User:The ed17/Archives/16

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Seydlitz[edit]

Hi, Ed. I saw your hidden comment; it's one of the two broadside torpedo tube rooms. How do you think I could word that so it's a little more clear? Parsecboy (talk) 21:07, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

"the starboard/port side torpedo tube room"? —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 00:42, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Hmm, it seems I've left the book it's sourced to at my parents' house, and the page isn't available on the Google books version. It'll have to wait until the next time I get home. Parsecboy (talk) 01:29, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
It's not the biggest deal. :) —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 01:46, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Jappalang raised some concerns about the NHC photos of the ship at the FAC. I figured you might be better able to address their suitability for use here, so if you don't mind lending a hand :) Thanks! Parsecboy (talk) 03:57, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

No problem :) —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 04:16, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Refs and citations[edit]

Hey, I need some help with refs and citations for Glenn Gould. Since you've got plenty of experience at FAC and you've used notes in several of your FA articles, can you pop buy IRC so I can ask you a few questions? Thanks. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR talk // contribs 03:19, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Never mind, figured it out by combing recent FAs! ɳOCTURNEɳOIR talk // contribs 05:00, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I was (obviously :P) offline. You can do it the way you did, or you can format them like normal references with <ref group=A>oigfejngoimafmew</ref> and {{reflist|group=A}}. See WP:REFGROUP. Cheers! —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 06:12, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
I actually initially did that (but never saved it), but I wasn't able to find a recent FA that used it. In any event, I think I'm fine now, so thanks for the tip! ɳOCTURNEɳOIR talk // contribs 16:51, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
The advantage to that method is that they look like the references, but the disadvantage is that refs do not work inside of the <ref group> tag. I like the similar style, hence my use of it in Design 1047 battlecruiser, but it's your choice. :) Cheers! —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 17:21, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Personally, I find the [A 1] a bit too large and jarring, so I think I'll stick with the current format. Thanks for all your help! ɳOCTURNEɳOIR talk // contribs 05:11, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

WikiCup Newsletter XV[edit]

Delivered for the WikiCup by  ROBOTIC GARDEN  at 08:41, 4 May 2009 (UTC). To report errors see the talk page.

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVIII (April 2009)[edit]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter Issue XXXVIII (April 2009)
From the coordinators

Once again, this month, we have a bumper crop of featured and A-class content, and our heartfelt thanks go to editors who have worked so hard to write these. But with our growth in quality content comes increased demand for reviewers. Which is where you can help.

Reviewing is easy and rewarding. You don't need any prior experience and you don't need to write a full review. Any input is helpful so you initially can just comment on what you're comfortable with. Most reviewers start off by focusing one or two things – say, the historical context, or the text, or the references, or the layout, or the images – and as they gain experience, they broaden the scope of the review. You can easily keep up to date with which articles need review, by copying this text – {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} – to your userpage or talkpage. Thanks in anticipation,  Roger Davies

Articles of note

New featured articles:

  1. 1964 Brinks Hotel bombing
  2. Battle of Tippecanoe
  3. Capture of Fort Ticonderoga
  4. Design 1047 battlecruiser
  5. Hue chemical attacks
  6. M249 squad automatic weapon
  7. Nassau class battleship
  8. Raymond Brownell
  9. Take Ichi convoy
  10. Zanzibar Revolution

New featured lists:

  1. List of United States Air Force Academy alumni
  2. List of United States Military Academy alumni (astronauts)
  3. List of United States Military Academy alumni (non-graduates)
  4. List of United States Naval Academy alumni (Medal of Honor)

New featured topics:

  1. Lists of United States Naval Academy alumni

New featured pictures:

  1. Richmond after the American Civil War
  2. Charles P. Stone
  3. Idi Amin caricature
  4. Joan of Arc WWI lithograph
  5. M777 Light Towed Howitzer
  6. Robert McGee, scalped as a child by Sioux Chief Little Turtle

New A-Class articles:

  1. Adrian Cole (RAAF officer)
  2. Amagi class battlecruiser
  3. Arthur Henry Cobby
  4. Battle of Barnet
  5. Battle of Ticonderoga (1759)
  6. Brazilian battleship Minas Geraes
  7. First Battle of Târgu Frumos
  8. Fort Ticonderoga
  9. Hastings Ismay, 1st Baron Ismay
  10. John Northcott
  11. Keith Johnson (cricket administrator)
  12. Landing at Nadzab
  13. Landing on Emirau
  14. Moltke class battlecruiser
  15. Moro River Campaign
  16. Operation Charnwood
  17. Operation Deny Flight
  18. Otto Becher
  19. Polish culture during World War II
  20. Roman–Parthian War of 58–63
  21. Samuel Burston
  22. SMS Seydlitz
  23. SM UB-10
  24. Ton That Dinh
  25. Wolfgang Lüth
Project news
Awards and honors

To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here.

This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:33, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVIII (April 2009)[edit]

The April 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) 00:23, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Collaboration in "ARA Rivadavia" & "ARA Moreno"[edit]

Hi, nice to meet you! Thanks for your message in Talk:ARA Rivadavia, I'd be glad to collaborate with you in the articles related to the argentinian dreadnoughts. I've been gathering some online references, and can also access some books on the subject (unfortunately, in spanish); and have begun typing the articles. My goal was to upload the first version in April'09 , however personal issues have prevented me to do so; now I'm aiming to end of May'09. The scope I've self-set was to improve both the class and the ships articles to a GA level; I'm unsure what you mean with the "DYK" but assume is to include them in the "Main Page" at some time in the future?
Pls let me know your plans. Kind regards, DPdH (talk) 23:15, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't have many book refs, but I know of a few places on the web that will have information. I will add all that I can! :) DYK is the "Did you know?" section on the main page; articles have to be created or 5x expanded within the last 5 days to be nominated. —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 04:02, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Hey Ed, I've got a question. Right now, there isn't an actual description in the text of the final design, just two design proposals. I thought I'd discuss it with you instead of just reworking the design section how I normally do it since I know you write the sections differently didn't want to step on your toes :) . How are you planning on doing it? Parsecboy (talk) 21:39, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Dude. Geesh. Yeah, I'm going to be mad if you want to help and write a bunch just because it isn't "my" way. :))) Feel free to rework it in whatever way you see fit. Cheers! My mom left the house while leaving the computer on. Happy days... —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 21:43, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Alrighty, I'll do some work on it :) Btw, I hooked us up at MILCON. Something tells me she won't get the computer back when she returns :D Parsecboy (talk) 21:57, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks a LOT! Thanks for adding that, and no, she'll get the computer back. Otherwise I will be killed dead. ;) —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 21:59, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Oh, hey, are we using British or American English in the article? I see "programme" and "armour", but "favor" and "modernization". Parsecboy (talk) 22:09, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

(out) - the BE was the initial start from DPdH. I'd say to go with AE becuase that is what we know; if it's really needed, we could go through and change it later... —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 23:02, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

That makes sense. And hallelujah! :D Parsecboy (talk) 10:59, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
I know :) —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 20:29, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

DYK for ARA Rivadavia[edit]

Updated DYK query On May 13, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article ARA Rivadavia, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Orlady (talk) 08:38, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

French Army in World War I[edit]

I am working on conflicts, background, and equipment sections, but what numbers and what info would I need to add? Thanks, mynameinc 19:48, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

It's complicated; bear with me. :-) Pretending here for a second that normally conscription would cover 18–x-year old men (I don't know what "x" actually was (25? 30?); that could also be added), I was asking for statistics on (a) how many men total were conscripted (b) how many men 18–x (whatever the normal conscription age range was) (c) how many men x–45-year old were conscripted and (d) proportions to total population for a, b and c: for a, "__% of France's male population was conscripted to fight." / for b, "__% of France's 18–x-year old male population was conscripted to fight." / for c, "From *conscription start date*, __% of France's x–45-year old male population was conscripted to fight on the Western Front.") —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 06:18, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
I am bearing. :-) I understand, more conscription statistics. I will try. mynameinc 20:18, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks :) Statistics will be good, but what you definitely need is what the normal conscription age range was...the article says something to this effect: 'men up to 45 were conscripted'. Ok, but what was the age limit before that? 18–25? 30? 35? Cheers! —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 20:37, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Minas Geraes[edit]

Funnily enough I was reading that article the other day during some random browsing. I'll take a look asap. EyeSerenetalk 10:59, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very, very much! You're my life saver yet again :) —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 20:39, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: Barnstar![edit]

You're very welcome! :-) Kirill [talk] [pf] 13:44, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

NYT stuff[edit]

Do you remember those NYT links you found back when I had Nassau-class battleship at FAC? I think I figured out why the Germans thought they had sunk Warspite: at around 7:30pm, the ship had been turning away from Valiant to avoid collision, and Kaiser scored a hit that jammed the steering gear, and while the ship was steaming in circles, the German line pummeled her pretty badly. The steering gear couldn't be fixed (enough for her to continue in the battle), and so she withdrew to Rosyth. Apparently the Germans assumed the ship went down. Isn't it fun to figure these things out? :) Parsecboy (talk) 12:08, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

A touch of WP:TPS. The Germans were convinced that there was a fifth ship in the Fifth Battle Squadron at Jutland, which wouldn't help their totting up after the battle. --Simon Harley (talk | library | book reviews) 12:31, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Shouldn't Queen Elizabeth have been there (which would have made the 5th ship)? I recall reading somewhere that she had been in dock for repairs at the time, but that may be wrong. Parsecboy (talk) 13:22, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
She ought to have been, and she was in dock at Rosyth. She was moved out so as to allow Warspite to go straight in after the battle. I am trying to find out where the German assumption is from (could be Marder), but it's one of those things one distinctly recalls. --Simon Harley (talk | library | book reviews) 13:28, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
A ha, I knew I wasn't dreaming. Hipper informed Scheer that there were five ships in the Fifth Battle Squadron (so says Irving in The Smoke Screen of Jutland, p. 81 and Bennett in The Battle of Jutland, p. 76. Scheer himself in his H.S.F. memoir asserts there were five ships in the squadron, p. 143. Had a flick through Tarrant before and couldn't find any mention of it but that's hardly surprising. --Simon Harley (talk | library | book reviews) 13:50, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Wow, my talk page has been busy while I have been gone. :-) Yes, a mystical fifth ship that would be missing after the battle (because it never was) would seem logical. Very interesting though...gotta love the fog of war. —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 16:51, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

thanks[edit]

Thanks for the much-improved DYK hook on the MTK case. The payment went the other way around (the farmer had been awarded the $25) so I proposed alt2 based on yours. Tempshill (talk) 15:45, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome! I struck my alt1 to avoid any confusion. Cheers, —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 17:08, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Also of interest was that the farmer had no lawyer, which I'd like to cram in there but then it seems really too long...Tempshill (talk) 17:35, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
But is it of gripping interest to common people? Not as much. :) Keep it simple! —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 04:51, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Bismarck[edit]

Hi, I have reverted your last edit with a longish note in the edit summary. There is no conroversy about that statement: see old talk about how much damage could be caused. What is in dispute about a battleship wreaking havoc with undefended and slow merchantmen? Would the ship have been sent against convoys if it was at risk from merchant ships? But if there are things you dispute, please add to that section in Talk and see if it adds anything. Regards, bigpad (talk) 21:21, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Commented at Talk:German battleship Bismarck. —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 05:45, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Barnet FAC[edit]

Ed, I appreciate your enthusiasm, but I think supporting an article twice in the same nomination is disallowed...[1][2] Jappalang (talk) 09:10, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

*Sigh*, yeah it probably is. Will fix now. :) Cheers, —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 20:32, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Take 2?[edit]

Hiya ed. I remember that back in January I offered to nominate you for adminship, and you accepted, and MBK co-nomed, and that rfa did not pass. Its about three weeks shy of six months since your first rfa failed, and I was wondering if you had given any thought to taking another stab at it. I'd be happy to nom you again, if you'd like, otherwise I'd by happy to support. How about it? TomStar81 (Talk) 23:23, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Tom. I have actually been thinking about it, and I think that I will wait a little longer; while looking through AfD and CSD cats or attempting to help at WP:AN/I does not interest me, I think that I may have found a niche at WP:DYK, where you have to be an admin to put queues together. :) However, I'd like to get a little experience at putting next updates together before I go to RfA again. Thanks a bunch for the offer, and I will most likely be taking you up on it—ping me again sometime. ;) With cheers, —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 02:59, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
You got it. Until then, good edittin'. :) TomStar81 (Talk) 04:38, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Will wrk 4 f0odz[edit]

Eddie, I can haz c/e work? Just something casual - scary piano comps coming up in a few weeks, and I'm spooked for practice. According to my prof, I have to win...or else. So I'll be a little side dish and the rest of your c/e team can be the main course. ;) —La Pianista ♫ ♪ 03:43, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

You better win then. :P What do you want to copyedit? A battleship article or something normal? —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 03:46, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Wait, you edit articles that are...normal? O.o
Perhaps something short. GA-status is good; I don't feel up for an FA yet. —La Pianista ♫ ♪ 03:54, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Feel free to take a look at The Sword of Shannara if you want ;) —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 03:48, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
(e/c; oh, it's been too long!) Oh, and I better win. Blabbermouth prof here has been spreading the word about this "talent" and "crazy child." Too much expectation, and so little time! :3
(after) Sounds like a plan! Thanks, Eddie. :) *noms on some lolcat food* —La Pianista ♫ ♪ 03:50, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure that he's hitting the nail on the head with those comments. ;)
You're welcome, crazy kid. —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 03:53, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Who's calling who crazy, I wonder...? —La Pianista ♫ ♪ 03:54, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

(out) - I think you know. :P But I need to go; have a great night and talk to you later! —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 03:56, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Bye, and have fun, Eddie! Hope to come back with shiny trophies to show off. :D —La Pianista ♫ ♪ 03:58, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Oliver C. Thomas[edit]

Have you considered taking this to AfD as well? I think notability here is no better than on Thomas E. Locke. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 06:35, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I thought about it, but as he was the president of "Texas Good Roads/Transportation Association", I didn't want to. However, it's not like I looked into it a lot; is that some random local association? —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 06:38, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, it's a minor company of only local interest. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 06:41, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Ah. I'll nominate it now then. Cheers, —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 06:45, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

WikiCup Newsletter XVI[edit]

Delivered for the WikiCup by  ROBOTIC GARDEN  at 09:18, 18 May 2009 (UTC). To report errors see the talk page.

I need your help[edit]

User:Ww2censor has decided that File:ANTI1034.jpg is not sutable for the USS Triton (SSRN-586) article per [3]. I think he/she is missing the forest for the trees. See my talk page for details.Marcd30319 (talk) 12:25, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it can be used; the link above says that stamps can only fall under fair-use when you are using them "[f]or identification of the stamp or currency, not its subject." Apologies, —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 20:36, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Okay, but I did give "File:ANTI1034.jpg a home.Marcd30319 (talk) 20:43, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Minas Morgul[edit]

Sorry to see the FAC has ended - I did do some work on the background, but never edit much at the weekend (and was reluctant to dive in with at least two other copyeditors at work!). Still, if you head back to FAC and want another pair of eyes over the article first, let me know. EyeSerenetalk 10:34, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, apologies for that; it was my understanding that you were going to be the only one, then Steve dove in and WSC went over it. It's no problem, and I totally understand; it will be going back to FAC eventually, so I will ping you again. ;) As anyways, many many thanks, —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 19:28, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Heh, I've found on other articles that more than two writers or one copyeditor working on the prose takes a fair bit of organising so as not to be a recipe for endless edit-conflicts, but the synergistic nature of the way this place works means that sometimes lots of help shows up all at once. It's a strength that, occasionally, can also be a weakness... but I was quite happy to back off and the article has benefited from such close and expert attention, so it's all good. I'll look forward to revisiting it at some point ;) EyeSerenetalk 19:54, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

AOT assessment[edit]

Ed -- Thanks for looking at the AOT article and reranking it. Frankly, I find your assessment rather begrudging and am demotivated, rather than motivated to continue improvments. But, its a lot better than when I started work a week or so ago. Anyway, thanks again. Hartfelt (talk) 12:52, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Hartfelt. B-class is actually the highest one can individually assess an article, all higher levels have to go through a formal review process. You can nominate it for "Good Article" status if you like, where another editor will review it against the good article criteria. Alternatively, you can request it be peer reviewed by members of WP:MILHIST, or you can request it be reviewed for A-class, also by the members of MILHIST. I hope that helps. Parsecboy (talk) 13:07, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Honestly, I did not mean it to be demotivating; I apologize for that. If you bring it to peer review or A-class, please notify me and I will review it and help you work out some of the trickier points of MOS. Cheers, —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 19:26, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Ed, Thanks for the note, and the offer. Hartfelt (talk) 19:44, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Help needed[edit]

Hey Ed, you don't happen to focus on the the land campaigns of World War I at all do you? I need some help at Meuse-Argonne Offensive, which is currently a real mess, and I figured you might have some expertise. It seems a shame that the bloodiest and (by some counts) largest battle in American history should be covered as poorly and inaccurately as it currently is. Got the time to help, or any good resources? Thanks Jrt989 (talk) 02:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

No, not really. :/ If I was up at school and had access to a decent library, I'd try, but here at home I've got nothing really. I'd suggest leaving a message on WT:MILHIST, asking for a collaboration. Having said all that, please ping me if you put in up for peer review or A-class and I'll review it. Cheers, —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 19:45, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Superfire[edit]

Hi Ed. It was pointed out at the Moltke class FAC that this article now exists (it was created on 13 May). It's in pretty poor shape; I'm thinking at some point we should overhaul it. It doesn't need to be a priority or anything, but maybe something for a rainy day :) Parsecboy (talk) 00:04, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Haha I was going to create it, but apparently I won't be anymore. :))) Would you like to work with me on it now and get a DYK for you me and the creator? —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 02:24, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, that sounds like a good idea. I'll be going to bed shortly, but I'll be around tomorrow afternoon. Parsecboy (talk) 03:22, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Sounds good. I'll be around tomorrow sometime (have to close at work :/), but we'll be able to throw something together. :) But, the first thing on my list is copyediting/possibly FAC reviewing Moltke-class battlecruiser. —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 03:26, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Army of the Tennessee[edit]

Ed: I've done a lot more work on the AOT article, added footnotes, etc. I've pretty much come to where I want to get. Picking up on your offer, I would appreciate some coaching on the MOS issues you see, as looking over the MOS link you provided was not very illuminating for me. If I do say so myself, I think the article is pretty good now and is presented with a consistent style, graphics, lot of references, lot of footnote, lots of Wikilinks, etc. (The only problem is, no one will ever read it if you believe the page view results.) Anyway, thanks for any insight you can give. Hartfelt (talk) 20:01, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll head over there now; you got me right as I logged on! :) I knew that the link I gave would not be helpful...WP:MOS is a bloody jungle, and the only way to mostly understand it is to study it for months or write a couple FAs (IMO, at least). Re page view stats: at least in my experience, they tend to go up when you get through FAC; I'm not sure if that is due to Portal:Featured content or people browsing WP:FA or whatnot. That's happened in at least two articles of mine (I haven't checked the others). —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 20:08, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Ed: I appreciate your help and positive reaction. I can't really tell the signficance of some of the format changes you made, but a problem has now popped up. The article looks OK on the computer screen (Internet Explorer for me). Previously, the article also printed smoothly (all text). Now, however, the upper part of page 2 is invisible. This is true both in "print preview" on Internet Explorer and when printing the article phyically. (In case you don't see the same thing, what is invisible to me is all text below the contents box and above the bottom border of the Grant photo (photo itself shows up). I hope you know what to do to fix this, as I certainly don't (other than possibly reverting your edits one by one until the problem goes away). Thanks again for you interest. Hartfelt (talk) 20:55, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Hold on a sec, will take a look with IE (get Firefox, dude! :). —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 20:59, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
It looks just fine to me on FF and IE; not sure what is going on. I removed the {{PDF}} I had added because I added it wrong, but I don't see anything else that could have caused invisible text? —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 21:06, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Ed, Something occurred to me & I looked into it -- It looks like you intentionally or unintentionally shrunk the 1st image (Grant). I restored that to 275px and that cleared up the problem. I don't know whether that was before or after you looked at it. Anyway, it's good for me now. Thanks again for your help and interest. Hartfelt (talk) 21:11, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Well, it was intentional, but looking into it I shouldn't have shrunk it; it's rather hard to see what that picture is supposed to be of when it's smaller... —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 21:17, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

WikiCup Newsletter XVII[edit]

Delivered for the WikiCup by The Helpful Bot at 20:09, 23 May 2009 (UTC). To report errors leave at message here.

Special Event idea - Independence Day[edit]

You are exactly the kind of educationally and intellectually limited person that Wikipedia unfortunately suffers on occasion. However it is good of you to voluntarily excommunicate yourself from the topic; your comments are totally useless. Go and troll somewhere else. B. Fairbairn  Talk  23:27, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your constructive opinion of me! I would point you at Design 1047 battlecruiser, Amagi-class battlecruiser, Tosa-class battleship, Brazilian battleship Minas Geraes, Brazilian battleship São Paulo, and ARA Rivadavia to demonstrate that I am not all "pro-American" and whatever else you dislike, but I'd prefer it if you didn't comment on my talk page again; any conversation I can have with you isn't productive. Thanks, cheers and bye, —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 21:55, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Your queries[edit]

Ed: Have tried to answer the AOT queries you posted. Also, I wanted to ask for MilHist peer review, per you suggestion, but cldn't figure out how to do so, since the page doesn't seem to have the template contemplated by the instructions. (I've queried Parsecboy about that, too.) Thanks again for your interest. Hartfelt (talk) 15:11, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Have to run, but I will help you later if Parsec hasn't gotten to it. Cheers, —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 21:55, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

United States Battleship Division Nine (World War I)[edit]

Hey Ed, thanks for the edits/comments on the page! I appreciate getting some feedback from other editors (something I haven't had much of while editing it these last few weeks). Any chance you would be willing to take it to the next level and conduct the GA review for me? I've spent a fair amount of time on this page and would love to get a quick turn around if you're available!

P.S. Quick question: Are the hidden comments intended to be problems you think I need to address, or are they just comments? I ask merely because I haven't encountered them before.

Thanks! Jrt989 (talk) 16:42, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

If I have time I will! Re P.S.: both ;) —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 21:55, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Alright, now that I have a little time for a proper reply: it was no problem! I'll be attempting to get to the GA review soon; it's late here and I have to work tomorrow, so I can't spend a lot of time on here tonight. Feel free to remove my hidden comments as you think you have addressed them, ok? Heck, if you disagree with one, feel free to remove it. ;) They were just for your benefit! Cheers, —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 04:46, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Will do. Thanks for the advice and for attempting the GA review! Jrt989 (talk) 05:06, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
No problem! —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 05:10, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Minas Geraeis[edit]

I've answered your remark on my discussion page and I've put it on the article's discussion. The actual reason for my contacting you however is this edit:

[[4]]

I would appreciate your not introducing english orthography in the german wikipedia. Thanks and best regards! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.177.79.53 (talk) 09:29, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Alright. That'll teach me to assume that things like that are the same across all languages. :) Cheers! —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 17:37, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Yup, in German, you capitalize all nouns (except for pronouns). Parsecboy (talk) 18:05, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Correct, apart from the fact that in German pronouns are not coinsidered nouns. Well, for non german speakers it is probably not obvious that "Dreadnought" - in contrast to dreadnought" - is a german word. :-) This is analogue to not capitalising the english words hinterland, gedankenexperiment, kindergarten, gestalt, bremsstrahlung, realpolitik or gesundheit. ;-) Regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.177.70.174 (talk) 18:09, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
How about I just not make capitalization changes on the de wiki anymore? :))) —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 18:12, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Pronouns aren't nouns in English, either. >.> —La Pianista ♫ ♪ 04:03, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Then why do they have "noun" in their name? ;) —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 07:15, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Blame the cabal. I had no part in it. Remember - I had no part in it. —La Pianista ♫ ♪ 18:40, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't believe you. ;) —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 21:03, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi ED, apologies for dropping out for such a long gap during that FAC saga, in case you did'nt notice I returned with a couple of questions and some tweaks minutes before it ended. ϢereSpielChequers 20:18, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
It happens! And no, I hadn't noticed; I will address those prior to renominating the article (whenever I get around to it :). Thank you very much for all of your help! —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 20:31, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Re (pro)noun: "What is a pronoun?" - "That is a noun that has lost its amateur status" (Calvin&Hobbes) --84.177.125.135 (talk) 19:08, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

LOL. I actually have the C&H book where that comic appears on my bookshelf. :) —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 23:28, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Thwack![edit]

Follow me to join the secret cabal!

Plip!

Per suggestion. Shubinator (talk) 15:45, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Did I not say that I should hit myself? Blarg. I hate beans... :-) Thanks dude!~ —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 15:48, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Always happy to oblige :) Shubinator (talk) 15:51, 25 May 2009 (UTC) (P.S. Fish + beans = a weird meal. Suggest adding some rice.)
*Sigh* and yes, that is a weird meal. However, who wants rice if you could have chocolate? ;D —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 16:04, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Ummm, no, nor does it need any[edit]

In this edit's checkin note you stated "um, if they're generic, it should be easy to find (a) source(s)..... right?" The answer is "no". Generic material of trivial importance to the topic with trivial demonstrability do not need references. For instance, you do not need a reference for "some cameras need photographic film" or "the sun rises in the east". But I'll leave the tag on, because I'm sure the next editor will come along and re-insert it anyway. It appears that everyone has stopped writing actual articles, and editing has degenerated into tagging and AfD fests. Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:14, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Really? "The sun rises in the east" is rather obvious to anyone with a compass, but what is in that article is not very obvious to anyone who doesn't have a degree in that field. Re stopped writing: I am normally a writer...look at my user page? Anyway, cheers, —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 15:39, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, really, "any material challenged or likely to be challenged". Is there something particularly controversial in those statements that you believe requires V? Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:41, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
The DYK reply was a "challenge" to the material. —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 16:48, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Ah, I think I see what happened. The DYK challenge was put on an earlier version of the article that had only two refs. I added six more. So I assume from this it has failed DYK? Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
There were still questions on the newer version, so it was removed on the 24th in this edit. —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 00:00, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

WikiCup newsletter XVII.V[edit]

This is just a quick reminder that the round ends this Friday, May 29, 2009. I wanted to let you guys know the current standings. If you are very close, but not close enough, work as hard as possible these next two days. Pool leaders are listed as usual, and under the 10 wildcards, are competitors that are still fighting for a spot. Also, if you currently have any un-reviewed GAN's up and you'd like them to be reviewed and counted for this round, you must place them on the appropriate thread of the WikiCup talk page.

Pool A
  1. Wales Shoemaker's Holiday (647)
Pool B
  1. Colombia ThinkBlue (247)
Pool C
  1. Sweden Theleftorium (455)
Pool D
  1. Denmark Candlewicke (539)
Pool E
  1. Mexico Durova (479)
Pool F
  1. Switzerland Sasata (961)
Current Wildcards
  1. United States Useight (393)
  2. Iceland Scorpion0422 (372)
  3. Thailand Rlevse (329)
  4. Japan Wrestlinglover (307)
  5. Cambodia Paxse (285)
  6. Maryland Ottava Rima (248)
  7. Mitchazenia (226)
  8. Republic of Ireland Juliancolton (181)
  9. Michigan the_ed17 (179)
  10. Isle of Man J Milburn (168)
  11. Confederate States of America Bedford (156)
  12. Toronto Gary King (147)
  13. New South Wales 97198 (142)
  14. Luxembourg Ceranthor (111)
  15. India Tinucherian (106)
  16. Vanuatu Matthewedwards (98)

 GARDEN ,  iMatthew :  Chat  , and The Helpful One The Helpful Bot 00:57, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Shameless thankspam[edit]

FlyingToaster Barnstar

Hello The ed17! Thank you so much for your support in my recent RfA, which passed with a tally of 126/32/5. I am truly humbled by the trust you placed in me, and will endeavor to live up to that trust. FlyingToaster

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:The_ed17/Archives/16&oldid=1148412452"