked at the strength of the arguments, and saw a consensus to move. It's what they pay me to do. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 02:35, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't know how on earth you could make that deduction. The discussion was still going on. What you have done mars dozens upon dozens of pages. I find that unacceptable. I'm going to request an immediate reversal of this decision. Walrasiad (talk) 02:38, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Discussion had been going on for weeks, and consensus was clearly in favor of a move. Take any action you want, but I doubt that the close will be reversed. I've been surprised before, though. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 02:41, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

The discussion involved the same nationalist-minded party that has been pushing for this repeatedly before. Their claims didn't go through the first several times, opponents have grown tired of it. So I guess just try, try again until they find a naive administrator? A terrible decision. You have given these guys license to romp through all Portugal-related pages and do immense damage to WP. Walrasiad (talk) 02:48, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Nationalist? Not that I have seen, but alright, let's run with this. Even if they are all 'nationalist', they made better arguments and provided much better substantiation for their points, which is why the article has been moved. I don't believe that I am naive, but anything's possible, and I have no idea how article titles will "do immense damage to [Wikipedia]." In any case, I'm not going to alter my close. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 02:56, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Nationalist, yes. It messes things up because ALL the pages related to Portuguese history use the anglicized monarch names. It is consistent with WP policy on monarch names. Whether John of France, Spain, Poland or whatever, it's John. .......And there they go! Triumphantly reversing all the monarch pages within minutes of your terrible decision. I am now going to have to reverse them all. Thanks a lot for messing things up and piling a ton of work on the rest of us. Easy for you to make decisions when you don't have to clean up after them. Walrasiad (talk) 03:00, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) WP:CCC, although moving all of them based on one article's RM may be a tad presumptuous. The article I moved is now in line with WP:COMMONNAME and the closely related point three at WP:SOVEREIGN. Why don't you open an RfC on the matter, instead of blindly edit-warring and attacking other editors? Comment on content, not contributors, and try to rebut their points with hard evidence. If you can't, that may be an indication that you are fighting for a lost cause.

Also, given the comment you just deleted, I'm very close to blocking you for personal attacks. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 03:13, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

My apologies for personalizing. But you intervened in the middle of a repeated debate at the height of its discussion that was already getting hot. I guess I was taken more than surprised and taken aback, particularly as I had been subjected to personal attack and just asked for all to take a breather and refocus. On the matter at hand, the prior title was in line with WP:COMMONNAME and WP:SOVEREIGN, but more importantly, there certainly was NOT a consensus for a change. And I had understood that until consensus is reached, pages aren't to be changed. That was the case for the prior request for change, the discussion just above that, involving more people than this one. Walrasiad (talk) 03:33, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Looks like Walrasiad's move-warring on other João ## articles. Now to look at the history for the attack... Alarbus (talk) 03:34, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I restored those pages to the name they have had for years until Lumastan changed them all five minutes ago. Different kings, different pages. That said, I am still appealing this decision for reopening the discussion. Walrasiad (talk) 03:42, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Well you and I see the discussion differently, but this is why a neutral editor closes them. Anyway, this discussion is going nowhere. I'm not actually sure of the process for appealing a RM, but you're of course free to do so. In the meantime: Alarbus, that's within guidelines. You'll probably have to start an RfC or multiple RMs to move them all. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 03:44, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I am having trouble figuring that out myself. I suppose I'd have to do a new RM? Walrasiad (talk) 03:49, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I only looked briefly, but I looked deep into history on a few and this has gone back and forth more than a few times. I think it just more of the same hostility that's screwing the whole project up. Alarbus (talk) 03:54, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Eh, the easier route is to start an RfC on all of the articles, as there's a good chance a new RM will be seen as pointy and closed very quickly. Given the breadth of the proposal, I'd recommend putting it on a WikiProject talk page (WP:PORTUGAL?). @Alarbus, this is why an RfC will be good. One side is going to be very unhappy but this will hopefully lay the matter to rest so we can all go back to our pet projects (shameless self promotion, of course). ;-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 03:56, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I only saw this RM today, only started editing the Brazilian and Portuguese monarchy articles a few days ago. Not my issue, really, but seems some have been at this for ages. I believe it's really mostly about diacritic marks. Megabytes of discussion over them. People are insane (as a species;). Alarbus (talk) 04:07, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Proof of that is over at WP:LAME, have fun Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 04:09, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, I have given my reply on this in my last message at Talk:João VI of Portugal, if you are at all interested. Consistency and clarity are virtues in communication and teaching, and it is worth defending. And this move undermines it. As you have made a decision, I too have made a decision: I am going to suspend my own "pet projects" on Portuguese history. If you consider that "lame", so be it. But it is hardly encouraging to contribute content composed according to certain long-standing norms, only to have them arbitrarily changed. Walrasiad (talk) 06:51, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Ed, there is something that Walrasiad has been ignoring, although I said several times over and over on João (John) VI's talk page: if we follow strictly the rules of WP:COMMONNAME as he has insisted, then the name should João VI. If we turn the option "English only" on Google books, we'll find 53,800 results for João and 40,800 results for John. Since he has been reverting all other Portuguese Kings named João back to John, this means that he has a peculiar understanding of when applying rules (or in other words: when it suits him). What to do now? Can he simply ignore the move discussion and revert the name back to John? --Lecen (talk) 16:42, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Nice try. Different kings. Since you love running numbers, why don't you actually do the same exercise for the others? e.g. "Joao II" 37,400 versus "John II" 110,000 results. Walrasiad (talk) 16:55, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Heck, why, even just running the longer phrase "Joao VI of Portugal" (8,010), vs. "John VI of Portugal" (16,000) proves your results are very misleading. Walrasiad (talk) 17:03, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I had no idea historians called "Augustus of Rome", or "Justinian of Byzantium" or similar. Do not confuse the title of a Wikipedia's article with the actual name used by historians to call a person. The "of Country X" is used only to distinguish someone with similar name from another place. --Lecen (talk) 17:06, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Yet there you have it. Both names use the same phrasing. "Joao VI of Portugal" is only half of "John VI of Portugal". Clearly the latter is twice as common. If you play with numbers, you're likely to get burned by numbers. Walrasiad (talk) 17:16, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

You see, I had to see you saying "...flows much better, much clearer, than clumsy, ugly, low recognition Portuguese spellings"; as well as SergeWoodzing saying "Most readers of English are not interested in language lessons forced upon them by people of other language cultures, just like most readers of Portuguese are not interested in language lessons forced upon them by people of other language cultures". Also what you said to ed17 was certainly not nice either. Xenophobia apart, it's precisely this kind of behavior on Wikipedia that made me leave this place. People are free to insult others and sometimes they are applauded and nothing happens to them. Neither SergeWoodzing nor GoodDay have ever done any kind of contribution to Portuguese-related articles. In fact, they never revealed any kind of interested on the subject. They are desperate to keep the "John" for other reasons. In your case, if you dislike Portuguese, I hve no idea why you bother working on articles about it. However, I'll give you one advice: you're not obliged to call "João III" by his native name. You may still write your articles by using first "João III", followed by "(English: John III)" and use the English version for the remaining of the article. Since you have no interest on actually contributing on Portuguese royals' articles, their name in it won't matter to you. --Lecen (talk) 17:30, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

@Theed17: Once more, I'd like to apologize for my emotional reaction in the heat of the shock yesterday and the discourtesy by which I addressed you in this talk page. But I hope you will realize from this discussion, and the dissatisfaction expressed in the current talk page by people more polite than myself, that closing the RM and moving away from the long-standing stable name was perhaps premature. I'd like to appeal one last time for reconsideration. Walrasiad (talk) 17:29, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For your work on making sure the articles on the king of Portugal are true to their names A Minha Pátria é a Língua Portuguesa! (talk) 03:08, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, but I only moved the article because consensus was in (I assume?) your favor. Had it been the other way, I would have closed it as no consensus. Regards, Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 03:13, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Good Sumaritan

Hi Ed, Good Sumaritan (talk · contribs) who you blocked is asking to be unblocked on the grounds that the block is invalid. Could you please explain the block to them on their talk page? (I have to say that it's not all that obvious to me as the reason for the block is only WP:DUCK). I presume that this guy is someone's sockpuppet? - most likely TouchPoints (talk · contribs)? Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 05:17, 7 January 2012 (UTC)