User:The ed17/Archives/23

North Carolina don't get no respect

Ed, I'm working with the NC wikiproject, do you mind if I add our WikiProject tag to North Carolina class battleship, currently at FAC? I'm writing some articles on ships associated with NC. (Watching) - Dank (push to talk) 02:17, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

No, not at all. You could also give a quick FAC review for the article... (hint, hint ;) Just as an FYI, I am hoping/planning to get the USS North Carolina (BB-55) article to A or FA over Christmas break. Would you like me to ping the NC project when I am doing that? —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 03:07, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Each BB should be tagged for the state, most of the Iowas and Texas are. -MBK₀₀₄ 03:40, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, please let us know, thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 03:48, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks MBK. Dank, will be sure to do and does WNC accept the A-class rating if it has been reviewed by outside editors (ie, like MILHIST)? —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 04:06, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

There aren't enough of us for me to know. The MILHIST A-rating program is very thorough and I don't have a problem with accepting that rating, I'll go add it. Btw, I've been out of the loop at FAC for so long that I'd probably screw up an article review. - Dank (push to talk) 17:16, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Wait, I take that back, I could probably do a limited review like I used to do. Let me study up a little. - Dank (push to talk) 17:40, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

If you can, it would be appreciated; if not, that is fine as well. Many thanks, —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 01:42, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

The good news: I've finished reviewing the General style guidelines and browsing at GAN and FAC. The bad news: I'm not comfortable reviewing some ship articles at GAN and FAC and writing others, it would be too easy for COI to sneak in. But I'm up for collaborating on ship articles any time; if you like, I'll stalk your contribs and jump in and help when I see you working on a new ship article. (Watching. Or is it stalking?) - Dank (push to talk) 20:34, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

P.S. If you don't mind my butting in, I'll try to make some edits to satisfy Malleus here. - Dank (push to talk) 21:13, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

P.P.S. Sorry, I was waiting to get your go-ahead, but now that I read the question again, it sounds like I was going to get started ... I'll give it a shot. - Dank (push to talk) 03:12, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

- sorry Dank, I haven't been on-wiki. I'm up to a collab anytime you want, feel free to stalk me or suggest articles yourself. :) Feel free to butt in; I'll be addressing them (tentatively...) sometime Thursday/Friday—I have exams tomorrow and a paper due Thursday to worry about. Regards, —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 03:38, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The edit of the protected Global Warming page

Thankyou for using your admin power, and removing the paragraph about climategate from the protected Global Warming page. We all no climategate has absolutly nothing to do with global warming. No, nothing at all. Doesn't even bare mention. You have protected the 24,000 people per day, who read the article from having their minds sullied by any mention of possible fraud, done my the mandirins of climate change. You all have only our best interests at heart. If some of us refuse to see the light, too bad. Those who dare to deny Global Warming must be maginalised, and thier words expurgated. Again, thankyou. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mytwocents (talk • contribs)

(edit conflict) You are quite welcome. If you would like to source that information with reliable sources and make it short enough (to not give it undue weight), I will add it if there is consensus on the talk page of the article. Regards, —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 06:11, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah. I wanted to add my non-ironic thanks for that refreshingly sensible edit-through protection William M. Connolley (talk) 09:49, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

After the page was locked, without regard to any POV, you removed a section from the article, one hour later. It's the only edit that has been made. You should at least have the courtesy to post the deleted text on the talk page and explain your specific reasons for deleting text from a fully protected page. You should also post a note on the admins page that you took that step. The better thing would be to undo your edit and let all editors debate the page in its original state. Mytwocents (talk) 17:08, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't follow your logic. The "original state" was without that text. In addition, it was uncited and extremely controversial, so I figured that the page should not include the paragraphs until a version was worked out on the talk page. I stand firmly behind my actions; please start a section on ANI|ANI if you feel that I have misused my administrator tools. Regards, —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 21:20, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

References in lead

Hey Ed,

I'm taking up LPqL again, and I'm attempting to make it comply with MoS's rule of "no refs in lead." But I still haven't figured out how to do that, if I'm listing facts that need to be referenced. How do you simultaneously cite your facts and refrain from referencing in the lead?

Now, I might have been here for two years, but that doesn't mean I'm not a newbie article writer. So don't bite me, please; I've been nice enough. So far. —La Pianista ^{♫ ♪} 21:24, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and ping, also. —La Pianista ^{♫ ♪} 21:38, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

It's not a requirement that the lead not be referenced. Add citations as liberally as you want. :-) —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 01:42, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Pyongyang. Ping-pong.

Good, good. I was thinking of going for FA (*gasp* I said the magic two-letter acronym) sometime in the far distant future. I'm glad it won't be an issue...Ed. ;) —La Pianista ^{♫ ♪} 06:27, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Protection request

Hey Ed, mind semi-protecting my talk for 3 hours or so? I'm getting tired of the relentless inanites. Thanks, @Kate (talk) 03:55, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I semi'ed it for six because I was lazy and selected a default option. ;) Also blocked the IPs. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 04:06, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Hehe, thank you much. I promise to stop attracting trolls in the future and thus stop pestering you with protection requests. ;) @Kate (talk) 04:07, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

No, it's fine; troll/vandal-whacking is fun! :) —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 04:08, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Italian battleship Roma (1940)

Hello! Your submission of Italian battleship Roma (1940) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that 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! Materialscientist (talk) 11:35, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Hmm

Forgive me if I am wrong but isn't this edit [1] a content edit on a page under full protection? I thought there was something about not doing that somewhere? The edit was perfectly correct of course and perhaps I am wrong or it was a simple mistake? If not I offer a very respectful trouting service --BozMo talk 18:42, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Its a revert of an inappropriate edit that occurred just before protection [2]. I have a strong feeling I've seen The ed17 explain this, somewhere. Oh yes, just above William M. Connolley (talk) 18:52, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, the offending editors contributions are instructive [3] William M. Connolley (talk) 18:54, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah. I am too tired to chase Scibaby for now. Ok, well I am not going to complain further. It was a reasonable WP:IAR call I guess. --BozMo talk 19:58, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the assist, WMC. The material was uncited and extremely controversial (see the talk page), and so I believed that the former status quo of the article—without the recent information—hould be removed per WP:BRD. Regards, —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 06:40, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

2010 WikiCup Signups Reconfirmation!

To ensure that everyone who signed up is still committed to participating in the 2010 WikiCup, it is required that you remove your name from this list! By removing your name, you are not removing yourself from the WikiCup. This is simply a way for the judges to take note of who has not yet reconfirmed their participation. If you have not removed your name from that list by December 30th, 2009 (by 23:59 (UTC)) then your name will be removed from the WikiCup.

It's worth noting the rules have changed, likely after you signed up. The changes made thus far are:

Mainspace and/or portal edits will not be awarded points at all.
Did you know? articles (which were worth 5 points last year) will now be worth 10 points.
Good articles (which were worth 30 points last year) will now be worth 40 points.
Valued pictures will be now awarded points, however the amount (5 or 10 points) is still being discussed.
Featured lists (which were worth 30 points last year) will now be worth 40 points.
Featured portals (which were worth 25 points last year) will now be worth 35 points.
Featured articles (which were worth 50 points last year) will now be worth 100 points.
Featured topics (which were worth 10 points per article last year) will now be worth 15 points per any article in the topic that you were a major contributor to.
Good topics (which were worth 5 points per article last year) will now be worth 10 points per any article in the topic that you were a major contributor to.
In the news will still be awarded points, however the amount (5 or 10 points) is still being discussed.

If you have any final concerns about the WikiCup's rules and regulations, please ask them now, before the Cup begins to avoid last minute problems. You may come to the WikiCup's talk page, or any of the judge's user talk pages. We're looking forwards to a great 2010 WikiCup! On behalf of the WikiCup judges, iMatthew ^talk at 03:47, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		For watching my talk page while I was away I hereby award you the Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar. TomStar81 (Talk) 15:08, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

It was no problem, Tom. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 03:38, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Kenya general election, 1988

I was ereading the most wanted articles list, and decided to make the Kenysan general election, 1988 page. I found a good source, and was ready to start until I saw the deletion log of the page. May I remake, or is it not allowed. Sincerly, Buggie111 (talk) 19:19, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

No, please create it! The full text of the article I deleted was "I love me some fried chicken"—obviously vandalism and not about Kenya. :-) Regards, —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 03:38, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Main page

...in case you missed it. I'll be around tonight, but I have to work for a good chunk of tomorrow, so I won't be able to keep an eye on the article. Parsecboy (talk) 23:29, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations! I'm still watching it for vandalism, and will be around tomorrow. This also reminds me: I have been meaning to ask both of you if you'd consider whether it would be fair to tweak WP:WBFAN to include me as a nom for this article, given my rewrite & resourcing of the section about Akagi/WWII, and my participation in the FAC itself. In hindsight, it seems I provided something like 1/4 of the article text, and nearly half the citations, so I think it would be fair, but it's your call. I won't be upset if you decide against it; indeed, there are articles I've done more work on and not been credited for in any fashion...not a big deal. Maralia (talk) 02:21, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Of course, if it weren't for your work, the article probably wouldn't have passed! Is there any sort of procedure or do we just add it to your name on that page? Parsecboy (talk) 02:41, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:WBFAN is compiled automatically from yearly subpages; changing the entry for the article at Wikipedia:Featured articles promoted in 2009 would propogate up to WBFAN. I'm glad to hear you're okay with it; it's a touchy thing, and I've never asked for it before. I'd feel better if we give Ed a chance to respond first, though. Maralia (talk) 02:59, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Damn, I won't be around either—exams and a paper to do (finals week...) I'll try to check in from time to time, I guess...

Maralia, I thought you were going to take credit after the FAC. You should have. ;) I have absolutely no objection; actually, I would be offended if you didn't take nominator credit. Goodness. :) —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 03:38, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

RfA thankspam

Hello, The ed17/Archives! This is just a note thanking you for participating in my recent Request for Adminship, which passed with a total of 93 support !votes, 1 oppose and 3 editors remaining neutral. While frankly overwhelmed by the level of support, I humbly thank the community for the trust it has placed in me, and vow to use the tools judiciously and without malice.

KV5 (Talk • Phils)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 7 December 2009

From the editors: 250th issue of the Signpost

Editorial: A digital restoration

Election report: ArbCom election in full swing

Interview: Interview with David G. Post

News and notes: Wikipedia's death report premature, fundraiser, usability, new CSD, noms, and more

In the news: Ron Livingston sues vandal, disclosure of IP address ordered, brief headlines

Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations

Features and admins: Approved this week

Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 06:13, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

File:Docsavagenv01a.jpg

Thanks - Twinkle goof, thought I caught it :( It was orphaned fair use... fixed. Skier Dude (talk) 08:16, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

North Carolina class battleship

Okay, I did everything I could do and left a few notes at the FAC for the things I couldn't figure out. - Dank (push to talk) 22:36, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Dank. It's well appreciated :) —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 22:41, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you can look over some of my pitiful ship articles when I'm done. - Dank (push to talk) 22:47, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Sure :) Link me; I don't see them on your userpage. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 22:53, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations on the FA, and thank you for your kind note. I may add a little more content in a few days, if you don't mind; feel free to edit as you see fit. Regards, Kablammo (talk) 00:34, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks and you're welcome! Any content you feel is needed is quite welcome. Thanks again for all of your help. Regards, —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 18:06, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Hey Ed. Sandy asked that I review NC for MOS issues. I've only done the lead so far. In doing so, I noticed that the specs are incredibly detailed: length and beam figures give inches to 3 decimal places, and the armor details extend the length of a full page for me. By contrast, the detail in the articles on North Carolina and Washington doesn't even extend to inches (much less fractions thereof) and between the two articles, there is only a single infobox line about armor. This seems exactly backwards to me, as I would expect precision in the individual ship articles, and summarizing (rounding) in the class article infobox (which for me extends past 4 screens of scrolling). I imagine the current state came about simply because you focused on the class article and the individual articles are not finished. Do you agree that the exhaustive details belong in the individual infoboxes rather than the class infobox? If so, what level of rounding do you think would be sufficient for the class article? Maralia (talk) 18:29, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi there! In this case, I'd say that the class article should have the more detailed numbers. While at first glance what you say seems right, the class article is the one that is supposed to contain the technical information, so why not have the exact specifications as well? :) I was planning on rounding more in North Carolina and Washington and putting a wikilink to the class article's armor specs using an anchor (rather than repeating that lonnng list three times!). What do you think? —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 01:18, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Bye and Happy Christmas

Please accept my advanced Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.I will not be able to wish you on those days as I will be taking a Wiki break for one month starting tomorrow. Also wishing you a Happy editing.. :) arun talk 06:50, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Two things to ruin your day :p

One is copy-violation at Sir Charles Madden, 1st Baronet, which I've highlighted on the discussion page.

The other thing is that an editor has uploaded a diagram under a very shaky free-use rationale, and the person who actually drew the diagram is very unhappy about seeing it on Wikipedia. Hypothetically how does one get the image deleted, if possible? Regards, --Simon Harley (talk | library | book reviews) 13:41, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

(talk page stalking) For your second question, see WP:PUI. —La Pianista ^{♫ ♪} 17:59, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, you can tag it with {{copyvio}} if you want. I can't really do much either due to time issues...I've been having a hard enough time finding time for my FAC. :| Is there a revision before this copyvio was added?

If the image in question is File:IndefArmorDiagram.jpg, I'd list it at WP:FFD. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 19:12, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Ed, my apologies, I managed to post without seeing your wiki-break notice at the top. Thanks for the advice. --Simon Harley (talk | library | book reviews) 12:25, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Simon, I'm not on break, just not able to devote a lot of time to the wiki at the moment. :) Regards, —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 00:27, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Late night editing?

"This cannot be good for the health!" Thus sayeth the good Dr. Quack-er-doodle. But I digress:

Per top hidden comment, I've pulled up a list of synonyms from thesaurus.reference.com, and came up with commonwealth, country, county, crown, division, domain, dominion, dynasty, empire, field, lands, monarchy, nation, possessions, principality, province, realm, reign, rule, scepter, sovereignty, sphere, state, suzerainty, sway, territory, throne, and tract.

It's quite late where I am, and I'm perhaps only half-lucid. Only a third of the words (if that many) are even relevant to the article. But replace them where you see fit. I believe I can trust that much grammar work to you, yes? ;) —La Pianista ^{♫ ♪} 08:52, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and a semi-important ping. —La Pianista ^{♫ ♪} 09:12, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll reply tonight, Pianista. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 00:27, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Yo ho ho

Ϣere SpielChequers is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Xmas, Eid, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hannukah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec09}} to your friends' talk pages.

Thanks WSC! :) —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 00:27, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Re:Congrats!

Thanks. Took 5.5 years but I finally got my B.A. My next move will be for a masters, although I am not sure if the University will let me back in for the Spring Semester.

On the WP note: I thought about putting another image up, but I wanted something that would make people actually...stop. Then Read. Then Post. If you have something in mind that may work better than I am all for trying it out. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:26, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

2010 Dramaout?

(See WT:The Great Wikipedia Dramaout#2010 Dramaout?) --___A. di M. 12:35, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of United States Naval Gunfire Support debate

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is United States Naval Gunfire Support debate. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States Naval Gunfire Support debate. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:06, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

The Great Wikipedia Dramaout

Hi! As you have expressed an interest in the initial The Great Wikipedia Dramaout, you're being notified because we are currently planning another one in January! We hope to have an even greater level of participation this time around, and we need your help. If you're still interested please sign up now at Wikipedia:The Great Wikipedia Dramaout/2nd. Thanks, and Happy Holidays! JCbot (talk) 04:43, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 14 December 2009

Election report: Voting closes in the Arbitration Committee Elections

News and notes: Mapping geotagged articles language, import sources enabled, and more

Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations

Features and admins: Approved this week

Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 16:41, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Dutch 1913 battleship proposal post ACR comments

Hi Ed, I'm pleased to see that this has passed its ACR. Sometime in the next week I'll address the remaining comments left by Parsecboy, and then I think that it may be ready for a FAC - were you going to scan the drawing from Conways in? I'm going to be in Sydney this weekend so won't be able to do any work on it for a few days. Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 19:22, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Damn, in the confusion of leaving college and coming home, I forgot the book up at school. I'll try to find an alternate copy somewhere and upload it over this weekend (Google Books maybe?) —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 02:23, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

TFA time

I just noticed an impending 100 year anniversary for the commissioning of Brazilian battleship Minas Geraes. That gets you six points at WP:TFA/R, and even though you'd loose two for having Amagi class battlecruiser appear so closely, a four-point article almost never gets replaced there. -MBK₀₀₄ 02:30, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh wow, thanks. I had noticed that about a month ago and thought to nominate it, but that would have been too early, and by now I had forgotten. I would have been rather irate if that had happened. ;) Thanks dude. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 05:48, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Why did you nominate for 10 January, the infobox says 5 January??? -MBK₀₀₄ 06:42, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

...because I took my cue from "10 September 1908", the launching date...

Facepalm . —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 06:48, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Heh, that happened to me in my statistics final exam a few days ago... -MBK₀₀₄ 07:02, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

...I'd rather have that happen on-wiki than in statistics... :/ —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 07:09, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, so would my GPA. I also had a go at fixing a few more errors with the nom, you put 5 after 6. -MBK₀₀₄ 07:17, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for you dude, that bites. Had that happen last semester to me, actually. Feel free to fix any errors you see; it's bed tome for me, as I obviously need the sleep. :) —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 07:21, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

No problem, I've already fixed everything I could see, but it is getting close to be for me as well. I did find a potential hang-up with the TFA nom though, Raul has TFA'ed Battle of Tory Island on 21 December. With Amagi and this in December there could be opposes for the frequency of warfare-categorized FAs. -MBK₀₀₄ 07:23, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, no sense worrying yet. We'll see what happens :) —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 03:50, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, you were right, I'm genuinely impressed by this turn of events: this was left by the same person that said this in October. There is a wave of opposing anything US-centric right now there apparently. -MBK₀₀₄ 10:07, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't "right", I just waited before worrying. :P I noticed the anti-US attitude there right now...whatever, I guess it helps Minas Geraes, right? Heh. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 21:28, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, The ed17. You have new messages at WT:OMT.
Message added 04:29, 20 December 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Since Cam is not around at present, you're probably the best suited to deal with one of his articles. -MBK₀₀₄ 04:29, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLV (November 2009)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter Issue XLV (November 2009)

Project news

The Academy Content Drive concluded on 31 October. The first place Golden Wiki went to TomStar81 for 13 entries; the Silver Wiki was awarded to YellowMonkey for 11 entries, and Patar knight was presented with the Bronze Wiki for 3 entries. All other entrants were awarded the WikiChevrons or a barnstar for their contributions. Thank you to everyone who fielded an entry! All editors are encouraged to check out the newly expanded Academy.

A discussion about the notability of military people has resulted in an update to our in-house style guide. Prompted by some recent "articles for deletion" discussions, members felt that we should provide clearer guidance on the types of person that are most likely to meet Wikipedia's biographical notability criteria. The resulting advice, which you can see here, should be very helpful in both future deletion discussions and in deciding where best to focus article-writing efforts.

Our Task Force housekeeping discussion is now coming to a close. In October a number of proposals were made for rationalising our extensive list of Task forces. Although a few areas remain to be decided, project members have approved the changes summarised here. These will be enacted shortly, so if you haven't yet had your say, now's the time!

Articles of note

New featured articles:

New featured pictures:

Turkish heliograph at Huj

New A-Class articles:

Contest Department

The contest department has completed its thirty-second month of competition; its third month under the new scoring system. A total of 52 articles were entered by seven editors. Sturmvogel 66 came first with 168 points, followed by Ian Rose on 51 points. They are presented the Chevrons and Writer's Barnstar respectively. Honorable mentions go to Auntieruth55 (31), Ed! (26), Abraham, B.S. (26), The ed17 (17) and Piotrus (7). All editors are encouraged to submit any articles that are working on for next month's contest.

Awards and honours

The A-Class medal with Oak Leaves has been awarded to Hawkeye7 for his work on Albert Kesselring, Rupert Downes and Battle of Bardia.

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) 03:45, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XIV (November 2009)

The November 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) 19:57, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Brazilian battleship Aquidabã

Do you have any interest in finishing off this article before the end of the year? If not then I'll fail it for completeness, IIRC, and you can revisit it at your leisure.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:09, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

The second option. :) [4] —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 21:26, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 December 2009

Election report: ArbCom election result announced

News and notes: Fundraiser update, milestones and more

In the news: Accusation of bias, misreported death, and more

Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations

Features and admins: Approved this week

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 03:48, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Alt Text

Hi there I saw you did a good job with the alt text on that North Carolina battleship article. I was wondering if you could do me a favor and do the alt text for 2007 Groundhog Day tornado outbreak? Richard (talk) 05:03, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll try to do someo r all of it soon. As a thought for the article, though, the lead image isn't great at that size. I can't really tell just what is going on there until I read the caption. Kind regards, —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 21:25, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

A Nobody^{My talk} is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

To those who make Good Arguments, who are appreciative, or supportive. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 04:12, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Ed

Ed, I have drawn a new version of Alaska. My original was scaled off a drawing from Conways, which I recently found out was slightly incorrect. I obtained an A.L. Raven drawing from Friedman's US Cruisers (which many people have told me is THE source for USN stuff) and drawn an entirely new version from it.

Emoscopes' HMS Hood; aliased

I am planning on uploading it to Wikipedia to replace my inaccurate version; however, I would appreciate it if that other user did not convert it to SVG format. As far as I can tell, there is no "rule" that ship lineart should be in vector format, as Emoscopes' HMS Hood as well as quite a few other drawings assert. I will be sure to upload it in PNG format, which seemed to be the cause of some of last years' problems.

Let me know what to do.

Also, I have links to all of the scans my friend made available to me if you'd like them via private email (they are copyrighted).

Thanks for your continued assistance with Wikipedia. :) Colosseum (talk) 21:01, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Colosseum! Long time no talk man. Whoever told you that about Friedman is 100% correct. I should probably get ahold of that book and rewrite the article with Garzke and Dulin's United States Battleships in World War II...

But anyway, on to your question. The .gif format did cause problems (compare the thumbnails between this and this). I'm not sure why it was converted to .svg, but that version is not used on any of the Wikipedias, whereas the .png is used in the English Alaska-class cruiser and Battlecruiser and the Danish Slagkrydser. I'll try to get the .svg deleted after you upload a new .png.

To upload the new version, go to http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:CB-1_Alaska_Outboard_Profile.png . Scroll down, and right above the section "File links" you will see "Upload a new version of this file". Click that, add the new file, and upload it!

As to the scans, I would love them but I doubt that I could do anything with them. :) Thank you very much for everything you've done! —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 21:22, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Ed, I'll be sure to do so, but give me one or two days to make sure the drawing is absolutely 100% correct before I upload it.

Also, I thought the same of the scans, but there's actually a LOT of pretty interesting information related to the ship that I haven't seen anywhere else (and that's not in the ship's article as far as I can tell). There's a very interesting passage that details a letter written by the ship's captain to a Navy high-up that talks about some of the ship's deficiencies and the captain's proposed solutions. Let me know if you want them, as I think they'd make an interesting addition to the article in general.

Thanks, Colosseum (talk) 21:36, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Take as much time as you need; there's no rush.

Hmm, well in that case, sure. :) Check your email inbox, the one you use for shipbucket. Thank you, —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 21:51, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Calling C3PO

Ah, I'm not surprised. Me & bots don't get along, anyhow. I thought I had auto-archiving set up, but it went wonky somewhere... Thx for the effort. And Merry Hanukkah, or Cheerful Kwanzaa, or whatever's appropriate. ;D ;D Jose Feliciano ^{where's my glasses?} 01:02, 25 December 2009 (UTC) (No matter what it says, it's still XEve here. ;p)

I read that. I copied & pasted. I left it alone. And I got a request to archive, because the "automatic" part got turned off in some way I don't know about. Of course, I've had so many browser crashes & hangs the last 15mo, I shouldn't be surprised a bot won't work for me... And go away, Santa, you've got naughty girls to spank, or something. ;p TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 01:26, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Thx. But don't think I won't cancel your Xmas dinner anyhow. ;p ;p E. Scrooge ^{put back the turkey, Cratchett} 02:43, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Gotta love Christmas...

I made out like a bandit, how 'bout you? :D Parsecboy (talk) 14:46, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

DUDE. I really wanted French Battleships: 1922–1956 for Richelieu-class battleship, but it was too much. Instead I went and found cheap used copies of four books off Amazon and she bought them. :D So... I'm thinking that Allied Battleships of World War II and your French BB book could make a nice combination on Richelieu... ;) —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 21:08, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

That sounds excellent. Yeah, I just went through Amazon and loaded up my wishlist. I'm super excited for this and this, but they haven't published yet. I was thinking I'd take on a French BB class (I've done a couple Americans, a British, a Japanese, and of course plenty of Germans); all I need are French and Russian classes to complete the "Great Powers" set :) Parsecboy (talk) 17:52, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Haha oh boy, are we battleship nerds. :D I also have Breyer's Battleships and battle cruisers 1905-1970 now, so I can use both that and G&D for the Richelieu class or Dunkerque class, your choice. I'd be willing to collab for a FT as well... if we did Richelieu and Jean Bart though, your book better have good post-war info, as it doesn't look like G&D have a lot. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 00:25, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Cats

Hello. You are a member of WikiProject Cats, according to their list. I would appreciate help on fulfilling the request for a page about the Canadian Cat Association. Feel free to contribute. Thank, Bramble claw x 23:33, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikicup scoring question

Ed, Question about the scoring for Wikicup. Are articles that have already have a GAN or that are currently undergoing review eligible for the cup? The current wording seems to imply that they're not eligible as the work wasn't done during the period covered by the cup. Is this correct?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:43, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I've talked about this with the other CUP judges on IRC, and while we feel that the rules can be bent for "worked on during the round", they can't be for nominating. Sorry man. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 00:08, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Bummer, so much for my four or five articles in the GA queue; so much for a quick leg up. Makes me glad I didn't start the ACR process with a couple of other articles. Y'all should clarify the rule so that every one knows this as I wasn't sure after my first reading, but it does explain why y'all wanted the diff for the nomination.

Sorry again dude. The rules do say "Content must have been worked on and nominated during the competition", but there seems to be a lot of other rules there too. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 02:05, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 December 2009

News and notes: Flagged revisions petitions, image donations, brief news

In the news: Criticism from climate change sceptic, decade in review

Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations

Features and admins: Approved this week

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 03:14, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Shea-Panamon-Keltset-Orl Fane.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Shea-Panamon-Keltset-Orl Fane.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 06:37, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. I've deleted it myself, as it was a clear non-free use violation in any case. I've also gone through and deleted all of the other ones I uploaded during that time; they were all copyvios or corruption of non-free use. I would have deleted them earlier, except I kind of forgot about them after The Sword of Shannara's failed FACs. I also had forgotten the reason why I uploaded them as non-free back in June 2008: because the artist said that he didn't want to release his photos under a free license. God, I feel like a dick. Hope deleting them can rectify my mistake somehow... —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 08:31, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

The 2010 WikiCup begins tomorrow!

Welcome to the biggest WikiCup Wikipedia has yet seen! Round one will take place over two months, and finish on February 26. There is only one pool, and the top 64 will progress. The competition will be tough, as more than half of the current competitors will not make it to round 2. Details about scoring have been finalized and are explained at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring. Please make sure you're familiar with the scoring rules, because any submissions made that violate these rules will be removed. Like always, the judges can be reached through the WikiCup talk pages, on their talk page, or over IRC with any issues concerning anything tied to the Cup. We will keep in contact with you via weekly newsletters; if you do not want to receive them, please remove yourself from the list here. Conversely, if a non-WikiCup participant wishes to receive the newsletters, they may add themselves to that list. Well, enough talk- get writing! Your submission's page is located here. Details on how to submit your content is located here, so be sure to check that out! Once content has been recognized, it can be added to your submissions page, from which our bot will update the main score table. Remember that only articles worked on and nominated during the competition are eligible for points. Have fun, and good luck! Garden, iMatthew, J Milburn, and The ed17 19:24, 31 December 2009 (UTC)