User talk:Ed!/12

---

The WikiProject: Good Articles Newsletter (January 2013)

The WikiProject Good articles Newsletter Volume IV, No. 1 – January 2013 For past newsletters click here

In This Issue Featured editorial: Skyfall by Hahc21. Project News: A record, and issue and a future. Good Articles of the Month: See which articles were picked this year of records: 190 articles passed in December! GA Task Forces: Results from the drive Member News: Two crucial users leave the project Read this newsletter Single-page Unsubscribe Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot · 3 January 2012

This newsletter was delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 14:40, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Portland class cruiser is now a GA

Huzzah!

I did leave one message in the review that warrants some attention (or at least I think it warrants some attention). It would be nice if you put in alt-text for the images in the article, as a service to people who have to use screen readers to enjoy Wikipedia. Please consider it.

Keep up the good work, Sven Manguard Wha? 23:52, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your review! —Ed!^(talk) 14:37, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

OMT

Thanks for joining OMT! Now we have to worry about whom we're addressing when we say "ed". Buggie111 (talk) 14:23, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Hah hah, yes I was worrying about that. I look forward to contributing! —Ed!^(talk) 14:36, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Welcome aboard sir :) Glad to have on board for our effort, and we look forward to seeing out there in the field (not that you haven't been their already, we just like to welcome people. Its how we roll, so to speak :) TomStar81 (Talk) 22:42, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't see you join. Welcome, and what a nice name you have! ;-) I came by to offer a suggestion for further improvement of the Template:Sclass- article... Friedman's U.S. Cruisers: A Design History is absolutely indispensable for the US cruiser class articles. It's also ridiculously hard to find and expensive when you do; I've never seen it below $110, although the $180+ prices I see now make that look like a bargain. Good luck, Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 00:38, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Fort Dobbs (North Carolina) review

Ed!, thank you for your helpful comments! I've responded on the review page, and may need some guidance with some of those issues. Thanks again! Cdtew (talk) 14:27, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Passed GA. Hey, good work on that article. It's nice to see something so thoroughly research in spite of the trickiness with finding sources. —Ed!^(talk) 15:06, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments! I will try as hard as I can to find more info on the archaeological side of things before putting this through to GA. I will take all of your suggestions to heart in trying to improve the article! Cdtew (talk) 15:19, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

As a follow-up, I was hoping to get your thoughts about a certain source. I've just been able to get ahold of an electronic copy of the 2006 Archaeological report, which summarizes everything that's been done on the site since 1847; I've read through the pertinent sections, and would like to build two or three paragraphs out of it. The only catch is, as far as I know, the report hasn't been widely disseminated. It has an OCLC number and a worldcat entry, but is only available in hard copy a) at the Historic site itself, and b) at East Carolina University's library. What are your thoughts about whether or not this would pass WP:VERIFY? Cdtew (talk) 19:45, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

If it's a report that was conducted or funded by the federal/state government, it should not have any verifiability problems. Otherwise, it really depends on the institution, and I think you'll be pretty safe if it's a university. That reminds me, http://scholar.google.com might be a good place to go looking for other academic journals related to the fort. —Ed!^(talk) 20:07, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Since you emphasized the need for archaeological information, I was hoping you'd take a look at what I now have in the Fort Dobbs (North Carolina)#Construction and Fort Dobbs (North Carolina)#Site preservation and archaeology sections. I expanded a little with some information from the 244 page report -- I'm, not sure if this is enough, or too much info, but I didn't want it to get bogged down in too many details. Let me know your thoughts! Cdtew (talk) 12:26, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Excellent. It's looking much improved with that info. I think you have what you need there. —Ed!^(talk) 23:26, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Waldmann list

I nearly completed the list here. Is the format what you are looking for? I am having some issues with translating the German location names used during World War II to what they are referred to today. Can you assist? Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:30, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I've found a few, but I don't know Russian at all. It appears that a few of them (Kutelnikowo, which is probably Kotelnikovo; Krymskaja is probably Krymsky) don't yet have articles anyway. I wouldn't consider redlinks to towns in an instance like this a problem, especially considering the lack of comprehensiveness en.wiki has concerning Russian municipalities. —Ed!^(talk) 16:52, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Okay thanks for the feedback, but generally speaking this is what you were looking for? MisterBee1966 (talk) 17:10, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it's exactly what I had in mind. Let me know when you've finished putting it together and I'd be glad to support. —Ed!^(talk) 17:12, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Please check the article again. I added the table now MisterBee1966 (talk) 11:33, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your diligence and hard work. Supported the article. —Ed!^(talk) 12:28, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Herbert Hart GA nom

Hi Ed!, thanks for your review of this nomination. I plan to take this one to A-class so any feedback is greatly appreciated. I have responded to your comments here. Cheers. Zawed (talk) 08:37, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Passed. Great work on that article. I would certainly say it would perform well at an ACR. —Ed!^(talk) 12:27, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Ed! I see the project class tags haven't been updated, I will take care of those. Thanks again. Zawed (talk) 21:24, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Great! Usually a bot comes along and does that automatically, buy it's been somewhat slow of late. —Ed!^(talk) 21:48, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

SSG Romesha

		The WikiChevrons
		For your work on the article on Staff Sergeant Clinton Romesha, I would like to present you with these chevrons. You have earned them, and your work is a testiment to the quality of work produced by the WikiProject Military History. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:18, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much! —Ed!^(talk) 23:24, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

October to December 2012 Milhist Peer, A-class and FAC reviews

		The Content Review Medal of Merit
		By order of the Military History WikiProject coordinators, for your devoted work on the WikiProject's Peer, A-Class and Featured Article Candidate reviews for the period Oct–Dec 2012, I am delighted to award you this Content Review Medal. AustralianRupert (talk) 10:12, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Much thanks! I'm sorry I wasn't able to stand for election to be a coordinator last year, but I'll be making a much bigger presence in the project's reviews this year. —Ed!^(talk) 15:57, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

James Gwyn

Hi Ed, if you have time, would you be able to take a look at the article James Gwyn and recommend any changes necessary for its DYK nomination as well as areas to focus in preparation for A-list? Cheers, Mkdw^talk 04:17, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Clinton Romesha

Hello! Your submission of Clinton Romesha at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! — Maile (talk) 22:52, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Responded. —Ed!^(talk) 15:08, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

GA Reviews

Hello! Just wanted to drop by and say that I have responded to your four Office reviews that you looked over for me! Thanks!--Gen. Quon (Talk) 04:55, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Passed them. Great work! As you may have noticed I'm an Office fan myself, so I've been happy to see so many of those articles getting quality treatment. —Ed!^(talk) 17:51, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Good Article Barnstar
		For your contributions to bring George S. Patton to Good Article status. Keep up the good work! Khazar2 (talk) 01:32, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I thank you very much! I'm very proud to have been able to work on this article. —Ed!^(talk) 02:21, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

It's not a table

It's a list, albeit an illustrated one. Lists are very difficult to make into prose. So I'm wondering now when you'll finish the edit to that purpose.

There seem to be an awful lot of these kind of rules that I keep tripping over, and I'd be obliged if you'd point me to where they are kept or the style manual or whever it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RTO Trainer (talk • contribs) 21:02, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I've responded on your talk page. —Ed!^(talk) 21:49, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXII, January 2013

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: The month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at Mongol naval power Op-ed: Crisco 1492 on war films

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)

DYK nomination of Mochitsura Hashimoto

Hello! Your submission of Mochitsura Hashimoto at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:06, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your help on this one! —Ed!^(talk) 12:44, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

The Office

I believe I've addressed all the problems for "Training Day" and have nearly completed with "The Target". -- NoD'ohnuts (talk) 23:04, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Great! I'll wait till you're done with the Target and then pass both at the same time, if there's no rush. —Ed!^(talk) 02:59, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Okay, now I think I've finished with "The Target". Thanks for reviewing them! -- NoD'ohnuts (talk) 17:33, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Passed both. Great work! —Ed!^(talk) 12:43, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

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. Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) currently leads, with 358 points. At this stage in 2012, the leader ( 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. 12george1 (submissions) was the first competitor to score this year, as he was last year, with a detailed good article review. Some other firsts:

• 12george1 (submissions) was also the first to score for an article, with the good article Hurricane Gordon (2000). Again, this is a repeat of last year!
• Buggie111 (submissions) was the first to score for a did you know, with Marquis Flowers.
• Spencer (submissions) was the first to score for an in the news, with 2013 Houphouët-Boigny stampede.
• Status (submissions) was the first to score for a featured list, with list of Billboard Social 50 number-one artists.
• Adam Cuerden (submissions) was the first to score for a featured picture, with File:Thure de Thulstrup - L. Prang and Co. - Battle of Gettysburg - Restoration by Adam Cuerden.jpg.

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:

• Ed! (submissions) was the first to score bonus points, with Portland-class cruiser, a good article.
• 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.
• 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 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) 01:02, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

Hi! Just so you know, i'm currently doing a review of your article Mochitsura Hashimoto. Please see my comments so far on the review page. Thanks! Retrolord (talk) 09:30, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your review! —Ed!^(talk) 00:41, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Mochitsura Hashimoto

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:02, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Drive Award

		The Good Article Reviewer's Medal of Merit
		For all your help reviewing 20 GA nominations during the November-December 2012 drive. — ΛΧΣ21 22:17, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! —Ed!^(talk) 00:50, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Clinton Romesha

KTC (talk) 19:30, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

RfC: The use of medal ribbon pictograms in articles

I believe you are misrepresenting the verdict of this RfC to say that it supports unboxed ribbons as opposed to small ribbons in a boxed context. Several editors supported inclusion IF small and/or in a collapsible box. The infobox is a box and ribbons therein are unobtrusive. To greatly increase the size of the ribbons and include them in the body of the article is inconsistent with WP:ICONDECORATION. What that policy supports is less ostentatious boxed ribbons in contrast to using Wikipedia as someone's chest. I cannot imagine Britannica or a respected newspaper engaging in these glorification practices that attempt to recreate the uniform on the page. We are here to inform, not decorate. See "Appropriate use": "Icons may be helpful in certain situations: Repeated use of an icon in a table or infobox" See also "Inappropriate use": "Do not use icons in general article prose"--Brian Dell (talk) 18:50, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I was a big proponent of using infoboxes or dedicated table graphs for military decorations, but I was in a pretty small minority in the RFC. See the comments toward the end of the section; essentially most MILHIST users think the images are too prominent in an "awards and decorations" section, but they're too small to be useful as you're proposing to display them -- the link is right there, and the only reason the images should be included alongside it is demonstrating what the ribbon looks like. If it's too small to be useful as a visual aide, it's decoration. ICONDECORATION and NOICONS may or may not run afoul of the decoration section, but that's been a fiercely debated subject at MILHIST without consensus for years. —Ed!^(talk) 20:47, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't believe that the consensus verdict was "too small to be useful"; if that were so I would think that there wouldn't be any icons in the infobox at all. The US Army icon actually has text on it that is entirely unreadable, unlike for the ribbons where one could make out enough distinguishing characteristics to readily recognize them.--Brian Dell (talk) 22:04, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, people at MILHIST seem to be pushing for exactly that; no icons in the infobox at all. If you think there's a possibility the consensus has changed I welcome a discussion of it again at WT:MILHIST, but we had another discussion just a few weeks ago about military symbols in articles, here. It didn't cover the infobox specifically, but read through it and you'll see a lot of people pushing that military symbology is of limited use unless it's relating something that can't be found by clicking on the link. —Ed!^(talk) 22:16, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter - February 2013

The WikiProject Good articles Newsletter Volume IV, No. 2 – February 2013 For past newsletters click here

In This Issue Featured editorial: Time to make a Sweep by Hahc21. Project News: Several proposals are currently ongoin at the project, including two requests for comment. Good Articles of the Month: See which articles were picked this year of records: 282 articles passed in January! GA Task Forces: Some minor notes this month Member News: Member news Read this newsletter Single-page Unsubscribe Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot · 12 February 2012

Leroy Petry GAN

Ed, I've started to review articles, to try and pay back what I got out of the process already. I've reviewed Leroy Petry. Most of my comments are somewhat trivial, and I think the article only really needs some minor work before I'm comfortable listing it. I'm watching the nomination page, so feel free to respond there! Cdtew (talk) 20:48, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Responded. get back at me with any thoughts. Thanks! —Ed!^(talk) 02:32, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Leroy Petry

		The Good Article Barnstar
		For the edits and effort it took to improve the article on Leroy Petry to good article status I present to you this barnstar. Your efforts reflect positively upon yourself, WikiProject United States, WikiProject Military history, and Ohio University.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:52, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! —Ed!^(talk) 19:41, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

By the way, did you see the information I left regarding the permanent orders which may pertain to Petry's Valorous Unit Award? He may actually be authorized to wear it with oak leaf cluster, but that might be OR. But as far as I can tell that's two text sources that verify wear of at least one as a permanent wear item.

Also, I have filed a FOIA request to see if we can get the service records of Petry and Giunta, so we can have something solid to work off of.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:47, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Ed!

I saw you're very involved with reviewing and content writing in regards to Military history related articles. I'm working on improving the references on the Norman conquest of southern Italy article (in my userspace) and while doing that I added in some content, removed a little bit of content and changed some content. Now... I admit I'm not the best content writer and I want to improve upon it but I was wondering if you wouldn't mind chipping in your two cents regarding feedback if you wouldn't mind. Or if you think anyone else could be helpful in this arena and think they wouldn't mind offering their .02 that would work too. Thanks for your time, — - dain- talk    02:09, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Some background would be helpful, you jump right into the invasions, but there's some pre-history to the invasions that could be added to establish a little more what lead to them. The lead paragraph should just summarize the article; it shouldn't provide any background that isn't already a part of the article (per WP:LEAD.) It would also be helpful to add some of the implications of the conquests. There was a brief note about architecture which I believe was one of the most significant. I think some other cultural implications might have resulted from the invasion which could be included. —Ed!^(talk) 13:40, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Ahh, brilliant! Thanks for the valuable input. For the "you jump right into the invasion", in the first section it deals with three differing 11th century sources of how the Normans arrived in the southern Italy. Do you mean that should be broken down perhaps into level 3 sections each from one of the sources? Or simply that there should be something else in the article prior to the sources describing the events of how the Normans arrived in south Italy? Good point on bringing up the Norman architecture, another result of the conquest was the Norman-Arab-Byzantine culture that arose and I could add in that section with a {{see also}} link below the section header and a summary of that page basically. Would it be appropriate to finish the article by mentioning how the Normans essentially "lost" the Kingdom of Sicily (by marriage) to the german Hohenstaufen dynasty? Thanks again! — - dain- talk    02:16, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Good Article Barnstar
		For your contributions to bring Clinton Romesha to Good Article status. Thanks, and keep up the good work! Khazar2 (talk) 03:21, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Glad to say this one was ready to pass as submitted. Always happy to see more great contributions from you. -- Khazar2 (talk) 03:21, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Much thanks Khazar! I'm always happy to contribute. —Ed!^(talk) 13:01, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXIII, February 2013

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at US Army leadership since World War II

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) 07:18, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 February newsletter

Round 1 is now over. The top 64 scorers have progressed to round 2, where they have been randomly split into eight pools of eight. At the end of April, the top two from each pool, as well as the 16 highest scorers from those remaining, will progress to round 3. Commiserations to those eliminated; if you're interested in still being involved in the WikiCup, able and willing reviewers will always be needed, and if you're interested in getting involved with other collaborative projects, take a look at the WikiWomen's Month discussed below.

Round 1 saw 21 competitors with over 100 points, which is fantastic; that suggests that this year's competition is going to be highly competative. Our lower scores indicate this, too: A score of 19 was required to reach round 2, which was significantly higher than the 11 points required in 2012 and 8 points required in 2011. The score needed to reach round 3 will be higher, and may depend on pool groupings. In 2011, 41 points secured a round 3 place, while in 2012, 65 was needed. Our top three scorers in round 1 were:

1. Sturmvogel_66 (submissions), primarily for an array of warship GAs.
2. Miyagawa (submissions), primarily for an array of did you knows and good articles, some of which were awarded bonus points.
3. Casliber (submissions), due in no small part to Canis Minor, a featured article awarded a total of 340 points. A joint submission with Keilana (submissions), this is the highest scoring single article yet submitted in this year's competition.

Other contributors of note include:

• Sven Manguard (submissions), whose Portal:Massachusetts is the first featured portal this year. The featured portal process is one of the less well-known featured processes, and featured portals have traditionally had little impact on WikiCup scores.
• Sasata (submissions), whose Mycena aurantiomarginata was the first featured article this year.
• Muboshgu (submissions) and Wizardman (submissions), who both claimed points for articles in the Major League Baseball tie-breakers topic, the first topic points in the competition.
• Toa Nidhiki05 (submissions), who claimed for the first full good topic with the Casting Crowns studio albums topic.

Featured topics have still played no part in this year's competition, but once again, a curious contribution has been offered by The C of E (submissions): did you know that there is a Shit Brook in Shropshire? With April Fools' Day during the next round, there will probably be a good chance of more unusual articles...

March sees the WikiWomen's History Month, a series of collaborative efforts to aid the women's history WikiProject to coincide with Women's History Month and International Women's Day. A number of WikiCup participants have already started to take part. The project has a to-do list of articles needing work on the topic of women's history. Those interested in helping out with the project can find articles in need of attention there, or, alternatively, add articles to the list. Those interested in collaborating on articles on women's history are also welcome to use the WikiCup talk page to find others willing to lend a helping hand. Another collaboration currently running is an an effort from WikiCup participants to coordinate a number of Easter-themed did you know articles. Contributions are welcome!

A few final administrative issues. From now on, submission pages will need only a link to the article and a link to the nomination page, or, in the case of good article reviews, a link to the review only. See your submissions' page for details. This will hopefully make updating submission pages a little less tedious. 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) J Milburn (talk) 11:54, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

The Office

I believe I have completed work on the two GA-nominated episodes of The Office: "Suit Warehouse" and "Junior Salesman". -- NoD'ohnuts (talk) 22:39, 5 March 2013 (UTC)NoD'ohnuts

Glad I've been able to review so many of your GAs. Keep up the good work! —Ed!^(talk) 01:26, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

David M. Shoup

Hi! Just letting you know, I have started my review and there are a few points on the review page that need addressing. Could you please take a look? Thanks! ★★RetroLord★★ 09:05, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Responded to your second round of comments. Thanks again! —Ed!^(talk) 12:16, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Article Feedback deployment

Hey Ed!; I'm dropping you this note because you've used the article feedback tool in the last month or so. On Thursday and Friday the tool will be down for a major deployment; it should be up by Saturday, failing anything going wrong, and by Monday if something does :). Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 23:13, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know! —Ed!^(talk) 01:26, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Norman Schwarzkopf, Jr.

Hello Ed from Australia, great work on Storming Norman, it well deserves GA. AWHS (talk) 12:14, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your review! —Ed!^(talk) 12:16, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Good Article Nominations Request For Comment

A 'Request For Comment' for Good Article Nominations is currently being held. We are asking that you please take five to ten minutes to review all seven proposals that will affect Good Article Nominations if approved. Full details of each proposal can be found here. Please comment on each proposal (or as many as you can) here. At this time, Proposal 1, 3, and 5 have received full (or close to) support. If you have questions of anything general (not related to one specif proposal), please leave a message under the General discussion thread. Please note that Proposal 2 has been withdrawn and no further comments are needed. Also, please disregard Proposal 9 as it was never an actual proposal.

Keep up the good work!

		The Military history A-Class medal with swords
		On behalf of the coordinators of the Military History Wikiproject, I am pleased to present you with this award in recognition of your great work in developing the Arthur W. Radford, George S. Patton slapping incidents, and George S. Patton articles to A-class standard. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 22:06, 22 March 2013 (UTC)