I will respond here to comments that are posted here, and, well, elsewhere to comments posted elsewhere. Please don't fragment a conversation just to get my attention—if I comment at a page, it's a very safe assumption that I have watchlisted it. If you are concerned that I might miss a post elsewhere, use {{Talkback}} to notify me here.
Sections are archived by month at random times. Feel free to drag a discussion back from the archives if I have removed it from this page prematurely. A list of all archives can be found here.
Ahhh, now it makes sense. I decided I'd peek at the WP:POST before leaving since I do have to finish this paper, and happened to have spotted the article declaring her the winner. Congrats be in order as always, so I figured I'd leave a message. At any rate, I'm signing off; the sooner I get back to work the better. Take care, ed! 129.108.96.193 (talk) 22:17, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WikiCup Awards
The 2009 WikiCup Participant Award
This WikiCup Award is presented to The ed17 for their participation in the 2009 WikiCup. Your contributions along the way have greatly improved the quality of many articles, pictures, and sounds on the English Wikipedia.
As a member of the Military history WikiProject or World War I task force, you may be interested in competing in the Henry Allingham International Contest! The contest aims to improve article quality and member participation within the World War I task force. It will also be a step in preparing for Operation Great War Centennial, the project's commemorative effort for the World War I centenary.
If you would like to participate, please sign up by 11 November 2009, 00:00, when the first round is scheduled to begin! You can sign up here, read up on the rules here, and discuss the contest here! This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 17:48, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIV (October 2009)
The contest department has completed its thirty-first month of competition; its second month under the new and improved scoring system. A total of 53 articles were entered by nine editors. Sturmvogel 66 came in first with 96 points, followed by Auntieruth55 on 80 points. They are presented the Chevrons and Writer's Barnstar respectively. Honorable mentions go to Ian Rose (38), Abraham, B.S. (33) and Parsecboy (10). Our thanks go to Cuprum17, Ed!, The ed17 and Piotrus, who also fielded entries. All editors are encouraged to submit any articles that are working on for next month's contest.
As a member of the Military history WikiProject or World War I task force, you may be interested in competing in the Henry Allingham International Contest! The contest aims to improve article quality and member participation within the World War I task force. It will also be a step in preparing for Operation Great War Centennial, the project's commemorative effort for the World War I centenary.
If you would like to participate, please sign up by 11 November 2009, 00:00, when the first round is scheduled to begin! You can sign up here, read up on the rules here, and discuss the contest here! This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:38, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIV (October 2009)
The October 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:38, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. He/she seems rather interested in the topic though; I hope they decide to come back after the block and contribute constructively (ie writing articles). :-) Regards, —Ed(talk • contribs)22:11, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Where are we on this? Some new sources have been turned up and a commenter made the point that it might well be the first battleship sunk by a torpedo. I can't think of anything earlier, but I'm not sure if it is or not.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:03, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We aren't anywhere. ;-) More specifically, I don't have the will to abandon work on my latest project to add details regarding the revolt and first sinking. The other part, first battleship sunk by a torpedo, is intriguing. I know that Cumberland was sank by a spar torpedo in the American Civil War, but I can't think of an earlier instance where an ironclad was sunk by torpedo. —Ed(talk • contribs)00:34, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was under the impression that it was a self-propelled torpedo, but I didn't read it closely, in which case it may well be the first sinking. HMS Shah fired some at Huascar, but missed. And that the earliest engagement with torpedoes, in the modern sense, that I can think of. I'll go a head and put it on hold until you're ready to resume work on it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
<grin> pick a few battleships/cruisers that look interesting to you from WP:OMT and we'll decide from there. ;-) (an aside: the newer, the better, as I don't have many sources on the oldest ones, and there aren't many sources online) —Ed(talk • contribs)01:56, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, that's why I chose her, if everything works out this will be a smaller project then another battleship, and I want to start small :). ResMar16:50, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We mostly have our personal libraries. Since our interests lie in the subject we have all invested a good sum of money into reference material. We routinely share information to each other because between all of us we are bound to have at least something related. -MBK004 on the iPhone22:21, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Inter-library Loan is your best friend for this sort of thing. It's slow, but cheap; free unless the book's only in places like Harvard, Columbia, etc. where it will cost abt $25 to borrow.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:48, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question mark? Just try it, even if it isn't for a battleship book; inter-library loan will almost certainly be free, and it will help you with any reports you need to do for school. Regards, —Ed(talk • majestic titan)23:03, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You realize that when you watchlist redlinks it makes it much easier to know what others are up to (I won't spoil your fun).... -MBK00407:25, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know at what point it is considered "enough", but adding a couple sentences, a citation, and multiple wiklinks (simplified, but you get the point?) is certainly not enough. I'd say that you would have had to contributed about 50% of the article, but that varies; for example, adding 30% would seem little, but perhaps you helped a bunch during a FAC and/or provided invaluable information/references to the article. IMO, you have not done enough to take credit for Hatch. Regards, —Ed(talk • contribs)22:37, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I consolidate edits. You know that well enough. I don't edit as much because I try to do everything in 1 or 2 edits. Its a worthwhile practice, as it beats editcountitis and is much more productive. Now notify me before you talk about me.Mitch32(A fortune in fabulousarticles can be yours!)00:45, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am not talking about edit counts. I am talking about content contribution. Everytime I look at your page and randomly select two GAs they look like they weren't really yours. Maybe I am choosing the same ones every time, but today it was M-212 (Michigan highway) and New Jersey Route 159. Did you get WP:CUP credit for those? I'll choose two more. O.K., I'd give you credit for Sideling Hill Tunnel and Laurence Harbor (NJT station). Wow two, that are really your work. Maybe bad sampling on the first two. Let me try two more. Hold on, I am trying to find an edit that you did on Tropical Storm Gert (2005). I give up. How is that on your page? I don't thinnk I would put that one in my top row of GA credits.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:15, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's how I work my system. I do all the rewriting in one or two edits, it works much better. Edit counts means nothing if you did the writing anyway. Look at the freaking history. Besides, Gert was when I was still new (around 06 or so), I really don't think of it much. I don't order by favorites mind you. I just order by when they come in. Just leave me alone, its better for the both of us. If you don't, I'll start making problems with you. Leave me alone!Mitch32(A fortune in fabulousarticles can be yours!)01:28, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As an uninvolved admin who happens to have this page watch listed, I strongly advise you not to make anymore threats to disrupt the encyclopedia by pursing a person vendetta. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:37, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this dates back to a fight in 2007 that I really lost care for until he decided to bring up my name and cause problems. I am also trying to hold off what I want to say, because it'll be even worse. I don't want to, but I am very upset atm and I don't feel like being branded as an editor who "cheated the system". This wouldn't even be happening if Tony hadn't brought my name up.Mitch32(A fortune in fabulousarticles can be yours!)01:40, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I admit. I should not have named names. I guess what would be helpful is to see some of the GAs that CUP credit was denied for so that I can calibrate my expectations. Are there some examples of claims determined to be drivebys.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:54, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, dropping by because it might have been me who coined the term "drive-by nominations". Would have to check Cup history, and perhaps a term something like it existed elsewhere beforehand. The genesis of our use of it came from media editing, specifically featured pictures and an offsite agreement between Shoemaker's Holiday and myself. It's possible to gain official featured picture credit as nominator for material that actually took little or no editing work to do. If one has enough experience and knows where to look, one could cycle through different archives for variety doing minimal actual work and rack up more points than anybody could keep up with. Either of us could have done that and we both pledged not to. In retrospect, we ought to have conducted that discussion onsite because it would have headed off a bit of conflict that happened late in the Cup. Some content drives take more effort than others, and some of the things that editors would have accepted credit for before the Cup would probably be best to refrain from requesting points for doing while the Cup is underway. In general, with GAs, FPs, FLs etc. the effort should represent at least a couple of hours' work. Durova36302:39, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is a valiant attempt to clarify the issue, but it does not really help me. I am trying to understand GA credits and where the line is drawn. The thing that would help me is examples of articles that did not count. I can check the histories and then calibrate my expectations.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:44, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is the second time I have been involved in this Newbie experiment. The last time it was Richard Rogler and I could see it was noteable and helped improve the article. However, this one was not so good as it didn't have obvious notability as a separate article and had very limited hits when searched for. Therefore I could see it wasn't a speedy but also felt that it should not be the job of other editors to go into too much depth when such a weak new article is created. Therefore I proposed deletion giving the newbie a chance to stop the prod and also gave the newbie an advice message on creating a new article in userspace. I do very little patrolling so it is worrying to me that so many admins seem to be playing this game that cleaning up after them could become a significant part of my editing. Overdoing this experiment is more likely to put me off patrolling than to improve my methods. Polargeo (talk) 09:55, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fyi, I agreed with you PROD'ing it. :-) The thing is, it didn't fit into a speedy category; that was the point of me creating it. I actually thought that your actions were perfect in this case. Good work, and I hope you continue NPP'ing. Regards, —Ed(talk • contribs)17:30, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Input please
Would like your input here please. Note: This is a draft, to be kept in my namespace until the editor is off their block and their new contributions can be reviewed. Frmatt (talk) 07:10, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi - I was wondering if you could look at this FAC - Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/USS Congress (1799)/archive1. I have a specific concern regarding the images in this article - I'm advocating for including more images of the actual ship, which would require a little extra work to include in the commons/wikipedia. The author would rather use existing images and/or a stock image of a frigate, due to rights concerns with the sail plan and woodcut I found. In general, I think the article could use more non-textual information. One problem with this ship is it was neither notable nor infamous so it seems to have very little references in contrast with its other sister ships. I think your or one of the other admins opinion would be helpful. Thanks! Kirk (talk) 21:47, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, the poor forgotten Congress. I've done some of my own hunting and can't find anything; if you are sure that it is PD, could you upload the Google Books image from page 35 of American Light and Medium Frigates 1794 - 1836? Just use "print screen", paste that into GIMP or something similar, and crop the image to your delight. Personally, I wouldn't want to use the woodcut simply because it doesn't specifically say it is Congress and the painting is much better-looking. Regards, —Ed(talk • contribs)22:26, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm sure because I found the catalog record (but not a digital copy) in the National Archives. Any idea where to find a reference for the woodcut?
Also, What do you think of the image of the Chesapeake in the infobox? My opinion is it should be removed without some discussion about the differences between the two ships, otherwise, it gives the reader the impression they were in the same class when they weren't; the sister ship of the Congress was the Constellation. I'll see if I can round up a PD Constellation while GIMPing up the sail plan, Brad said he had a problem with those images in his A review. Kirk (talk) 18:55, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Really it is my thanks to you. I got caught up in something stupid and tried to resolve it the "easy way". Fortunately there are people like you there to steer us in the right direction. Many thanks to you for setting me straight. Regards - 4twenty42o (talk) 18:54, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, thank you for taking my comment the right way. Instead of coming here screaming at me, you remained calm and have realized your error. Remind me to !vote support if you ever go for adminship. ;-) —Ed(talk • majestic titan)19:37, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I'm a little surprised that you closed the AfD on Engine -- would have thought that you would just keep it open for the seven days. By closing it, you take it off the radar of those that would work to improve it for those 7 days, and while you could go from AfD to deleting the article I don't see how you could go from a non-AfD to deleting it.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:17, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, I thought that leaving it open longer would be a waste of editors' time, seeing as no one had improved it in the seven days it had been open. I would have deleted it had the promise not been made to find source, however. If you still disagree with my close, feel free to reopen it (don't bring it to DRV, becuase that'd be a real waste of time there (IMO, at least)). Regards, —Ed(talk • majestic titan)18:20, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey. Just to be clear, my concerns relate to process, and I don't have any strong feelings about the article. I've tried to improve it a bit, and if it is notable I would be happy for it to survive. But: a) I think that taking it away from AfD reduces the chances of those who look to improve articles at AfD actually doing so, and b) I'm concerned actually with something being closed "keep" where (I assume this is the case) you as the closer do not think that is the consensus (but are doing it as a maintenance issue). I agree DRV would be a waste of time -- can you handle the reopen? I'm not sure how that could be done maintaining the AfD discussion history, which I think would be important for anyone coming along (and so people wouldn't waste time re-voting). Many thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:27, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Sorry to be a pain. I just think it is better this way ... and if this does now close as a delete, there will be no DRV to contend with.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:10, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And you as well! Actually, given the attitudes I've seen of late on Wikipedia, it is refreshing but sadly rare in my recent experience to run into one (especially an admin IMHO) who can here a different view with an open mind and agree to revisit a decision. Thanks for being one of the few that makes the experience a pleasurable one.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:47, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
RE: Mitrokhin
I think it might be. Could you check to see if it mentions anywhere the bankrolling of the 1970 Chile Presidential Election for Salvador Allende? I'm in the middle of writing a massive paper for IB on American political intervention in Latin America during the Cold War, and I just need the page # (I had to return my copy to the public library). Thanks for checking in advance, Cam(Chat)03:56, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is the book I have access too. It has nothing on the 1970 elections; only a bit on p. 296 about the "PCI's [Italian communists, I think] fears of a right-wing military coup were revived by the overthrow of President Salvador Allende's Unidad Popular government in Chile by the armed forces in September 1973" and a bit on p. 427 about the Centre's "atttempt to claim the credit for an article in the Guardian by Richard Gott (codenamed RON) attacking the role of the CIA in the overthrow and death of the Marxist president of Chile, Salvador Allande, in 1973, and denouncing the military junta of Gerneral Augusto Pinochet which had seized power." Apologies...
Also, in your paper you may wish to make note of the transfer of the American cruisers St. Louis and five others (see Template:Brooklyn class cruiser and Template:St. Louis class cruiser) to the navies of Brazil, Argentina and Chile. Not sure if this was a major attempt to boost their support for the United States and democracy, and I'm not entirely sure it is relevant to your paper, but just trying to throw an idea at you in case you needed more information. :-) Regards, —Ed(talk • majestic titan)21:06, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the info. It should be of some help. As for the cruiser bit, I'll try to work it in if I can. I'm somewhat restricted by a word limit of 4000. Being the wiki-writer I am, I could likely write double that and still have to leave stuff out. If I have room to work it in, I will. Thanks for the help! My paper is mostly focusing on the case studies of the 1954 Guatemalan Coup d'etat, the 1973 Chilean coup d'etat and CIA support for the Contras as case studies from which to analyze changes in U.S. Foreign Policy towards Latin America during the Cold War. Cam(Chat)05:14, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Another user pointed out a pretty large amount of vandalism on my user page. Could I request a semi from you? Just on my user page? Regards - 4twenty42o (talk) 21:16, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just got a no fair use deletion statement on my other MiG-3 image when it does already have one. Can you check it out at [[File:Mikoyan-GurevichMiG-3.jpg]] and see if I did everything OK or not? I think that the guy was being overzealous, but I got no response on his talk page.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:41, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey there Sturm. I believe that the only thing missing is the {{Non-free use rationale}} template, but there is another thought; for FA, I think that only one free-use image would be needed. I'd understand the need for two if the lead image did not demonstrate the "long nose", but it does. :-) Nevertheless, it shouldn't be deleted if you add that template. See also WP:FURG. Regards, —Ed(talk • majestic titan)03:16, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey there! IShadowed has loved you by placing a heart icon in the top-right corner of your userpage. Don't worry, it's not vandalism, but simply a small way to spread the WikiLove. If you don't really like it, feel free to revert it and make it go away, and no hard feelings; after all, it's just a small token of appreciation. If you like it, just add your name here, but again, there's no need to feel upset if you don't. Love and best wishes, IShadowed ✰ 03:35, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks
Hi Ed, thanks for the partial credit for the Dutch 1913 battleship proposal DYK. I should be able to borrow that book this weekend. Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 07:12, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If Mjosefsson requests it, I'll protect it, but a better solution is blocking the IP if he keeps vandalizing. I've got my eye on the IP's talk page; we'll see what happens... —Ed(talk • majestic titan)07:35, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted the user and talk pages; let me know if you wanted to keep the latter. Quick question: do I know you? Not sure why you would come to my talk page to ask that. :-) —Ed(talk • majestic titan)02:01, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much. We may have interacted a bit in the past, but nothing substantial that I can recall. I popped in to your talk page, because you came up on my watchlist, so I figured that you were online. :) @Kate(talk)02:04, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ed, I've just added a heap of material into this article, more than doubling its size in the process and converting it into what's basically an article on Dutch colonial policies rather than battleships. Could you please copyedit what I've written (I think it needs a second set of eyes!) and let me know if you'd like more detail on anything? I'm keen to lodge a joint A class nomination for this article. regards, Nick-D (talk) 05:14, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
O_O wow, I saw that on my watchlist. Thanks a bunch! I'll nominate it nom it for A-class after I take a full read-through of it (and ask you any questions on anything :). Again, thanks, —Ed(talk • majestic titan)07:39, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(out) - it looks pretty good to me. Would it be possible for you to expand this though? "Following the war a new Navy Bill was introduced to parliament in November 1921, but it was defeated by a single vote in October 1923."
Side point: is this wrong or was this guy really that stupid? "The prominent socialist H.H. Van Kol argued that building up a strong fleet would hinder Dutch neutrality by making it impossible to not engage any foreign fleets which entered NEI waters." Don't you think that your neutrality should end and fighting commence when someone invades your rich colony's waters with an entire fleet? I'm flabbergasted. —Ed(talk • majestic titan)08:39, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid that's all there is on the 1921-23 bill. Van Kol's argument was that if the Netherlands had a weak fleet in the NEI it would be able to turn a blind eye to foreign fleets passing through its waters while travelling elsewhere (the Dutch were very worried during the Russian-Japanese war about what would have happened if the Russian Baltic Fleet had entered NEI waters and demanded coal) - I've just tweaked this to clarify his views. I've also posted a request for the article to receive a B class assessment. Nick-D (talk) 08:49, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ed, I've borrowed a copy of the 1985 British edition of Conway's from the library, and it's got a description of the post-war naval plans and their defeat on page 364 under the heading 'Postwar plans' which I've added to the article. I don't think that this page number matches up with the ones from your American edition though; would you be able to correct the page number so they're consistent? Also, I've located an article which discusses the various proposals for BB designs in some detail, and will add this to the article tomorrow. Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 11:03, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, skip reading can do wonders when you need to read something quickly for a test, but it is bad when you are researching; I completely missed that. The page numbers match. Thanks for all of your help; you certainly get the lion's share of the credit, if not more.
Warshi International articles are amazing, but I have only ever gotten one, which I used for Design 1047 battlecruiser. I have to email the guy and ask him to snailmail copies to me, but I haven't received any replies since I got the 1047 article. But I am very glad to see that you got ahold of three. O_O Cheers, —Ed(talk • majestic titan)18:19, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Australian Defence Force Academy has a full set going back to the late 1960s; let me know if there are any other articles you're interested in (though my access to the ADFA Library is pretty limited until they reopen on weekends in March). Nick-D (talk) 21:36, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Re 'fixing' links to redirects, as you did here [2], this is generally neither necessary nor desirable. In most cases it actually increases overall server load. See WP:R2D for details. Modest Geniustalk01:19, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't make sense.. .the reasons given are:
Redirects can indicate possible future articles.
Introducing unnecessary invisible text makes the article more difficult to read in page source form.
Non-piped links make better use of the "what links here" tool, making it easier to track how articles are linked and helping with large-scale changes to links.
The first one is fine and makes sense, but it doesn't apply in this case. The other two:
Piped links are common; I don't see how it makes a page more difficult to read more than, say, reference tags.
This one is interesting. I'd argue the opposite—when you change the link to the real article, it adds it to "what links here". How does non-piped links help the tool? —Ed(talk • majestic titan)01:38, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To address your points:
You are correct that ref tags are a far bigger problem in code legibility, but that doesn't mean we should be obfuscating anything else when we don't need to
Both show up in 'what links here'. The difference is where in the list they show; the piped link appears in the main list whilst the link to a redirect shows up under a section listing that redirect. In this case, both versions showed up in Special:WhatLinksHere/World_War_I, but the piped link under a section headed 'First World War (redirect page)'. This may be desirable if, for example, there was a naming debate over which is the most commonly used term.
Hi Ed. I'm posting this here because the NEWT talk page immediately below my comment is already rather crowded. I just wanted to say thanks and you're welcome to this comment. It's always refreshing when someone responds to that kind of thing with introspection and an attempt to move forwards rather than immediately turning defensive. And of course, anyone who describes my writing as 'wonderfully phrased' must be in the right. Cheers, Olaf Davis (talk) 10:44, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
![[1]](http://web.archive.org/web/20070311074142/http://www.ndw.navy.mil/NavyYard/Images/Constellation.jpg){kind=link}