Jump to content

User talk:The ed17: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 710: Line 710:
== Wikivoyage 10th anniversary ==
== Wikivoyage 10th anniversary ==


Hi Ed, Wikivoyage is celebrating its 10th anniversary today by Wikivoyagers all around the world. It would be nice if you mention about it in the next Signpost newsletter. A cake by Saqib Qayyum from Pakistan.
Hi Ed, Wikivoyage is celebrating its 10th anniversary today by Wikivoyagers all around the world. It would be nice if you mention about it in the next Signpost newsletter. see here for details [http://en.wikivoyage.org/wiki/Wikivoyage:Travellers%27_pub#10_years_of_WT.2FWV]
[[File:Wikivoyage anniversary cake 1.JPG|thumbnail|WV anniversary cake ]]
[[File:Wikivoyage anniversary cake 2.JPG|thumbnail|WV anniversary cake ]]


--[[Special:Contributions/139.190.159.228|139.190.159.228]] ([[User talk:139.190.159.228|talk]]) 13:44, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
--[[Special:Contributions/139.190.159.228|139.190.159.228]] ([[User talk:139.190.159.228|talk]]) 13:44, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Revision as of 15:08, 24 July 2013


The Signpost
26 September 2024




Re: WikiCup

Thanks Ed for your reply. Don't worry, I understand you're busy with other things as well, so there's no need to rush. The delay actually turned out to be a good thing, as I found three more questionable DYKs on top of the 3 I mentioned earlier (Roholte Church, Wildlife of Haiti and Emilio Boggio). The new borderline DYKs are Birthplace of Simón Bolívar ([1]), Protected areas of Namibia and Coffee production in Venezuela. Provided these 6 are ruled to not be "significant work" DYKs, he would have now submitted a total of 10 ineligible DYKs for the WIkiCup. This demonstrates that these submissions of his are not one-off accidents or submissions due to ignorance of the rules — they appear to be an intentional and systematic attempt to undermine the integrity of the WikiCup. I think appropriate action should now be taken, since it seems he now qualifies as a "persistently problematic user." —Bloom6132 (talk) 14:50, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We are emailing about it right now. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:29, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for looking into the situation – I really appreciate it! In the meantime, he's just submitted his latest fake DYK—Palacio de las Academias. 11 and counting. I'm getting pretty fed up with his deceitful antics. —Bloom6132 (talk) 03:18, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another one – Tomb of King Tongmyong. When are you guys going to start docking his points for ineligible DYKs? —Bloom6132 (talk) 12:56, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Calm please, I'm emailing J Milburn right now, and we will be scrutinizing the submissions. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:59, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've been very calm and patient. How's the scrutinizing going? —Bloom6132 (talk) 06:17, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We are going to be removing the articles before the end of the round. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:23, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Ed for your assistance in this matter! :) Unfortunately, he just added back one of the ineligible DYKs you had deleted. —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:02, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we're talking about it off-wiki as well. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:54, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A question

Hey Ed, I stumbled on ARA Almirante Brown (1880) (actually while reading your Argentine-Chilean article), and I've been trying to beat it into shape. The service history is, at present, fairly light, but I wondered if you might be able to fill in some details from Scheina and such, given that this is your area of expertise. Between the two of us, we might be able to hammer this into a decent GA. Whaddayathink?

As a side note, do you know anything about Argentine copyright law? I have no clue whether the tag on the image currently in the article is valid. Parsecboy (talk) 17:12, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and while digging through Google Books, I came across Conflict in the Southern Cone, which might be useful for your Argentine-Chilean article. Parsecboy (talk) 18:12, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can look at Scheina and a couple other books, but unless I get to it tonight, I'm going to be offline tonight and tomorrow, and then the Signpost will be on Wednesday. Argentine copyright is simultaneously awesome and frustrating. If you can prove it was taken more than 25 years ago and published more than 20 years ago, you're fine in Argentina. However, because Wikipedia's and Commons' servers are in the US, we then have the ridiculous URAA, which in this scenario basically changes that to taken before 1971 and published before 1976. So the problem with the image in the article right now is that we have no idea if or where it was published before. I think the only option we have is to troll through ancient magazines to determine the copyright status of better-quality internet images, put those that old rarely had images. We can also ask User:Cambalachero if he knows of anything that could help... so, he's now pinged here. :-)
Random sources I've found: [2] (also here), interesting notes about cost, thought sunk, effect of steel vs. iron, "better to avoid than to fight an enemy", and a searchlight as a comet?.
Re: Southern Cone, I'd seen it in Google Books but wasn't able to read much, so I put it in a "Further reading" section in the Argentine-Chilean article. Someday when I have money I'll go and buy it. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:29, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(Small) picture from Jane's 1902: [3] Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:49, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Most of those sources you found are already in the article - I trawled through Google Books and that's what I could find. Good catch on the images from Jane's - both the photo and the linedrawing are added to the article now.
Take your time on Scheina, I'm in no particular hurry :) Parsecboy (talk) 15:29, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah sorry, I should have given it more than a quick glance! I'll get back to it later this week. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:06, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I added two sentences—that's all Scheina has, unfortunately, and Conway's 1860-05 has nothing, so go ahead and nom it for GA. I'll keep an eye on it, but I'm not taking credit. :-) I may be able to add a bit more from English's Armed Forces of Latin America and/or Grant's Rulers, Guns, and Money, but the former wouldn't have much, and this ship is mostly outside of the latter's time period. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:55, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds fine to me. If that's all Scheina has, that's all he has. It's up at GAN now - we'll see how long it takes to get a nibble. Parsecboy (talk) 21:03, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost Discussion report

Since Armbrust is enthusiastically helping with the FC report, I've boldly volunteered to lead the discussion report. I set it up in a way that I think will be easy for me to maintain. I'm planning to change the image each week. What do you think? The report is done except for copyedit for this week. --Pine✉ 07:27, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's brilliant, Pine. Thank you! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:06, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GOCE May drive wrap-up

Guild of Copy Editors May 2013 backlog elimination drive wrap-up newsletter

We have completed our May backlog elimination drive.

The drive wrap-up newsletter is now ready for review.

– Your project coordinators: Torchiest, BDD, and Miniapolis

Sign up for the June blitz! To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 04:41, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vinícius18

Its time to block this guy - I have tried to communicate with them but to no avail. They starting adding pics again and in the process ignored the notes. Dont have time to deal with kids like this....get them out of here if they dont have the capability of communicating or understanding.Moxy (talk) 15:31, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like Basalisk has gotten to it first. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:47, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 05 June 2013

Thanks for the quick corrections! What you do is awesome :) --Kip (talk) 09:29, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Thanks

I thought it was a test to see if I read the Signpost. :) -- LiAnna Davis (WMF) (talk) 23:09, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Checking in...

Hey there, Ed! Just me. Hope you are doing well. I just wanted to touch bases with you and let you know that your work with the Signpost does not go unnoticed. Your work is appreciated. For the most part, I think Wikipedia editors spend time focusing their efforts on vandals and negativity. Which is certainly needed at times. Yet, I would venture to say that some of the hardest workers on Wikipedia are found in the woodwork. Much like bookshelves in a library support volumes and volumes of books and written materials, there are editors on Wikipedia, that hold up the project, much in the same way. In my opinion, you are one of these editors. Sadly, we oftentimes neglect to recognize or express our appreciation for consistency and dedication. I hope to bypass any inkling of my own personal complacency or neglect in this area. If you have a chance, I encourage you to take some time out to find an editor in the woodwork and pass on some appreciation of your own for their work. Pay it forward. Best regards, Cindy(talk) 00:18, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hear, hear! Ed, I also can't stress how much your devotion to this virtual paper is appreciated. The Signpost is always one of the highlights of my week--no matter how late it is ;) Theopolisme (talk) 00:21, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Cindy and Theo! Thank you both for the kind words. I can't take much credit, though—I wouldn't be editing anything if I didn't have other editors working with and beside me. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:23, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

email

Sorry, but my Wikipedia email isn't opening for some reason. I need to change to a gmail account. Serendipodous 10:14, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed my email. Serendipodous 14:18, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, no worries! I'll resend it in about five minutes. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:55, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what's going on but it didn't appear on my inbox. Serendipodous 04:21, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was forced to walk away for longer than I anticipated—you should have it now! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:35, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost

Hello, I'm Theonesean. Since I renewed my WikiFervor some months ago (note to self: write essay about WikiFervor), I have been an avid reader of the Signpost. I've always wanted to write for it, as I consider myself a fairly good writer. However, every time I visit the newsroom, I'm at a loss as to what I can do. I would be willing to do a comic as described in the discussion, I avidly follow ArbCom reports, and can generally write anything if need be. Please contact me with more information. Thanks, TheOneSean [ U | T | C ] 16:42, 8 June 2013 (UTC) (P.S. Please leave me Talkback if you reply here)[reply]

Ed, I too enjoy the Signpost, and learn from it as well. Thanks for all the work you do. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 18:53, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Cullen! Much appreciated. Please feel free to leave feedback on anything anytime. Sean, all of our sections have editors at the moment, but that doesn't mean you can't help out somewhere. Let me talk to a couple quick before I give you a definitive answer. Thanks! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:59, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Signpost-subscription

Was there discussion before the links to newsroom and the single page version were removed from Template:Signpost-subscription? RJFJR (talk) 19:39, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, there was not. Is that really controversial? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:59, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I used the links that were removed and was surprised but it doesn't seem to bother anyone else so I'll just leave links on my user page. Thanks. RJFJR (talk) 13:32, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies. I can re-add the single-page template, but I removed the newsrrom one as it isn't important compared to what I added. Regards, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:36, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This Month in GLAM: May 2013



Headlines
Read this edition in full • Single-page

To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

Unsubscribe · Global message delivery 22:53, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Drmies thread

You closed that thread on his Talk, then he continued adding insults there, while telling me not to respond. (That seem fair in your book? What was the function of "closing" that thread, if he ignored the close?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 02:27, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's his talk page; he gets to do with it what he wants... Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:54, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your closing the thread was just a suggestion then, I assume you would agree. You told him to go ahead and revert your close, presumably if he wanted to make further comment. Well you saw what he did -- he didn't revert your close, yet made further insulting comments, and accusations against me, that were purely ad hominem. Then deleted my reply, with a "Fuck off" edit sum. (That kind of behavior, from an Admin, got your deep-down & honest respect?! [You needn't answer; I'm not challenging you about anything, I think your close was a good effort; my point is Drmies disrespected it. {So how does his "Thank u" to you have any context? Gee I'm confused!}]) After a display like he made, IMO his behavior is a disgrace to all Admins. (How are regular editors supposed to have respect when Admins act like that?! They can't, if they're paying attention.) Thanks for letting me voice my thoughts here, again, I think your close attempt was a respectful gesture (not offending anyone). Good for you. (It was clear Drmies wouldn't be facing my Q even in an earthquake or tsunami. So there was no point to letting it continue. He had only insults to spew.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 03:27, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Good Articles Recruitment Centre

Hello! Now, some of you might have already received a similar message a little while ago regarding the Recruitment Centre, so if you have, there is no need to read the rest of this. This message is directed to users who have reviewed over 15 Good article nominations and are not part of WikiProject Good articles (the first message I sent out went to only WikiProject members).

So for those who haven't heard about the Recruitment Centre yet, you may be wondering why there is a Good article icon with a bunch of stars around it (to the right). The answer? WikiProject Good articles will be launching a Recruitment Centre very soon! The centre will allow all users to be taught how to review Good article nominations by experts just like you! However, in order for the Recruitment Centre to open in the first place, we need some volunteers:

  • Recruiters: The main task of a recruiter is to teach users that have never reviewed a Good article nomination how to review one. To become a recruiter, all you have to do is meet this criteria. If we don't get at least 5-10 recruiters to start off with (at the time this message was sent out, 2 recruiters have volunteered), the Recruitment Centre will not open. If interested, make sure you meet the criteria, read the process and add your name to the list of recruiters. (One of the great things about being a recruiter is that there is no set requirement of what must be taught and when. Instead, all the content found in the process section is a guideline of the main points that should be addressed during a recruitment session...you can also take an entire different approach if you wish!) If you think you will not have the time to recruit any users at this time but are still interested in becoming a recruiter, you can still add your name to the list of recruiters but just fill in the "Status" parameter with "Not Available".
  • Co-Director: The current Director for the centre is me (Dom497). Another user that would be willing to help with some of the tasks would be helpful. Tasks include making sure recruiters are doing what they should be (teaching!), making sure all recruitments are archived correctly, updating pages as needed, answering any questions, and distributing the feedback form. If interested, please contact me (Dom497).
  • Nominators, please read this: If you are not interested in becoming a recruiter, you can still help. In some cases a nominator may have an issue with an "inexperienced" editor (the recruitee) reviewing one of their nominations. To minimize the chances of this happening, if you are fine with a recruitee reviewing one of your nominations under the supervision of the recruiter, please add your name to the list at the bottom of this page. By adding your name to this list, chances are that your nomination will be reviewed more quickly as the recruitee will be asked to choose a nomination from the list of nominators that are OK with them reviewing the article.

If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me. I look forward to seeing this program bring new reviewers to the Good article community and all the positive things it will bring along.

A message will be sent out to all recruiters regarding the date when the Recruitment Centre will open when it is determined. The message will also contain some further details to clarify things that may be a bit confusing.--Dom497 (talk)

This message was sent out by --EdwardsBot (talk) 14:44, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cantankerous

Just to let you know, I reverted your edits to Cantankerous. Wikipedia isn't Wiktionary; because it has a primary Wikipedia topic it should be redirected there. I'll add a Wiktionary hatnote to the top of MC Kinky regarding it. However, if you can find another notable usage of it it can be turned into a disambiguation page.--Launchballer 23:03, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First, there's no mention of this stage name in the reference given. Second, I highly doubt that many people searching for "cantankerous" are really going to be looking for a relatively obscure British musical artist versus the meaning of the word itself. Still, I don't care enough as long as the hatnote is there. Thanks, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:01, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost

Andreas and I have thrown together a section for this week. We should be OK for your edit. Thanks -- Ben (Go Phightins! 01:07, 13 June 2013 (UTC))[reply]

I'll check it now—thanks for the note! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:11, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Great American Wiknic

In the area? You're invited to the Great American Wiknic.

Place: north of Minnehaha Falls in Minnehaha Park, Minneapolis
Date: Saturday, June 22, 2012
Time: 12–4 pm

  • Accessible from the Minnehaha Park METRO station, bus, walk, bike, or car
  • If driving, free parking available on 46th Ave. S, and pay parking in the park
  • Food and drink options nearby, or bring your own... maybe even to share!

For more, and to sign up (encouraged, not required) go to the meetup talk page.

This invitation was sent to users who were interested in past events. If you don't want to receive future invitations, you can remove your name from the invite list. —innotata 02:56, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Armstrong Whitworth Launch Cards

I have now uploaded five pieces including two De Lacy signed pieces to Commons. A role has also been played in creating Charles de Lacy.Minas Geraes is included so is Eidsvold. I have also made an Excel table for the contents of Tyne Wear archives 450/1, the Admiral's bound volume of launch cards from Elswick. Along the way, that shows 12 De Lacy images and a total of 33 vessels. I may try to get some of this into my own blog. If you would like to see the Excel table I need to know some way to get it to you.TWAMWIR (talk) 11:33, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I saw De Lacy's Minas Geraes pictures—I've already added them to the article. :-) I will email you through Wikipedia's Special:Emailuser function so that you have my email, and I'd be happy to work with you in getting these valuable images into articles! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:58, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have now published the raw data through the medium of my blog. This means all the information about 450/1 is there but not as an excel table. I am happy to share the table by email to you and anyone else.TWAMWIR (talk) 07:01, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, that works just as well! I don't know how much time you have left as a Wikipedian-in-Residence, but I could certainly get most, if not all, of the articles created for the images of South American ships if that's what Tyne and Wear would want. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 07:08, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Two things. More uploads of launch ephemera at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:ListFiles/TWAMWIR . The score there is nine uploads from Tyne & Wear Archives & Museums 450/1. 10 images in all, one has two. Six by De Lacy. We are nearly out of time over here. It is also the case there is yet more De Lacy pieces in Archives. In particular a study of reference 696. In that 696/7/15 is the launch card (different format to 450/1) for Chinese Chao Ho October 23rd 1911. Inside are TWO more Charles de Lacy pieces, Elswick 1911 and the warship. Versions of Elswick 1911 are "out there" because it has been used for the cover of Armstrong's River Empire. The second matter concerns edits on Charles de Lacy. If you look at the talk you will see I am trying to avoid any stress over the table I have transcribed for 450/1. It seems to me this is a most basic and useful document. There is no thesis or contention. I am up for bright ideas to make sure editors are able to use this information. Although my formal time is nearly up, I shall probably be able to keep chatting here and monitor the areas we worked in. TWAMWIR (talk) 11:13, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! It looks like the reverting editor there has converted the table to a wikitable for you, which may be the best-case scenario. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 15:04, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We mutually agreed that this was the solution so we went and did it. Hopefully it will stick. Now here was a surprise to me and hopefully to you. Click on this and look for Minas Geraes!. That is how the cover is captioned inside with Superb forward. This is item 696/7/15 being reproduced. The whole item is reproduced in various places in the book. TWAMWIR (talk) 19:53, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds great, and I actually can't read that (I'm in the US) but I found out what it is from your other edits—very cool! I assume that it was painted in early 1909. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:57, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia Highlights from May 2013

Highlights from the Wikimedia Foundation Report and the Wikimedia engineering report for May 2013, with a selection of other important events from the Wikimedia movement
About · Subscribe/unsubscribe · Distributed via Global message delivery, 16:31, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 June 2013

WW2InfoBox

Could you please remove the off-topic slander on the Talk:WW2InfoBox. It's unconscionable that an off-topic slander of another editor is left on a talk page in a closed discussion with a "do not modify" tag applied. UrbanNerd (talk) 23:04, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 19 June 2013

Ed, I've belatedly added the Israel story to the ITM header. (Forgot to do that at the time, sorry.) Andreas JN466 04:54, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, Jayen! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:53, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanking Jarry

I gave a Signpost barnstar to Jarry. Will you sign it with me? User talk:Jarry1250#Signpost barnstar. Thanks, --Pine✉ 06:34, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:53, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion

With the various concerns about editor retention on people's minds these days, it "may" be interesting for the signpost to interview m:User:Magister Mathematicae. - jc37 17:52, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OMT op-ed

Hi mate, Tom doesn't seem to have been around for a few days so will ask you: is "Anchors Away" deliberate? I understood that the correct term/spelling is "Anchors Aweigh" so thought I'd check... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:03, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

TPS, you're correct on the spelling.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 07:50, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Tks Storm! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:06, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Whoa, sorry, I missed this post in the sea of newsletters. Thanks for taking care of this, Sturmvogel! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:19, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LXXXVII, June 2013

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 08:43, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GOCE June/July 2013 events

Guild of Copy Editors July 2013 backlog elimination drive wrap-up newsletter

We have completed our June blitz and are about to commence our July backlog elimination drive.

The June/July 2013 events newsletter is now ready for review.

– Your project coordinators: Torchiest, BDD, and Miniapolis

Sign up for the July drive! To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 20:06, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re: WikiCup (cont'd)

A recent discussion at DYK appears to come to the consensus that the Crime in <country> articles – submitted by this same WikiCup competitor in question – only skim the surface of the topic and thus, violate DYKAR rule D7 (specifically, "Articles that fail to deal adequately with the topic are also likely to be rejected"). He's had Crime in Burma promoted and submitted for WC points, before the discussion began. In addition to DYK rules, this also seems to fall under "intentionally submitting subpar articles with the aim of getting more WikiCup points" – what do you think? —Bloom6132 (talk) 11:00, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He's also added this GAR, even though he hasn't completed the review – a contravention of the rules. —Bloom6132 (talk) 06:20, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Here seems like a suitable place for a centralised discussion. I am not going to remove Crime in Burma- regardless of what the DYK guidelines now say, this was featured on the MP, and doesn't seem obviously abusive. It's not perfect, but, if it (was) good enough for DYK, it seems like it's good enough for us. The GAR, though, I have removed. J Milburn (talk) 09:26, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks J for your swift response regarding the GAR. For the DYK, I respect your judgment on that, but I think getting an article haphazardly passed doesn't mean it was/is good enough for DYK. This was based on community consensus, not guidelines. Two perfect examples would be Crime in Cambodia and Crime in Vietnam. These articles were given a pass as being "good enough for DYK" by two very experienced users, until they were flagged for being substandard due to consensus. This demonstrates that the only reason why he got away with the Burma article is because no one bothered to take a closer look at it. I'm perfectly fine with him keeping his DYK credit; just not fine with him submitting subpar DYKs for the WikiCup.
Also, in my opinion, his DYK nominations on crime that have repeatedly been flagged (specifically, Crime in Sri Lanka, Crime in Cuba, Crime in Yemen and Crime in the Philippines) shouldn't just be brushed aside as not "seem[ing] obviously abusive". The worst "beyond reasonable doubt" sign of abuse was in Template:Did you know nominations/Crime in Indonesia, where he copied off Crisco 1492's work without attribution, before advising him to "just ignore the copied parts" and count that as part of the 5× when asked to correct the issue. Coupled with the removal of 14 DYK articles he claimed due to lack of significant work (which inflated his point totals by 122 points), how can this possibly not be abuse? —Bloom6132 (talk) 10:25, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I take your point. I'm pretty busy today, so I won't be able to give this matter the attention it warrants for a little while. J Milburn (talk) 11:10, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry. Take your time; we've got till Friday (when the round ends) to discuss this. —Bloom6132 (talk) 13:19, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the note, Bloom. I've actually been sporadically commenting on the issues with DYK as a process, and would therefore probably take a harder line than J. ;-) That's why we have multiple judges, though. J and I will talk it over in private and make a decision. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:49, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No problem Ed. Thanks you both for your efforts in addressing this. In the meantime, he's just added another questionable DYK. His contributions [4][5] involve adding minimal prose (4 sentences) and a table (which doesn't count towards DYK at all). Given that this DYK scored 10 points (meaning 5,120+ characters required), he's basically taking credit for minimal contribution to the article. —Bloom6132 (talk) 09:13, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To provide a third opinion if it's warranted, this seems like precisely what the cup has been trying to avoid, making slews of articles just big enough or meaty enough to make as many points as possible. To be honest I think disqualifying him is a no-brainer, given the fact that his recent DYK nominations are even stubbier (1506 bytes, 1516 bytes, etc.), but it's up to you guys of course. Wizardman 21:32, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If Bonkers advances at my expense when the round ends tomorrow, please list me as "Withdrawn" instead of eliminated. I'd rather bow out on my own accord than lose (by the smallest of margins) to this fraudulent cheat. —Bloom6132 (talk) 13:36, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
He's resorted to his same antics of adding back an ineligible DYK. —Bloom6132 (talk) 06:12, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
He emailed me about it—I removed it by mistake. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:19, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, so he's been emailing you guys about this issue. Interesting; I wonder what he's got to hide, given that I've been completely open and transparent throughout this discussion. Also, I'm surprised he still hasn't been disqualified. I suggested that in the earlier thread, and now a neutral, third-party admin who I've not talked to this year says the same thing. Even if he's to be eliminated from this round, he should still be disqualified in order to make an example to all other WikiCup competitors and send out a clear message – that this kind of behavior is not only unacceptable, it's against the spirit of the rules. —Bloom6132 (talk) 08:50, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, perhaps he wished to avoid comment from others on the issue. Regardless, I've removed an ineligible ITN submission, and neither of you will be getting into the next round (the cutoff is at 321). Regards, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:06, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Transparency note: I was not aware of this thread. So there. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 04:33, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than assuming good faith since this is my first time in the Cup, you exhaust all your efforts to dig out all the "fraudulent" entries. So this thing has no longer become fun; we have essay-writing tattlers here. I've got nothing to hide. See you next year. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 04:40, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, we tried multiple times to get you to understand what we wanted in submitted articles, which has led you, your poolmates, and the judges to become extremely frustrated. I'm out of ways to explain what we are looking for. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:45, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@BTC: Hey, this is my first time in the Cup too. Other than assuming good faith, I also assumed you would've read the rules, especially now that we're in Round 3. So unfortunately, your argument doesn't really wash. And I'm guessing your version of "fun" is for me to ignore all your ineligible entires and watch you advance to the next round at the expense of other competitors who've actually put in hard work. Right? Nah, I prefer honesty, fairness and accountability, but according to you, that makes me a "tattler." —Bloom6132 (talk) 07:18, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 26 June 2013

Newsletter

I've made a start on this month's newsletter. Despite some upset, there has actually been a lot to celebrate this round. Anything to add? I'm not aware of any other competitions/drives due to start soon... J Milburn (talk) 15:54, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you've already mentioned the gigantic Middle Ages FA... GoCE might have a drive going, but we don't award points for copyediting, so I think you're good! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:01, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup 2013 June newsletter

We are down to our final 16: the 2013 semi-finals are upon us. A score of 321 was required to survive round 3, further cementing this as the most competitive WikiCup yet; round 3 was survived in 2012 with 243 points, in 2011 with 76 points and in 2010 with 250 points. The change may in part be to do with the fact that more articles are now awarded bonus points, in addition to more competitive play. Reaching the final has, in the past, required 573 points (2012, a 135% increase on the score needed to reach round 4), 150 points (2011, a 97% increase) and 417 points (2010, a 72% increase). This round has seen over a third of participants claiming points for featured articles (with seven users claiming for multiple featured articles) and most users have also gained bonus points. However, the majority of points continue to come from good articles, followed by did you know articles. In this round, every content type was utilised by at least one user, proving that the WikiCup brings together content contributors from all corners of the project.

Round 3 saw a number of contributions of note. Idaho Figureskatingfan (submissions) claimed the first featured topic points in this year's competition for her excellent work on topics related to Maya Angelou, the noted American author and poet. We have also continued to see high-importance articles improved as part of the competition: Wyoming Ealdgyth (submissions) was awarded a thoroughly well-earned 560 points for her featured article Middle Ages and 102 points for her good article Battle of Hastings. Good articles James Chadwick and Stanislaw Ulam netted Australia Hawkeye7 (submissions) 102 and 72 points respectively, while 72 points were awarded to Poland Piotrus (submissions) for each of Władysław Sikorski and Emilia Plater, both recently promoted to good article status. Collaborative efforts between WikiCup participants have continued, with, for example, New South Wales Casliber (submissions) and Canada Sasata (submissions) being awarded 180 points each for their featured article on Boletus luridus.

A rules reminder: content promoted between rounds can be claimed in the round after the break, but not the round before. The case in point is content promoted on the 29/30 June, which may be claimed in this round. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. We are currently seeing concern about the amount of time people have to wait for reviews, especially at GAC- if you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to reduce the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 09:52, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dispatches

I'm doing the final polishing on my Dispatches contribution. Can you give some guidance about preferred length? It is currently around 900 words, but I can trim if necessary. Can you also remind me how I deliver the article to you? It should be with you by tomorrow. Brianboulton (talk) 20:36, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1500 would be too long, but 900 is perfectly fine, and please feel free to expand it a little more if needed. As for delivery, it's up to you. Some of our pages use Google Docs, and then I copy, paste, and upload while publishing. You could also put it in a sandbox, email me the link, and I'll move the page when publishing. Thank you again for doing this! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:33, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, the text is here. Please drop a line on my talk if this link is insufficient or if you have further queries with the text, otherwise it is all yours. Brianboulton (talk) 22:46, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Amusement Park Quarter 3, 2013 Newsletter

WikiProject Amusement Parks Newsletter

Quarter 3, 2013

463 124 5.13 50 30% »
Full edition
Unassessed Articles Coordinates Needed WikiWork Load Project Members B&M articles are GA or FA

23:02, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

SignPost news input you may be interested in

Franz Kafka all time top TFA!!!

[6] 768,586 hits
Wikipedia:Today's featured article/Most viewed
WP:TOP25 (when updated)
PumpkinSky talk 12:26, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the links, and congratulations! That's an awesome accomplishment, one I suspect my battleship articles will never reach. ;-) I assume this will be featured in next week's traffic report. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:42, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It might have had something to do with being a Google Doodle as well that day. Chris857 (talk) 22:09, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Correct, the doodle went to a google search results page, not the wiki article. PumpkinSky talk 00:47, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 03 July 2013

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost

Hi. Please have a look here. --Meno25 (talk) 13:22, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Someone has to step up and say it

Hi. I understand that you disagree with what I wrote, but that doesn't make it any less true and, respectfully, it doesn't entitle you to remove my post(s). Yes, unfortunately, someone has to step up and occasionally speak hard truths: stomping off (ragequitting) like a diva is poor form. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:41, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why does somebody have to say it? In my experience it's never been helpful to call people divas when they are doing drastic things out of frustration or desperation, and it certainly never "needed" to be said. I'm astonished by your lack of sensitivity and empathy here. ---Sluzzelin talk 03:45, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Sluzzelin here, plus (a) he hasn't shown signs of divaing before, (b) he's taking a break, not ragequitting, and (c) your post is completely unnecessary and inflammatory. But to each their own, I suppose. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:50, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ed's action looks sensible to me: there's no need to pile more drama on top of existing drama... Nick-D (talk) 03:52, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) It's important to counter-balance the impression that this type of behavior is acceptable or desirable. It isn't a lack of sensitivity or empathy at play here: it's years of experience watching countless users stomp off like this before (and watching the various hordes beg for their return). It's a fairly common pattern that's been repeatedly identified and documented; I don't think there's much harm in saying so. The appropriate response to no longer wanting to be here is to leave. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:54, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • If "years of experience watching countless users stomp off like this before" does not suggest to you that something is rotten in Wikiville, and that maybe people who have poured years of their lives into this project do not appreciate a growing attitude of distrust and Big Brotherism, then perhaps you may want to do a check on your statement that you are not lacking sensitivity and empathy.
Ed, if you're reading this... I sure as hell hope you make it into that master's program. Don't feel as if you have to look back, although of course I certainly enjoy having you here. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:32, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anyone meant to suggest that Wikipedia is perfect. :-) Is something rotten on Wikipedia? More so now than before? Eh... maybe. I fail to see how stepping down as an admin addresses (or helps address) whatever may be rotten.
There's a growing attitude of distrust and Big Brotherism in the world today, particularly given recent leaks about widespread government surveillance programs. I fail to see what this has to do with ragequitting the English Wikipedia.
The point, in case it's still getting missed—and this applies to Drmies, Giano, Malleus, Boing and many others—is to resist the temptation to throw a tantrum or feed others who are currently throwing a tantrum. We all get exasperated at this place and taking an occasional wikibreak is great, particularly if you're a very active user. But you can express your exasperation or take a wikibreak without being a pissy queen about it.
Yes, some people have poured a lot of free time into Wikipedia. But it's a volunteer project. Anyone is free to contribute or not contribute. That's part of who we are and we make an effort to guard against the idea that people should be treated differently because they're (for example) particularly prolific editors, even though we recognize that we often fail.
My two cents. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:35, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Crisco, for your information I got in but am putting it off for a year to save money. I'm admitted for the fall 2014 semester. :-)
MZM, I'm far more in your camp than I suspect you realize. I just don't think now, when emotions are running high, is the best time to be pointing it out. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 16:50, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

June 2013

Just a heads up, you reached 3RR at Template:FAC-instructions. I've fully protected the page for now, but will be keeping an eye on it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:44, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I realized it after the third revert—I wasn't planning on editing it again. :-) Thanks for the note! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:25, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most likely. ;-) Unfortunately, I like to stay far, far away from controversy at most points, and I seem to have inadvertently walked full-on into it here by not paying attention. Lessons for the future, I suppose... Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:13, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sigh. And a week of uninterrupted work would be enough to write a 40k character FA, assuming one has the sources ready (Sudirman took about six days of heavy lifting, and the bulk of work on Lie Kim Hok was done over a weekend). Agree about avoid controversy... hence why I avoid AN(I) and have recently avoided RFA. Mind you, if it comes to DYK/FP I kinda don't have a choice :-( — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:20, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I think you and I would agree that DYK needs a bit a work; too many subpar articles are being approved to go on the main page. Don't get me wrong—some are absolute gems!—but too many need work but are approved anyway to be seen by thousands of people. As for featured pictures (on the main page?), that's actually controversial? O.o Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:32, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Boids. They's all hatin' on the boids. (But yeah, very rare to have controversy there). I think DYK could use some revamping, but it's such a big mass of work that it would be difficult to achieve while still dealing with the standard controversies and declining participation rate. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:39, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • In my eyes it's either reform now or be removed in favor of GAs or something else entirely; I think that support for featuring brand-new articles on the main page is declining... but that's just my read of it. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:46, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think part of that is based on a (mistaken) belief that we've got articles on most everything worth having an article on. Some highly significant Indonesian films, for instance, don't have an article yet: for instance, Tiga Dara was Perfini's greatest commercial success and launched the careers of its stars, but I haven't gotten around to writing it yet and very few others would know enough to do so. The latest Citra Award for Best Film winner, Tanah Surga... Katanya, is still a redlink. Other really significant ones were just done this year: Darah dan Doa and Pengkhianatan G30S/PKI (the latter is almost ready for FAC). I think, though you'd know more than I, that articles on the Brazilian navy's armada are not complete yet either. I am not opposed to mixing new GAs with new articles, but removing new articles altogether... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:07, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't get me wrong—I'm not saying that they should be removed entirely (the ships of the Brazilian Navy are far from complete!), but the persistent problem of poor DYKs may doom that section to a GA fate. Just my two cents though. I could be far off. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 07:14, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, at its core, the dispute pits added impetus for new editors vs. the quality of the main page, does it not? What someone at DYK should be doing (IMHO) is campaigning for a relatively decent quality-based bump while gathering evidence that the lure of main page time pushes new editors into doing more (and therefore increasing the total number of editors!). Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 14:53, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Issue is: if we are getting new editors, and asking for higher quality at the same time, how are we going to retain these new editors? We all remember how our first articles were... I remember mine. God, do I remember mine. Having a 2000k minimum limit, requiring the sourcing of every sentence, etc. will likely make DYK even less attractive to new editors. (Let alone that mess with the infoboxes... we don't want noobs stumbling into the crossfire over that.) Better reviews, definitely, particularly if we have experienced writers. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:13, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, mine weren't pretty either, but I learned through receiving quality reviews. Articles submitted at DYK don't have to be perfect—they just have to have reviewers willing to put in a minimum of time to give proper feedback, and there'd be your quality bump. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 08:18, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Settle the FA land issue

Item six is simply not acceptable. That's as unwiki as it gets. We've already been putting up with the FA-fiefdom for 11 years. Enough already. Let's vote on each line item or all variations at once. This issue needs to be settled after so many years of stagnation. One RFC option at a time will take foreverPumpkinSky talk

Thanks for the note, but I don't agree with you at the present time. I do hope that you can swing around to the positive camp—as of this moment, I'm supportive of elections and community consensus (assuming I don't receive evidence that it truly doesn't work from SandyGeorgia or others), but I don't think the FA community is ready for that. Hell, it may never be ready for that. Still, I'm supporting this limited reform in the hopes of greater reform later. Some is better than none. I really do hope that you can come around to Tony's position for now, and work on more comprehensive reform later... as opposed to joining those who oppose any reform. Kind regards, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:13, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See comment I just posted to Choess at the bottom of my alt's discussion section. PumpkinSky talk 15:04, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how much "reform" really needs to go on as the FAC system has worked pretty well all these years (unless I'm missing something). I'm just not sure why there's so much resistance to what I perceive to be a non-controversial decision to remove someone from the page who has no interactions with it anymore. I guess Sandy and co. are afraid of "unwashed masses"-style democracy undermining the FA delegate's process, but I don't see any reason historical or present to see that as likely. The vast majority of contributors have supported the FAC delegates because they're drawn from those involved with FAC in the first place. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 15:17, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the thoughts, David. I agree that the FAC-style system has worked very well over the years. It's my personal feeling that elections would put it more in step with regular wiki processes, nearly all of which have worked well (RfA being a notable exception), but I recognize that I'm holding a minority position. While I hold out hope for the future, I have no problems with supporting the removal of Raul from a position that he's effectively vacated, no matter how justified his reasons are for not editing, and putting the various delegates in charge. As I understand it, that's the only substantial change being made in the current FAC RfC (item six would codify current practice, I believe). I should also note that if the system works well without a true director, I doubt I'd be pushing for elections. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 17:52, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You might have missed it in the dramah...

But I replied to your replies to my replies to your review at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Norman conquest of England/archive1. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:49, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That I did—my apologies Ealdgyth. I'll get back to it tonight! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 14:53, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For the record

I wasn't trying to win an argument; I was trying to back out of one by looking for someone better qualified to judge the user's contributions than me. Serendipodous 05:21, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are talking at cross purposes here? I'm not making any comments are arguments about your actions anywhere on-wiki, just Incnis' comment. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 07:57, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Engaging Wikinewsies into Signpost/Op-ed for coverage of Talk:Main Page#RFC

Kindly please consider posting to n:WN:Water cooler instead of e-mails for transparency, so the community can figure out who is best suited for helping you. Transparency may also add to confidence of people who would be accepting the proposal. Gryllida 12:49, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have done so -- thanks for the pointer. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:08, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This Month in GLAM: June 2013



Headlines
Read this edition in full • Single-page

To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

Unsubscribe · Global message delivery 15:22, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

20th Reconnaissance Squadron Talk Page

The page indicates that you deleted Talk:20th Reconnaissance Squadron in December 2012. Because I intend to recreate what would essentially be the same page (and vecause the tag says to) I wonder why you deleted it. Looking at the article versions from October and December 2012, I don't see an obvious reason there should not be a talk page. --Lineagegeek (talk) 21:01, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was actually in January 2012, but it was definitely a mistake. Thanks for catching it, and feel free to recreate it! :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:40, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikicup newsletter

I clicked the submissions links in the Wikicup newsletter but most competitors seem to have few or no submissions listed on those pages. When do those pages get updated? --Pine✉ 05:11, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I assume that's because the pages have been updated to reflect the new round. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:08, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 10 July 2013

I've just removed a news and notes story

FYI: [7]. I was the blocking admin here, and the Signpost story wasn't at all accurate I'm afraid. Note that Ms Collins was one of Mr Brooking's main targets on Wikipedia, and this was one of the reasons I imposed the BLP block. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 08:44, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saying this without looking into the situation, but thanks for your diligence Nick. I should have more comments tomorrow, but it's 5am here so I think I'll sleep first. ;-) Regards, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 08:47, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No worries Ed. There's also a thread at WP:AN#On-wiki badness moves to major newspaper about this topic which has now made it into NZ's main newspaper, so it would warrant some considered follow-up. I'm pondering whether I should contact the journalist, or just let the matter rest. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 09:03, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like you're having such a merry time with all this. :-) </sarcasm> Maybe we could do a story in "In the media" next week and point out where they've gone wrong? Most times we just report what the news has said about us, but we've done it before. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 16:08, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like a good idea - though this seems to boil down to someone with a rather large axe to grind. The basic sequence of events seems to have been that after his sockpuppets were blocked Mr Brooking posted this on his personal blog attacking Clarke (much of the cuts to articles he notes were actually made by me, or other editors) - he also suggests that the Kiwi equivalent of the National Security Agency was somehow involved in the block at the end of the piece. These claims were then picked up by some other Kiwi blogs, and then some provincial newspapers, and finally the NZ Herald. The journalists involved have not seriously attempted to test Mr Brooking's claim that Ms Collins was behind his block and the removal of material and have simply reported his claims, though they have noted that he was blocked for BLP violations and sockpuppetry. One contacted a Wikipedia editor for comment, but gave less weight to his or her explanation than Mr Brooking's claims: [8]. The NZ Council for Civil Liberties has also expressed "concern" over the claims without actually looking into them: [9]. The truth of the matter is that he was attempting to use Wikipedia to push his views, with a particular focus on attacking Ms Collins and other people with differing views to himself, and this rather inevitably led to his account being blocked and the material he'd added removed. Nick-D (talk) 23:43, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

hey

all help is welcome — Ched :  ?  08:51, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ched, but I'm not familiar enough with the specific aspects of the case to start giving context :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 16:08, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
my first thought is that I'm scared shitless .. but meh - it's only a website. — Ched :  ?  17:55, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe look at past case requests to see an example? --Rschen7754 18:02, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You'll be fine, Ched. All you really need to do is provide a list of involved parties and three to five major vitriolic discussions that prove your point that the area needs Arbcom intervention. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:20, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Heh I've filed 4 requests, even one as a 17 year old, and I'm still alive. --Rschen7754 18:22, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dispatches

Why are my replies not showing in the discussion? I've tried purging, no luck. Brianboulton (talk) 13:57, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(one has come through but not the other, at least as I see it) Brianboulton (talk) 14:40, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The replies at the bottom of the article itself are occasionally slow to update. Are you on that or on the talk page? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 16:08, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Infoboxes ArbCom case opened

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes/Evidence. Please add your evidence by July 31, 2013, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, — ΛΧΣ21 17:56, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Harold, cheers, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 15:27, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dutch 1913 battleship proposal

Hi Ed, In case you haven't seen it, this article is lined up to be TFA on 6 August. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 11:35, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome! I'll be traveling to Hong Kong that day, so I won't see much of it (or be able to help with vandal reverts), but I think it'll be okay. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 15:27, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dispatches

Would you like another Dispatches contribution? The last one provoked a fair amount of discussion. I have something simmering... Brianboulton (talk) 13:40, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I drafted the previous Dispatch in my infobox, which has now become Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2013-07-10/Dispatch. How do I get my infobox back?
(talk page stalker) User:Brianboulton/Sandbox15 restored and the history properly divided between the "Signpost" page and your userspace. BencherliteTalk 14:27, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ack, sorry Brian—I should have looked at the history before moving the page. Thank you, Bencherlite, for cleaning up my mess! I would love another dispatch, if you have the time. As you say, the last started a good amount of discussion, and that's something I definitely hope for with each article we publish. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 15:27, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 17 July 2013

Vacation

Hi TPSers, I'll be on vacation until the 22nd and probably won't be anywhere near Wikipedia. Do try to not burn the place down while I'm away, alright? And if you all can keep an eye on the Signpost, I'd be much obliged. Thanks, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 16:20, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have a good one! Hchc2009 (talk) 17:02, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia Highlights from June 2013

Highlights from the Wikimedia Foundation Report and the Wikimedia engineering report for June 2013, with a selection of other important events from the Wikimedia movement
About · Subscribe/unsubscribe · Distributed via Global message delivery, 16:37, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

GOCE July 2013 news report

Guild of Copy Editors July 2013 backlog elimination drive mid-drive newsletter
  • Participation: Out of 30 people who have signed up for this drive so far, 18 have participated. If you have signed up for the drive but have not yet participated, it isn't too late. If you haven't signed up for the drive, sign up now!
  • Progress report: Thus far we have reduced the number of May/June 2012 articles to just 124 articles, so we're on the right track. Unfortunately, for the first time in GOCE history, the number of articles in the backlog has actually gone up during this drive. While all participants are currently doing a fine job, we just don't have as many of them as we have had in the past. We have over 500 editors on our mailing list, but only 18 editors who have done a copy edit for the drive. If you're receiving this newsletter, it's because you have an interest in copy editing. Join the drive! Even if you only copy edit one article, it helps. Imagine how much progress we could make if everyone chipped in just one article.

– Your drive coordinators: Torchiest, Baffle gab1978, Jonesey95, and The Utahraptor.

>>> Sign up now <<<

To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 21:51, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

July 2013

Information icon Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Wikipedia:Four Award/Records, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:03, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the boilerplate message, but I'm pretty sure I can remove my own name from the page. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:49, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
... or not. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:47, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Warning icon Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did at Wikipedia:Four Award/Records, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:15, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'm happy to say that I've brought this up at ANI here. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:32, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup update

Would you or Milburn be interested in writing an update on the WikiCup contest for FCR? --Pine✉ 05:43, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pine, J normally does any WikiCup write-ups, but I can do something if he isn't available. Thanks! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:46, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Read into this as you wish.

You are the worst kind.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:00, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One tends to be a much better kind without being reverted and templated... Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:02, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Belgium in World War II

Hello,
Firstly, I'm sorry I reverted your edit (about the quote) to Belgium in World War II, I just thought I ought to clarify my reasons. I'm principally concerned with the style of quote - the quote overlaps slightly with a picture. The "Cquote" produces a block of text, which I feel is a bit neater than the alternatives which fall into the gaps underneath the photo. The style of quote is also already in use on quite a few "in WWII" articles already (including twice on the "Belgium in World War II" article). I hope this seems reasonable to you.
All the best! ---Brigade Piron (talk) 09:13, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No worries! You're not supposed to use {{cquote}} in articles, though—see WP:MOS#Block quotations. :-/ Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 16:51, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hong Kong

Don't know if I said this before, but we should meet up. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:23, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Most definitely. I'll be there from the 6th to the 13th, so we can meet up whenever. Maybe we'll assemble a fan club dinner. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 16:51, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd love to...! But I have an appointment with the dentist at that time. Drmies (talk) 17:00, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're so ... old, Drmies. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:47, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Uruguayan War

Well, I have good news to share. Uruguayan War was finally promoted. It could have been promoted before, but... Regardless, I am in debt with you. Thank you very much for having taken your time to deal with this. Read an article, review it, and all that takes time. Thanks a lot! --Lecen (talk) 12:08, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I saw—thank you for writing it! It's a great article. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 16:51, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikivoyage 10th anniversary

Hi Ed, Wikivoyage is celebrating its 10th anniversary today by Wikivoyagers all around the world. It would be nice if you mention about it in the next Signpost newsletter. see here for details [10]

--139.190.159.228 (talk) 13:44, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:The_ed17&oldid=565624714"