Not sure that should count. Might be a good idea to discuss on WT:TFA/R. I don't think that existed when the rule was made. Wehwalt ( talk) 19:09, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Ed, I just got pinged again by the same guy who pinged me over the Il-40 photo for a new photo: File:Il16front.jpg. I've now added the fair use template you gave for the Il-40 photo, although I did have a rationale already added. I'm getting tired of this and don't trust myself to remain calm. Since I'm likely to be adding more photos of these obscure Soviet prototypes can you discuss with him what he wants to see? The non-free aircraft template doesn't seem to be enough for him. Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 17:05, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Dear colleague, I just want to wish you a happy, hopefully, extended holiday weekend and nice end to summer! Your friend, -- A Nobody My talk 03:04, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
The
Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up
here by 23:59 (UTC) on 12 September!
Many thanks,
Roger Davies
talk 04:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi Ed, I have started to include "notes" in some of my drawings in order to test this new feature on commons. I dont want to jeopardize your featured article work, so plz have a quick look (Musashi [1]) if that could cause trouble if those notes ever get fully functional on en.wikipedia one day and let me know. wbr Alexpl ( talk) 13:15, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Ed, I'm sending Tom your way should he have an questions. I left a somewhat long note on his talk page explaining our cautious approach to his inquiry, and I commend you for offering your support to him. Thanks for offering to help him out. TomStar81 ( Talk) 03:57, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
A quick thx for this. I don't read Portugese, either, ;p but for my purposes, it doesn't matter.... Also, very belated apologies for dropping off the map on aiding you. I've been very distracted by other things & almost entirely off WP since Dec. And I shouldn't make big promises. :( Best wishes. TREKphiler hit me ♠ 21:39, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for this. Nick-D ( talk) 10:21, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
You've got experience with pre-dreadnoughts, and you are the designated "mentor". It sounds like he wants to rid the article of detail required for FAC. - MBK 004 18:27, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Wikiproject: Did you know? 00:28, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Hey Ed, I reviewed the article for GA here. There's just a few nitpicks I have, and once those are addressed I'll also support the article for A-class at MILHIST. Excellent work on this ship.But you might have missed the fact that it's not a battleship :) Parsecboy ( talk) 21:02, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
You do realize that there is less than 24 hours to put your hat in the ring for re-election as a coordinator? If you've decided not to run again, please consider letting the rest of us know in the table on the election page here. I hope you decide to run again. - MBK 004 05:54, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
I thought I would share this with you since you are working on the North Carolinas; I'm not sure if you can use any of it, but as they say every little bit counts. TomStar81 ( Talk) 04:14, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for caring with that note re my loss. DS ( talk) 12:36, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
| |||
|
New featured articles:
New featured lists:
New featured pictures: New A-Class articles: | ||
| |||
| |||
| |||
![]() Looking behind the figures, some other interesting facts emerge. First, 84% of our promoted articles had successfully passed a Milhist A-Class Review before going on to FAC. Second, of the 29 Milhist articles that failed, less than half (41%) had had an A-Class Review. Third, the 97 Milhist articles accounted for 16% of all FACs submitted between January and July of this year. The clear lesson is that if you want a string of featured articles to your credit, you may find Milhist's A-class Review process to be of benefit to you! Roger Davies talk
| |||
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) 19:07, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot ( talk) 21:00, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
The
August 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) 21:21, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi Ed, one option would be to split out the first few sentences of your BB articles into a separate para which describes the ship as was done in FAs HMS Ark Royal (91), HMAS Melbourne (R21), AHS Centaur and USS Missouri (BB-63) or even a single sentence like SMS Moltke (1910). There are some examples of FAs on ships where the first para didn't define the article's entire topic, such as HMS Cardiff (D108), but they seem to be in the minority of the list of FAs at WP:SHIPS. Nick-D ( talk) 07:54, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Sorry to bother you with this, Ed, but I can never figure this out. Can you lend me a hand with the Hindenburg FAC? Thanks. Parsecboy ( talk) 00:30, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
I can go anywhere in the world, but only stay in one corner. What am I? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.8.246.55 ( talk) 22:15, 16 September 2009 (UTC) 92.8.246.55 ( talk) 22:17, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
You'sa cheater! :oP 92.8.246.55 ( talk) 22:19, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Voting in the
Military history WikiProject coordinator election has now started. The aim is to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of sixteen candidates. Please vote
here by 23:59 (UTC) on 26 September!
For the coordinators,
Roger Davies
talk 22:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Just a brief note to remind all entrants that, under the new arrangements, they are encouraged to self-score (but not self-assess) their own entries.
There's also a discussion about a new points scale over on the Coordinators talk page. This deals with some of the anomalies raised elsewhere and as ever comments there would be very welcome. Roger Davies talk 13:49, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
yes :P Parsecboy ( talk) 22:31, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
— La Pianista ♫ ♪ 22:03, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Her you go: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/The ed17 2. Wait until MBK has a chance to add his conom before doing anything to it; I expect to be busy all weekend long. Good luck Ed; I know you have what it takes to handle adminship, and I have full faith and credit in your ability to answer the questions posed to you and rally support from our project for the rfa. TomStar81 ( Talk) 05:26, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Come on !!!!! YellowMonkey ( bananabucket) 05:29, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, it's obvious that you'll pass RfA, but can you make 150? ceran thor 00:28, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Hey, Ed, I'm in need of information on the design of the Japanese Kongo class battlecruisers. Would you happen to have any resources that could contribute to that? My sandbox page (where I'm pre-writing all of this) is here. Thanks in advance, Cam ( Chat) 17:14, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
(out) - a thought hit me: the Kongos were built in Britain! I'll leave a note with our awesome resident English naval historian, Simon Harley ( talk · contribs), to see if he has anything. :-) — Ed17 (talk • contribs) 04:01, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
I'd like you to answer my question on your RfA soon if you could, I've been avoiding making votes until it is answered. Thanks! -- Tznkai ( talk) 04:51, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Anyone feel like reading this and commenting? :-) — Ed (talk • contribs) 00:58, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for doing the merge and putting your sandbox up, but as you can probably guess, there will be quite a bit of work to get that presentable as the main page of the op, so if you don't mind, I'm going to keep your sandbox intact but copy parts to the main page as well as re-work what is already there to make it more uniform to our standards for special projects. - MBK 004 03:33, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your service as coordinator on WPr Military History for the last six months. Great job, the Wikiproject has matured some more. Lots more needs to be done though.
Would you consider giving a para here on what you planned to do, what you could achieve, what gave you happiness, what irritated you and your suggestions for the road ahead to the new team?
All the best for the new elections!
AshLin ( talk) 04:20, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
I've responded to your question. (Sorry about the edit summary...I accidentally put "response to Daniel", even though it's a response to you.) Bob the Wikipedian ( talk • contribs) 00:05, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
I added my support to your RfA, but also wanted to stop by and drop a more person note here. I have asked the "greatest threat" question on a number of RfAs, but you are the first to really "get it", IMO. Most people have answered with some variation of BLPs/inaccurate articles ruining our reputation. You are the first to site loss of editors.
In my opinion, BITE is out of control. The quote you added was pretty accurate. Unfortunately, a large chunk of new page patrollers think it is a race to tag a new article as fast as they can. I know I certainly would be highly discouraged and probably leave if my first effort was tagged for deletion with minutes of its creation, and I am quite sure we lose many editors this way. This is especially true given that many articles are not created in one edit. Imagine saving the first few sentences of what you planned to be a thorough article. Then someone comes along and tags it as crap before you even have a chance to write the second paragraph. Are you going to want to finish the article? Probably not.
I'm not personally sure of what the answer to this problem is, but it is definitely a problem.
Anyway, congratulations on your soon-to-be adminship. I'm sure you'll make a fine one. -- ThaddeusB ( talk) 12:42, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Congrats on your election as Coordinator for the Military history Project. In honor of your achievement, I present you with these stars. TomStar81 ( Talk) 00:16, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
The WikiProject Barnstar | |
In gratitude for your coordination services to the Military history WikiProject, from March 2009 to September 2009, please accept this barnstar. -- TomStar81 ( Talk) 02:20, 27 September 2009 (UTC) |
The WikiCup Newsletter | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Could you please change the caption from "named" to "so named"? I believe the latter is the gramatically correct way to state it.-- ZXCVBNM ( TALK) 05:00, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Hullo ed. There's currently something of a fracas at ANI over the mass addition of OCLC numbers to book articles. As I recall you recommending these links for the Manifesto of the Sixteen article in addition to the ISBNs (thanks again for the peer review!), I was wondering if there was a case to make for the mass addition, and if you'd like to share it. The thread is (currently) at Wikipedia:AIN#User:CobraBot. Regards, Skomorokh, barbarian 10:47, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Not sure that should count. Might be a good idea to discuss on WT:TFA/R. I don't think that existed when the rule was made. Wehwalt ( talk) 19:09, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Ed, I just got pinged again by the same guy who pinged me over the Il-40 photo for a new photo: File:Il16front.jpg. I've now added the fair use template you gave for the Il-40 photo, although I did have a rationale already added. I'm getting tired of this and don't trust myself to remain calm. Since I'm likely to be adding more photos of these obscure Soviet prototypes can you discuss with him what he wants to see? The non-free aircraft template doesn't seem to be enough for him. Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 17:05, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Dear colleague, I just want to wish you a happy, hopefully, extended holiday weekend and nice end to summer! Your friend, -- A Nobody My talk 03:04, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
The
Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up
here by 23:59 (UTC) on 12 September!
Many thanks,
Roger Davies
talk 04:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi Ed, I have started to include "notes" in some of my drawings in order to test this new feature on commons. I dont want to jeopardize your featured article work, so plz have a quick look (Musashi [1]) if that could cause trouble if those notes ever get fully functional on en.wikipedia one day and let me know. wbr Alexpl ( talk) 13:15, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Ed, I'm sending Tom your way should he have an questions. I left a somewhat long note on his talk page explaining our cautious approach to his inquiry, and I commend you for offering your support to him. Thanks for offering to help him out. TomStar81 ( Talk) 03:57, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
A quick thx for this. I don't read Portugese, either, ;p but for my purposes, it doesn't matter.... Also, very belated apologies for dropping off the map on aiding you. I've been very distracted by other things & almost entirely off WP since Dec. And I shouldn't make big promises. :( Best wishes. TREKphiler hit me ♠ 21:39, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for this. Nick-D ( talk) 10:21, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
You've got experience with pre-dreadnoughts, and you are the designated "mentor". It sounds like he wants to rid the article of detail required for FAC. - MBK 004 18:27, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Wikiproject: Did you know? 00:28, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Hey Ed, I reviewed the article for GA here. There's just a few nitpicks I have, and once those are addressed I'll also support the article for A-class at MILHIST. Excellent work on this ship.But you might have missed the fact that it's not a battleship :) Parsecboy ( talk) 21:02, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
You do realize that there is less than 24 hours to put your hat in the ring for re-election as a coordinator? If you've decided not to run again, please consider letting the rest of us know in the table on the election page here. I hope you decide to run again. - MBK 004 05:54, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
I thought I would share this with you since you are working on the North Carolinas; I'm not sure if you can use any of it, but as they say every little bit counts. TomStar81 ( Talk) 04:14, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for caring with that note re my loss. DS ( talk) 12:36, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
| |||
|
New featured articles:
New featured lists:
New featured pictures: New A-Class articles: | ||
| |||
| |||
| |||
![]() Looking behind the figures, some other interesting facts emerge. First, 84% of our promoted articles had successfully passed a Milhist A-Class Review before going on to FAC. Second, of the 29 Milhist articles that failed, less than half (41%) had had an A-Class Review. Third, the 97 Milhist articles accounted for 16% of all FACs submitted between January and July of this year. The clear lesson is that if you want a string of featured articles to your credit, you may find Milhist's A-class Review process to be of benefit to you! Roger Davies talk
| |||
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) 19:07, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot ( talk) 21:00, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
The
August 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) 21:21, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi Ed, one option would be to split out the first few sentences of your BB articles into a separate para which describes the ship as was done in FAs HMS Ark Royal (91), HMAS Melbourne (R21), AHS Centaur and USS Missouri (BB-63) or even a single sentence like SMS Moltke (1910). There are some examples of FAs on ships where the first para didn't define the article's entire topic, such as HMS Cardiff (D108), but they seem to be in the minority of the list of FAs at WP:SHIPS. Nick-D ( talk) 07:54, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Sorry to bother you with this, Ed, but I can never figure this out. Can you lend me a hand with the Hindenburg FAC? Thanks. Parsecboy ( talk) 00:30, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
I can go anywhere in the world, but only stay in one corner. What am I? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.8.246.55 ( talk) 22:15, 16 September 2009 (UTC) 92.8.246.55 ( talk) 22:17, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
You'sa cheater! :oP 92.8.246.55 ( talk) 22:19, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Voting in the
Military history WikiProject coordinator election has now started. The aim is to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of sixteen candidates. Please vote
here by 23:59 (UTC) on 26 September!
For the coordinators,
Roger Davies
talk 22:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Just a brief note to remind all entrants that, under the new arrangements, they are encouraged to self-score (but not self-assess) their own entries.
There's also a discussion about a new points scale over on the Coordinators talk page. This deals with some of the anomalies raised elsewhere and as ever comments there would be very welcome. Roger Davies talk 13:49, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
yes :P Parsecboy ( talk) 22:31, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
— La Pianista ♫ ♪ 22:03, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Her you go: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/The ed17 2. Wait until MBK has a chance to add his conom before doing anything to it; I expect to be busy all weekend long. Good luck Ed; I know you have what it takes to handle adminship, and I have full faith and credit in your ability to answer the questions posed to you and rally support from our project for the rfa. TomStar81 ( Talk) 05:26, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Come on !!!!! YellowMonkey ( bananabucket) 05:29, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, it's obvious that you'll pass RfA, but can you make 150? ceran thor 00:28, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Hey, Ed, I'm in need of information on the design of the Japanese Kongo class battlecruisers. Would you happen to have any resources that could contribute to that? My sandbox page (where I'm pre-writing all of this) is here. Thanks in advance, Cam ( Chat) 17:14, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
(out) - a thought hit me: the Kongos were built in Britain! I'll leave a note with our awesome resident English naval historian, Simon Harley ( talk · contribs), to see if he has anything. :-) — Ed17 (talk • contribs) 04:01, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
I'd like you to answer my question on your RfA soon if you could, I've been avoiding making votes until it is answered. Thanks! -- Tznkai ( talk) 04:51, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Anyone feel like reading this and commenting? :-) — Ed (talk • contribs) 00:58, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for doing the merge and putting your sandbox up, but as you can probably guess, there will be quite a bit of work to get that presentable as the main page of the op, so if you don't mind, I'm going to keep your sandbox intact but copy parts to the main page as well as re-work what is already there to make it more uniform to our standards for special projects. - MBK 004 03:33, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your service as coordinator on WPr Military History for the last six months. Great job, the Wikiproject has matured some more. Lots more needs to be done though.
Would you consider giving a para here on what you planned to do, what you could achieve, what gave you happiness, what irritated you and your suggestions for the road ahead to the new team?
All the best for the new elections!
AshLin ( talk) 04:20, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
I've responded to your question. (Sorry about the edit summary...I accidentally put "response to Daniel", even though it's a response to you.) Bob the Wikipedian ( talk • contribs) 00:05, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
I added my support to your RfA, but also wanted to stop by and drop a more person note here. I have asked the "greatest threat" question on a number of RfAs, but you are the first to really "get it", IMO. Most people have answered with some variation of BLPs/inaccurate articles ruining our reputation. You are the first to site loss of editors.
In my opinion, BITE is out of control. The quote you added was pretty accurate. Unfortunately, a large chunk of new page patrollers think it is a race to tag a new article as fast as they can. I know I certainly would be highly discouraged and probably leave if my first effort was tagged for deletion with minutes of its creation, and I am quite sure we lose many editors this way. This is especially true given that many articles are not created in one edit. Imagine saving the first few sentences of what you planned to be a thorough article. Then someone comes along and tags it as crap before you even have a chance to write the second paragraph. Are you going to want to finish the article? Probably not.
I'm not personally sure of what the answer to this problem is, but it is definitely a problem.
Anyway, congratulations on your soon-to-be adminship. I'm sure you'll make a fine one. -- ThaddeusB ( talk) 12:42, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Congrats on your election as Coordinator for the Military history Project. In honor of your achievement, I present you with these stars. TomStar81 ( Talk) 00:16, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
The WikiProject Barnstar | |
In gratitude for your coordination services to the Military history WikiProject, from March 2009 to September 2009, please accept this barnstar. -- TomStar81 ( Talk) 02:20, 27 September 2009 (UTC) |
The WikiCup Newsletter | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Could you please change the caption from "named" to "so named"? I believe the latter is the gramatically correct way to state it.-- ZXCVBNM ( TALK) 05:00, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Hullo ed. There's currently something of a fracas at ANI over the mass addition of OCLC numbers to book articles. As I recall you recommending these links for the Manifesto of the Sixteen article in addition to the ISBNs (thanks again for the peer review!), I was wondering if there was a case to make for the mass addition, and if you'd like to share it. The thread is (currently) at Wikipedia:AIN#User:CobraBot. Regards, Skomorokh, barbarian 10:47, 30 September 2009 (UTC)