Jump to content

User talk:The ed17

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 64.40.54.22 (talk) at 07:27, 14 February 2013 (→‎I never thanked you: thx). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Wikipedia:Database reports/Transplanted user templates

please avoid using personal templates in articlespace. if you would like a feature added to {{blockquote}}, then just ask on the talk page. thank you. Frietjes (talk) 20:10, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, okay. That's something I didn't know was a problem. Thanks for letting me know. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:15, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So you know...

...if you're ever after anything, I should be good for at least another year (and, if all goes to plan, many years to come...) J Milburn (talk) 21:28, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll let you know! I'm hoping to have it again this fall, assuming they admit me, so we'll see. Thanks J, and good luck with philosophy. Definitely not for me! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:38, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good luck there, and I can understand about the philosophy. Half of my (literary studies) class doesn't understand the scope of ontology and epistemology, which is... rather basic. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:51, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar question

Hi Mr. Ed(itor), as Drmies is "morally bound not to enter military matters", could you tell me which is correct, Prof. Brig. Gen. or Brig. Gen. Prof.? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:31, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, typical Drmies, shirking his duties. Is "professor" a common prefix in WP articles? You should be able to get away with "Brigadier General Raden Panji Nugroho Notosusanto (15 July 1930 – 3 June 1985) was an Indonesian short story writer and a military historian at the University of Indonesia." (or "...and a professor of history at the University of Indonesia.", but the first one is more descriptive while conveying the same information) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:45, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Except for the bolding... I guess that's a doable workaround, although I'm going to keep Prof. in the infobox. Academics can be so irritated when we drop any of their degrees (and in Indonesia you'll end up with Prof. dr. (name), S.S., M. Hum or some ridiculous list like that. Add the honourifics like "hajji" and Raden Mas for Javanese nobility and you'll end up with ledes which are half honourifics. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:08, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, somewhat similar to a novel. I did one of those in 2008, but that failed two or three(?) FACs. Not enough sources out there. I should buy the annotated edition and finally finish that article... tangent though. A 1950 film, directed by a guy doing his third film, with relatively unknown actors? Yeah, I could see why the film would look poor today. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 10:14, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not just that (although some angles are pretty good), but the preservation. There's no such thing as a 1939 Indonesian film stored well, not like The Wizard of Oz... most are in terrible shape. Lewat Djam Malam took quite a bit of funding to restore and the result was far from perfect (but a lot better than the YouTube stream... good thing D&D is PD here) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:35, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As a side note, I'd strongly suggest cutting back on the block quotes at the novel's article. That topic is another one of my haunts, although I've been less successful. I think my best so far is Belenggu, which still needs work (I'm sitting on like 4 more sources and I haven't found the urge to use em). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:36, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, okay. A 1950 film is PD? Was it never copyrighted? And yes, I'm well aware that I loved block quotes in 2008! I have just never gotten around to fixing the article. I have found snippets of it everywhere on the web, though. I keep finding online articles saying that 125,000 copies of the book were sold in its first month in print (which, considering that I doubt anyone else has read Other Worlds: The Fantasy Genre, is definitely taken from the WP article), but never anything about its overall circulation number, which is something I've always looked for. Damn though, Belenggu is an excellent article. Much better than my effort. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 11:16, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, okay. I don't often find it either; my subject area of late, South American dreadnoughts, is probably around as popular as your Indonesian films. I see Sword discussed sometimes, but mainly the only glimpses I get are random links on shipnerd forums. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 11:35, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

350,000th article

Hi, if you're covering the "news & notes" section, Wikispecies reached 350,000 articles, with Tetramorium alpestre being the 350,000th. If you're writing that section, please pass this information to the editor covering that section. OhanaUnitedTalk page 03:30, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we will put this in an "In brief" this week. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 11:34, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah...

Who knows how that happened ;) Parsecboy (talk) 13:49, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe, you know... if that article had such a simple error, what else have you screwed up? ;-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 14:52, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I shudder to think about it. Parsecboy (talk) 15:12, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Ambassadors update

Hi! You're getting this message because you are or have been a Wikipedia Ambassador. A new term is beginning for the United States and Canada Education Programs, and I wanted to give you an update on some important new information if you're interested in continuing your work this term as a Wikipedia Ambassador.

You may have heard a reference to a transition the education program is going through. This is the last term that the Wikimedia Foundation will directly run the U.S. and Canada programs; beginning in June, a proposed thematic organization is likely to take over organizing the program. You can read more about the proposal here.

Another major change in the program will take effect immediately. Beginning this term, a new MediaWiki education extension will replace all course pages and Ambassador lists. (See Wikipedia:Course pages and Help:Education Program extension for more details.) Included in the extension are online volunteer and campus volunteer user rights, which let you create and edit course pages and sign up as an ambassador for a particular course.

If you would like to continue serving as a Wikipedia Ambassador — even if you do not support a class this term — you must create an ambassador profile. If you're no longer interested in being a Wikipedia Ambassador, you don't need to do anything.

Please do these steps as soon as possible

First, you need the relevant user rights for Online and/or Campus Ambassadors. (If you are an admin, you can grant the rights yourself, for you as well as other ambassadors.) Just post your rights request here, and we'll get you set up as quickly as possible.

Once you've got the ambassador rights, please set up at a Campus and/or Online Ambassador profile. You can do so at:

Going forward, the lists of Ambassadors at Special:CampusAmbassadors and Special:OnlineAmbassadors will be the official roster of who is an active Ambassador. If you would like to be an Ambassador but not ready to serve this term, you can un-check the option in your profile to publicly list it (which will remove your profile from the list).

After that, you can sign on to support courses. The list of courses will be at Special:Courses. (By default, this lists "Current" courses, but you can change the Status filter to "Planned" to see courses for this term that haven't reached their listed start date yet.)

As this is the first term we have used the extension, we know there will be some bugs, and we know the feature set is not as rich as it could be. (A big wave of improvements is already in the pipeline. And if you know MediaWiki and could help with code review, we'd love to have your help!) Please reach out to me (Sage Ross) with any complaints, bug reports, and feature suggestions. The basic features of the extension are documented at Wikipedia:Course pages, and you can see a tutorial for setting up and using them here.

Communication and keeping up to date

In the past, the Education Program has had a pretty fragmented set of communication channels. We're trying to fix that. These are the recommended places to discuss and stay up-to-date on the education program:

  1. The education noticeboard has become the main on-wiki location for discussion of the Education Program. You can post there about broad education program issues as well as issues with individual courses.
  2. The Ambassadors Announce email list is a very low-traffic announcements list of important information all Ambassadors need to be aware of. We encourage all Ambassadors (and other interested Wikipedians) to subscribe to the list; follow the instructions on the link to add your email address.
  3. If you use IRC regularly, or need to try to reach someone immediately, the #wikipedia-en-ambassadors connect IRC channel is the place to find me and fellow Ambassadors.
Ambassador training and resources

We now have an online training for Ambassadors, which is intended to be both an orientation about the Wikipedia Ambassador role for newcomers and the manual for how to do the role. (There are parallel trainings for students and for educators as well.)

Please go through the training if you feel like you need a refresher on how a typical class is supposed to go and where the Ambassadors fit in, or if you want to review and help improve it. If there's something you'd like to see added, or other suggestions you have for it, feel free to edit the training and/or leave feedback. A primer on setting up and using course pages is included in the educators' training.

The Resources page of the training is the main place for Ambassador-related resources. If there's something you think is important as a resource that's not on there, please add it.

Finally, whether or not you work with any classes this term, I encourage you to post entries to the Trophy Case whenever you see excellent work from students or if you have great examples from past semesters. And, as always, let students (and other editors!) know when they do things well; a little WikiLove goes a long way!

--Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 20:42, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikicup question

Hi there. I'd like to receive Wikicup credit for Template:Did you know nominations/Püssi, however the DYK is being held, for obvious reasons, until April 1. Normally participants get credit when the items hit the main page, however I don't know how long my Wikicup run will last, so I'd like to get it in now. Is that okay? Sven Manguard Wha? 05:57, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I believe this is specifically left up to the judges... and personally, I think this could be okay, but I'm going to leave a {{tb}} for the other judge (J Milburn) to be sure. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:16, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think the precedent for this is that you have to wait. Having a look through the archives, I found this and I'm sure that there is another one closer to this situation somewhere (Ed, can you remember any cases where we did allow it?). The trouble is that if we allow your particular nomination on the day it is approved, it's hard to see why we wouldn't allow any other nomination on the day it is approved, and that would be a very big change. Sven, I'd tentatively say that, even if you stopped editing Wikipedia tomorrow, you'd make it until 1 April with your current score. Further, if needed, I'd be happy to call the existence of this article a good tie-breaker, if a tie-breaker is needed at the end of this round. J Milburn (talk) 09:15, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't remember a situation that we did, but I also didn't remember anytime we had to deny them, so those kind of canceled each other out. :-) That's a good compromise, J. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:40, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:41, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 14 January 2013

Not uninteresting

Hi Ed,

I published the long List of ships of the Chilean Navy. 500 ships are included there, all kind of ships. I have thought a long time whether its significance. In the list are 7,4 tons boats as well as 47,000 t tranporter!. But 500 isn't sooooo much, in my old laptop the table works very quickly and it is very interesting to find in one page all relevant names, types, shipyards, navies and years together. If you have time you can take a look there and improve the "introduction". --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 19:49, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whoo, that's a beastly list! Nice work. Might I suggest dividing it by era, or at least by century, to make sorting the table easier? I don't think we need comparisons between battleships and sail-rigged brigantines. ;-) Otherwise I really like it. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:43, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GOCE mid-drive newsletter, January 2013

Guild of Copy Editors January 2013 backlog elimination drive mid-drive newsletter

We are halfway through our January backlog elimination drive.

The mid-drive newsletter is now ready for review.

– Your project coordinators: Torchiest, BDD, and Miniapolis

Sign up for the January drive! To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 00:21, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:WikiCup#DYK=7?

Fiddly little issue- seemingly an honest mistake because of an ambiguity which was my fault. Could you check what I've said and let us know if you think it's fair? J Milburn (talk) 16:04, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To keep you up to date...

I have removed Rahuljain2307 from the WikiCup. The user promoted their own good article nomination using a sockpuppet, and may well end up blocked. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Suresh Elangovan. J Milburn (talk) 15:08, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Erk. Some people forget that it's a friendly competition... Let me know if you need any help at any point. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:19, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia tools in the Signpost -- article about SuggestBot?

Hi, I've been in touch with EpochFail, he asked me if I could get a Signpost article written about SuggestBot, similar to the one he wrote about Snuggle. Now I've gotten a draft ready, so I thought it was time to get in touch. Since I've never written for the Signpost before, I do not know the process, and I'm sure there's plenty of improvements that can be made to my draft. Please let me know how to go from here. Regards, Nettrom (talk) 17:31, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thought I'd ping you about this. Any thoughts? Regards, Nettrom (talk) 15:55, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, I completely missed this. My apologies. I'm going to ping Jarry1250, the editor who does our tech report, into this conversation, and he'll decide if and/or how he would want to cover this. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:02, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No worries! Thanks for following up on this, I'll get in touch with Jarry1250 if necessary. Cheers, Nettrom (talk) 14:51, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2013-01-21 Arb report

I have gone to the extreme step of placing the {{Courtesy blanked}} template on the page Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2013-01-21/Arbitration report. I find it appalling that that such a one sided piece could be written. To be clear, I don't know any of the users involved in the case, nor have I read the case itself, but the Signpost cannot be in the business of assigning blame and guilt to named parties while a case is ongoing. It is precisely this staggering absence of basic journalistic integrity that is the reason why I opposed putting the Signpost on the main page in the recent RfC. As a former Signpost contributor, I urge you to take action on this issue, and insure that Signpost articles are neutral. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:24, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was not my intention to take sides, I wrote the article based on observation (as I usually do) and not with malicious intent. Please understand that I meant no harm, nor did I have any intention of discrediting the Signpost. I will rewrite it accordingly. I will take more care to ensure the neutrality of what are particularly contentious statements and do well to avoid such kerfuffles. My sincerest apologies. James (T • C) • 10:27am • 23:27, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I'm glad you stepped up and decided to handle this. Just remember that it is important to represent both sides, or all sides when there are more than two. The signpost has a readership of 1,500 people, including many of the project's most influential editors. Fairness is paramount. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:45, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for bringing this up, Sven. I fully believe that James mean no ill intent here, and I continue to have full confidence in his authorship of the arbitration report. As for the Signpost as a whole, I obviously disagree with your characterization. While I don't think we have a professional level of journalistic integrity (because we are volunteers without pay or specific training), I do think we have a sufficiently high enough level to hold up to scrutiny—at the least, similar to any other Wikipedia article. Whether that is enough for the Signpost's inclusion in the toolbar is something for the community to decide. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:20, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I just wish these things didn't happen so often. And it's not all one specific writer either. There's an op-ed section, and you do letters from the editor. Other than that, taking sides or voicing opinions strong enough that it makes the reporting non-neutral is not something that should be happening in a paper, even by volunteers. NPOV is a core tenant of article writing, everyone contributing to the Signpost should know how to pull it off. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:14, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Main page appearance: dreadnought

This is a note to let the main editors of dreadnought know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on January 29, 2013. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/January 29, 2013. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director Raul654 (talk · contribs) or his delegates Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), Gimmetoo (talk · contribs), and Bencherlite (talk · contribs), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you can change it—following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. The blurb as it stands now is below:

USS Texas (BB-35)

The dreadnought was the predominant type of battleship in the early 20th century. The first of the kind, the Royal Navy's Dreadnought, had such an impact when launched in 1906 that similar subsequent battleships were referred to as "dreadnoughts". Her design had two revolutionary features: an "all-big-gun" armament scheme and steam turbine propulsion. The arrival of the dreadnoughts renewed the naval arms race, principally between the United Kingdom and Germany, as the new warships became a symbol of national power. The concept of an all-big-gun ship had been in development for several years before Dreadnought's construction. The Imperial Japanese Navy had begun work on an all-big-gun battleship in 1904, but finished the ship as a pre-dreadnought; the United States Navy was also building all-big-gun battleships (USS Texas pictured). Technical development continued rapidly through the dreadnought era and within ten years, new battleships outclassed Dreadnought herself. Most of the original dreadnoughts were scrapped after the end of World War I under the terms of the Washington Naval Treaty. Only one battle—the Battle of Jutland—was fought between large dreadnought fleets. (Full article...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LXXXII, January 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) 13:03, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 21 January 2013

Signpost contributions

Hi Ed, thanks for the invite to contribute to a multiple-POVs op-ed on paid editing. I'd be up for that if the others are. The first priority however to me would be to get a piece on Dirk's project on paid editing going.

For background on this community-funded project, see http://blog.wikimedia.org/2013/01/23/german-community-project-about-paid-editing-starts/

Dirk asked me yesterday on de:WP how best to approach the Signpost, and I have pointed him to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom#Proposals

I've also been bold and started an "In the media" piece. There hasn't been one yet this year, and there's been quite a lot of coverage this month. Please let me know whether what I've got so far looks okay: Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2013-01-28/In_the_media. Best, Andreas JN466 04:24, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather wait for something to happen than writing a full story on it now. We put a sentence in our 2012 recap, and that's all the news there is to report right now; we devoted a lot of coverage to the topic during last year as well. However, if we could get a two-part op-ed series, with one pro-paid and one anti-paid editing installment, I'd be happy to run them. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:15, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"top of the page"

Interesting, did you see how his tits were all anti-Meh last year? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:42, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies: a walking contradiction. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 14:01, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Meaning of the abbreviation HNLMS

Hello The ed17. Since you're mentioned at User talk:Drmies I imagine you're following the creation of these submarine articles. Currently our article on HNLMS O 15 has no definition of the abbreviation 'HNLMS.' Surely Wikipedia will not subject readers to undefined abbreviations? What would you think of a change in the opening sentence:

O 15 was a O 12-class submarine of the Royal Netherlands Navy to to
HNLMS O 15 was a O 12-class submarine of the Royal Netherlands Navy.

Incidentally one of our articles on the Dutch military in the time of WWII suggests that it was very backward: "Of all the major participants they were by far the most poorly equipped, not even attaining World War I standards." However the submarines seem to have done all right. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 17:25, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as a general rule, we don't typically define ship prefixes in articles because they're so common and rather outside the topic. That's why USS, HMS, SS, RMS, etc. are all typically unlinked. And yes, that article has it right. While I'm not very knowledgeable about their army, up until about 1937 their navy was based around two pre-WWI cruisers (designed in 1913) at a time when 1920s cruisers were considered obsolete, and their air force had few fighters... which were of types like the Brewster F2A Buffalo and hopelessly outclassed by the Japanese. They did have plans to modernize, like the Design 1047 battlecruiser, but most came far too late (they managed to produce a couple cruisers, see 1 and 2, and a couple destroyers shortly before the war began). Aside from those, the only relatively modern component of their armed forces was the submarine squadrons, which were produced throughout the 1930s. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 17:38, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bad practice vs bad secondary source (reference)

I find ignoring the facts that everyone can see, and deleting the Wikimedia Foundation's section altogether, extremely bad practice since the facts about German WP chapter spending donors' money for traveling to pop concerts is on the German chapter's wiki page here for everyone to see. Especially because, as explained on the FDC portal here, apparently the Foundation has no mechanism to revise bad decisions made by the chapters, which may prove to be extremely bad for the Foundation's reputation in a long term. --DancingPhilosopher my talk 09:33, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Thanks for taking the time to post on the user pages for the students on my Wikipedia course page. I appreciate it! It's a big class (100+) so please don't feel you have to do it for everyone! Keeping my fingers crossed that the class experience goes well and they gain an appreciation for Wikipedia editing (they're not writing articles though!). Cleeder (talk) 18:25, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia Highlights from December 2012

Highlights from the Wikimedia Foundation Report and the Wikimedia engineering report for December 2012, with a selection of other important events from the Wikimedia movement
About · Subscribe/unsubscribe · Distributed via Global message delivery, 08:20, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Signpost question

Has anyone called dibs on writing about how (knock on wood) this will be the first ever month without an unsuccessful RFA? And, if not, would the Signpost be interested in such an article? I'd obviously make it about statistical trends and RFA reform and the like, rather than the merits of any specific candidates. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 00:30, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Arb report

Ah, shoot, missed something. As far as I know, Doncram has never been banned, just blocked. This is an important distinction, and should be fixed asap. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:15, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, I've fixed it. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 16:22, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Gracias. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:38, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 28 January 2013

Newsletter

I've actually started to write it in advance for a change, as I intend to every month. If there's anything you'd like to add... J Milburn (talk) 22:51, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe, I love the end to it. Is the "large number of scorers" also more than last year? What would the cutoff be in terms of the number of points? Otherwise it looks good to me! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:32, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Argentine–Chilean naval arms race

I've begun the GA review for Argentine–Chilean naval arms race. Looks pretty much ready to go, but I'd like to get your thoughts on a few points. Take a look at the review page when you get a chance, and thanks for your work on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:36, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi and thanks! I'm already replying. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 14:38, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Colon usage in Star Trek films

Hello, I saw you closed the discussion I just started on colon usage. I would like to understand why, since you didn't provide any explanation. While adding a colon was previously discussed in the first page of the archive, I didn't see any discussion of consistency with other page titles, and nobody asked whether the other pages needed to be renamed.

Perhaps there is a consensus on this question, but so far each of the 3 replies that my message has received happened to present a different solution as self-evident (they roughly correspond to the 3 solutions I outlined in my message). --Minordeifyme (talk) 16:06, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A colon will not be added to that page, and that talk page is not the place to discuss moving the other Star Trek movies. Apologies, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 16:23, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So the preferred procedure would be a move request for Star Trek: Generations? --Minordeifyme (talk) 16:46, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, for that specific page, or a generalized discussion on WT:STARTREK could also suffice. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 16:52, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New section

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Plcoopr (talk • contribs)

Replying on your talk page. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 17:32, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for the welcome!

Satassi (talk) 17:53, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Replying on your talk page! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:00, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Star Trek into Darkness talk page

Who are you to decide when a discussion is over? Your status as an administrator does not give you the right to violate policy. Please self-revert your action. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:30, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Violating policy? No. I'm an uninvolved administrator here attempting to clamp down on the drama. The matter was decided today, and we aren't reopening the debate just hours later because you think the consensus will change. If you feel differently, I invite you to post on WP:ANI so that others may scrutinize my actions. Otherwise, or in the meantime, I would ask you to drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. Regards, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:39, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You should have bothered to read the actual debate. There was no consensus to change the article to its current title. That decision was made by the heavy-handed application of sysop priviledges yesterday (a matter that is currently being discussed at WP:AN) and not by the editors working toward consensus. You can't just label a sysop's behavior as "consensus" and then tell everyone to stop discussing the matter. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:46, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't labeled Mackensen's move as consensus—in case you didn't notice, I read and closed the last debate, and consensus was clearly in favor of the current title. Furthermore, the AN discussion is hatted and over. So as I said: please go to ANI for a review of my actions, or drop the stick. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:54, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Consensus was clearly in favor of the current title" is incorrect. In the most recent move discussion, only a tiny majority of editors supported the move to the uppercase "Into". Your hat/label essentially instructed editors to ignore these facts and shut up. Surely you can see the problem? -- Scjessey (talk) 21:05, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Going straight by the numbers, it's 15-2. Not exactly a "tiny majority". Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:09, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, stop stirring the glue, SCJ. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:39, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Er... the !vote was 17 supporting "Into", 11 supporting "into". It was closed by Anthony Appleyard on January 9, so yeah - not a significant majority at all. Certainly not enough for a consensus to move. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:47, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Erm, you are one of the two opposes in my 15-2 count, so I don't know if you're willfully ignoring the last move discussion or ... what you are trying to accomplish. Regardless, this conversation is going nowhere, so please go to ANI for a review of my actions, or drop the stick. I'm not planning on replying here again. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:09, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The "last move discussion" wasn't actually a move discussion at all. It was an on/off discussion that occurred AFTER the move took place. It existed in a viable form for just minutes, and it never had a chance to run the usual course (the legitimate move discussion was 29 days). As far as what I am trying to accomplish is concerned, I think it is important to highlight the abuse of process that has taken place. Telling me to bugger off to ANI for review is all well and good (you know nothing will ever come of it), but I think it is more useful to directly show you what has gone wrong here. -- Scjessey (talk) 03:28, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see anything wrong, so if you're concerned that what I did was wrong, I will again ask you to go to ANI so that outside editors can review my actions. I don't know what will happen there; no one does. Thank you for your input. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:39, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup 2013 January newsletter

Signups are now closed; we have our final 127 contestants for this year's competition. 64 contestants will make it to the next round at the end of February, but we're already seeing strong scoring compared to previous years. Colorado Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) currently leads, with 358 points. At this stage in 2012, the leader (Irish Citizen Army Grapple X (submissions)) had 342 points, while in 2011, the leader had 228 points. We also have a large number of scorers when compared with this stage in previous years. Florida 12george1 (submissions) was the first competitor to score this year, as he was last year, with a detailed good article review. Some other firsts:

Featured articles, portals and topics, as well as good topics, are yet to feature in the competition.

This year, the bonus points system has been reworked, with bonus points on offer for old articles prepared for did you know, and "multiplier" points reworked to become more linear. For details, please see Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring. There have been some teething problems as the bot has worked its way around the new system, but issues should mostly be ironed out- please report any problems to the WikiCup talk page. Here are some participants worthy of note with regards to the bonus points:

  • United States Ed! (submissions) was the first to score bonus points, with Portland-class cruiser, a good article.
  • Australia Hawkeye7 (submissions) has the highest overall bonus points, as well as the highest scoring article, thanks to his work on Enrico Fermi, now a good article. The biography of such a significant figure to the history of science warrants nearly five times the normal score.
  • Chicago HueSatLum (submissions) claimed bonus points for René Vautier and Nicolas de Fer, articles that did not exist on the English Wikipedia at the start of the year; a first for the WikiCup. The articles were eligible for bonus points because of fact they were both covered on a number of other Wikipedias.

Also, a quick mention of British Empire The C of E (submissions), who may well have already written the oddest article of the WikiCup this year: did you know that the Fucking mayor objected to Fucking Hell on the grounds that there was no Fucking brewery? The gauntlet has been thrown down; can anyone beat it?

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. 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) 00:27, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Newsletter omission

I claimed the first Featured Portal credit at 4:12 UTC, 31 January 2013‎, the first FPO credit in several years, if I am correct. I am disappointed that the recent newsletter missed that. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:13, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, that's something to bring up with J, who does the newsletter. I can tell you that the newsletter was drafted before you claimed the featured portal, and I'm sure it will be covered next month. Regards, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 17:44, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Allowing it to happen.

Not only are you scuppering my freedom of speech, but you are essentially condoning his crap. I bid you good day. RAP (talk) 17:39 1 February 2013 (UTC)

There is no guarantee of free speech on Wikipedia; we have civility guidelines to follow. Should you have a problem with my actions, I invite you to bring scrutiny from outside editors on WP:ANI. Regards, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 17:44, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
He was being rude to the people who disagreed with him and i felt the need to point it out. I left it on his talk page at first, but he chose to ignore it and delete it. He does not want to accept it, and i wanted to see if anyone else felt the same way. He called us "fanboys" for wanting the title "Into", and i get crap for being disrespectful to him. RAP (talk) 17:51 1 February 2013 (UTC)
I didn't call anyone a "fanboy". I deleted the comment you left on my talk page because it was wrong. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:19, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Explain to me this as well as this similar accusation from another editor, something you deleted as "bullshit". RAP (talk) 4:21 2 February 2013 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) WP:FREESPEECH. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:12, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GQG

Regarding your request for a different hook at {{Did you know nominations/Grand Quartier Général (1914–1919)}} — I've suggested one and asked the original nominator for input. Would you please comment on my proposal? Nyttend (talk) 05:47, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Good Article Barnstar
For your contributions to bring Argentine–Chilean naval arms race to Good Article status. Thanks, and keep up the good work! Khazar2 (talk) 04:20, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I still have a few more comments to resolve, but thanks Khazar for your review! :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:31, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My pleasure. -- Khazar2 (talk) 22:37, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, The ed17. You have new messages at Danjel's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

In the light of my stellar experience with admins over the last however long, I'm trying to figure out what to say here. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 03:32, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He stopped editing after that day. Perhaps this was a rational choice for him, as it has been for many other editors? He has been unusually busy in his personal life, of course, and many editors would need to take a break under his circumstances....
I didn't check his contributions to see their quality. I'm glad that you mentioned that you'll think about my suggestion(s), at least anything constructive I wrote....
Again, I'm pleased that you liked David Gilmour in Gdansk. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:25, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's unfortunate; he was an intelligent editor. While I still don't think that the other party here deserved a warning, I will keep what you said in mind for the future. I'm not a 'normal' administrator, despite what you may think. :-) I just call things as I see them. I'm not always right, and I don't expect to be, but in this case, at least, I think my actions were appropriate. Thanks, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:44, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The other parties labelled Danjel disagreeably and counter-productively. Given that context, perhaps they would have been willing to accept a short note of concern from you, justly or to give you a chance to get Danjel to reconsider his retaliation/parody/escalation (after you had addressed his concerns about others having drawn first blood)?
I have a generally favorable impression of you, else I would not have written the above note. At worst, you have a few times failed immediately to stop an uncharacteristically wrong act from a friend. Being either tired or nonplussed, I've done the same with a "nut juice" comment from a friend. Nobody is perfect. The Signpost issue was more of your timing and my being irritated with a number of events, but was overblown. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:28, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose the biggest problem I had with that is I didn't have any contact with TP before that entire debacle, yet you still said that we were good friends simply because we have similar general areas of interest. I'm happy to put it all behind us, though. :-) Watched the music video for Gilmour's solo song "Blue Light" today... wow. That was definitely made in the 80s.Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:49, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't pigeonholing you with TP, but with GS, etc. To be pigeonholed with TP would be an honour that I'm not quite ready to bestow upon you. ;) (I won't do the social network analysis, for which automated tools exist. It's not necessary for you to have addressed an editor to be closely associated with him or her.) About The Signpost, it's good that you used examples, to avoid namby pamby journalism, but we obviously think of different examples of incivility, even when trying to be NPOV and fair. It was good that you redacted the FA comment after SG complained. So your sins have been venial, and you have done your share of penance, already, so "peace be with you". Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:18, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's good to know. :-) Happy editing, Kiefer! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 16:16, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 04 February 2013

DYK for Argentine–Chilean naval arms race

Nyttend (talk · contribs) 00:02, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Best title"

Might want to let Cirt know, he came up with it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:02, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Will do, thanks. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 15:35, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

re SP title this week

Thanks very much! I really appreciate your stopping by with those kind words! Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 15:39, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:12, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SI 110: Introduction to Information

Hi Ed, I've been seeing a lot of "Copyediting" edits on my watchlist related to SI 110: Introduction to Information recently. Most of the students seem to be choosing from the same small set of, fairly high-profile, articles like Computer science or Turing test to do their copy-editing assignment. While at least half of the edits seem to be improvements, there is also a fair amount of dubious ones (changing UK to US spelling, making small grammatical changes that seem mostly motivated by wishing to make a change rather than actually improving the readability of the text, changing prose into bulleted lists, etc.)

Don't you think it would be more productive to direct them to less developed articles, where they would have a better opportunity to do some real copy-editing. —Ruud 16:49, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note; I will leave a message for the professor. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:12, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hoaxes

I'm zipping along to try and get the hoaxes article done in time for the next publication cycle. In the meantime, you should review what's there; I'm sure it's going to need additions and modifications before it will be ready for publication. Regards, ResMar 01:39, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looking now. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:12, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've made copyedits and added some hidden notes. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:44, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Writer's Barnstar
Greetings, Ed17. With so many barnstars capturing your contribution, I am not sure which is appropriate here (so I picked an esoteric one, hoping to add to your collection). Your ongoing commitment to the Signpost is an impressive one, and I hope my recent contributions brought some deserved attention. Best of luck moving forward, and I look forward to any future collaboration. Thanks! West.andrew.g (talk) 07:08, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Andrew! If anything, though, you should be getting the barnstar. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 08:30, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This Month in GLAM: January 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 20:35, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Expenditures

Hi Ed,

Rauch's table is in my talk page. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 12:57, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the media

Ed, there has been a complaint about my writing a piece on the Wikimedia UK story as part of this week's In the media. It's probably best if you have a close look over what I have written, though I assure you I have not strayed one iota from the sources, including the Wikimedia Foundation blog, and the piece is a balanced summary of them. At any rate, whatever you decide or change is fine by me. Best, Andreas JN466 21:01, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re: When you get a chance...

You mean the 3 column layout? It works nicely on my laptop screen, though it's probably best suited to cases when there's only one frontpage-able photograph. - Jarry1250 [Deliberation needed] 20:18, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Arb Report

Hi Ed, sorry to have to do this, but I'm unable to finish the Arb Report - something came up which demands my attention and will mean that I will not have enough time to complete the report on-time, if at all. I know I started it rather late and that's my fault and for that I apologise again. Perhaps User:Steven Zhang could finish it off, as I understand you are quite busy yourself. Apologies once again! James (T • C) • 5:58pm • 06:58, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Zhang is on a wikibreak, so we'll just have to catch up next week. Good luck with your RL issues; they rightfully come first. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:42, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, that's a shame. Sorry to have to let you down. I haven't had enough time since Sunday (AEDT) to take a good look at the cases, much less write a summation of the statements. I'll see if I can finish it post-publishing as I feel this is too important to shrug off. James (T • C) • 9:29pm • 10:29, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can't publish an incomplete report. ;-) I'm hoping to publish in about 12 hours. If you can't get it done by then, I'll just delete the page, and we'll work for a fully comprehensive report next week. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 16:03, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More press for the Signpost/statistics

Hello, The ed17. You have new messages at West.andrew.g's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
And I commented there also to ask for your thoughts. Best. Biosthmors (talk) 20:47, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotect request

Star Trek Into Darkness; I think things have calmed down, and there's a stale (5 day old) edit request on the page. NE Ent 00:21, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, sorry, I missed this. It looks like the protection has expired by now. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:53, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, sorry, misread the history -- saw "indefinite" but didn't realize that was for move, not edit, protection -- wouldn't have bothered you if I'd realized it was about to time out. Thanks. NE Ent 02:28, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 11 February 2013

26–32

Ed, I think it might help to say, "paragraphs 26–32", just to avoid confusion with the page number 26 mentioned immediately prior. Great write-up. Andreas JN466 07:46, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, good catch, and thanks! Also, I'm replying to your email now. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 07:48, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WT:Wikipedia Signpost/2013-02-04/Special report

Nice! There's been a big uptick in mentions of the Signpost in the press, thanks for raising the bar and getting us noticed. - Dank (push to talk) 13:24, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I expect that'll be temporary. Most of the things we cover have little interest to the regular world. ;-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 16:16, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I never thanked you

Hi Ed. I just realized I never thanked you for the help on the 4 millionth article blog post. When I posted that draft, I only did so because I thought people seeing an IP write would encourage them to jump in. I'm not a writer, so as the time got closer and closer, I started to get nervous that my draft would go up unaltered. I was very relieved when you came in and cleaned it up. Kinda like coming to the rescue. Anyhoo, I just wanted to say thanks for your help with that. Also, thanks for all the many long hours you've donated to the project and especially your work on the Signpost. I appreciate all you've done. Best regards. 64.40.54.46 (talk) 14:18, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, it's nice to see you! I don't feel like I did that much work—you did the lion's share of it. But thank you nonetheless. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 16:16, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It was the quality of your work that mattered. It was like I made a stub and you turned it into an FA. You have that quality touch that I wish I had. Thanks again. 64.40.54.22 (talk) 07:27, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:The_ed17&oldid=538183373"