We are half way through round one of the WikiCup. We've had some shakeups regarding late entries, flag changes and early dropouts, but the competition is now established- there will be no more flag changes or new competitors. Congratulations to Sasata ( submissions), our current leader, who, at the time of writing, has more listed points than Hunter Kahn ( submissions) and TonyTheTiger ( submissions) (second and third place respectively) combined. A special well done also goes to Fetchcomms ( submissions)- his artcle Jewel Box (St. Louis, Missouri) was the first content to score points in the competition.
Around half of competitors are yet to score. Please remember to submit content soon after it is promoted, so that the judges are able to review entries. 64 of the 149 current competitors will advance to round 2- if you currently have no points, do not worry, as over half of the current top 64 have under 50 points. Everyone needs to get their entries in now to guarantee their places in round 2! If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, by email or on IRC. Good luck! J Milburn, Garden, iMatthew and The ed17 Delivered by JCbot ( talk) at 00:22, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Title: Guadalcanal : decision at sea : the naval battle Publication Date: 1988 Call Number: 940.5426 HAMMEL NativeForeigner Talk/ Contribs 18:44, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Started on the copyedit - some questions etc on the talk page. Sorry for the delay (busy busy busy!) EyeSerene talk 10:52, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Progress report ... I'd like to replace a lot of the DANFS stuff, but apart from Friedman (which I have here), I'm having trouble finding any books online. Of the references currently listed at BB-55, only this site and this site list their sources, and there are no previews available at Google Books for any of those. In the external links, hnsa.org may be useful. Still poking around; let me know if you have suggestions for sources. - Dank ( push to talk) 15:57, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm getting ready to take USS Congress (1799) for a second run at FAC soon. If you could briefly look for copy editing it might need I would appreciate it. Of course I invite any slapping around to fix things that escaped me. One thing that bothers me is the Later Career section which I feel is too generic of a title but have drawn a blank for an alternative title. -- Brad ( talk) 01:07, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
| |||
|
New featured articles:
New featured lists: New featured pictures: New featured sounds: New A-Class articles:
| ||
| |||
| |||
| |||
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) 03:02, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
The
January 2010 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) 04:52, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Your
Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for
featured picture status,
File:USS New Jersey (BB-16) in camouflage coat, 1918 edit.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates.
jjron (
talk) 12:50, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
|
Re Battle of Winterthur (1799) FAC, do you know how to add a map with coordinates to an info box? Auntieruth55 ( talk) 23:17, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi Ed, I've decided to come here rather than ask for another page protection on the official page. I was wondering if you could possibly page protect EA Sports MMA for the exact same reasons as were given for UFC Undisputed 2010, please. If so, that would be great. Thanks for the protection to the UFC page. Paralympiakos ( talk) 02:30, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
I will first say thank you for attending to the article, but I believe your decision was hasty. This is not really a case for consensus, because peer reviewed scientific articles were added that specifically discuss Chadic speakers. It is not up to me to prove they have a place there, but rather those removing them need good reasons for doing so. None have been offered.
Please remove the page protection, or either restore the article to the proper state. DinDraithou ( talk) 04:46, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
images at Battle of Wintherthur (1799). I don't know how to change them, and although that may not be the "perfectest" image for the infobox, it's what is available. I don't want this to die for lack of supports. Auntieruth55 ( talk) 22:54, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Later today I am going to add some material to the washington article. Make sure it looks good, because I have limited article writing experience. :) NativeForeigner Talk/ Contribs 23:23, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
My image of a French gun (File:Canonde138mmMle1929.jpg) is being disputed as replaceable. This is the only image I've been able to find of this gun anywhere so there's little chance of a free version being found. A drawing could be created, as it could of almost anything, but so what? There's nothing at hand to illustrate the article. Can you check into this for me?-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 23:39, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi ed, thanks for updating ITN recently. Next time you do it could you also update the timer at the same time? It's there so we can keep track of how "fresh" ITN is. I have retrospectively done it for the Superbowl but it is much easier if it is done at the time, many thanks - Dumelow ( talk) 08:12, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi Ed. I was trying to get the German Type UB I submarines to GT status but the nomination failed because SM U-10 (Austria-Hungary) and SM U-11 (Austria-Hungary) were still at B-class. User:Bellhalla, the main contributor to these articles seems to have retired so I was going to finish the work that I belive he planed to do and give him the credit for it (I'll just get credit for the nom and any work that still needs to be done. Anyway, I just asked Malleus if these two articles are ready for a GAN and he said that they are and that I should nominate them now. However, he also said that I should get a second opinion. What do you tihnk about them? Are they really ready?-- Coldplay Expért Let's talk 22:04, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Okay, they aren't too bad except for the references. IN SM U-10, you provide a map from Google Maps when the link in {{
coord}} does the same thing. Also, the citation "Austrian or Austro-Hungarian Navy, WW1". Naval-history.net.
http://www.naval-history.net/WW1NavyAustrian.htm#ss. Retrieved 2010-02-09. is not reliable (luckily, it looks like Gardiner p. 343 covers all of that?
[2])
In SM U-11, I see this citation: Erwin Sieche. "The Austro-Hungarian Submarine Force". "Austro-Hungarian Warships In Photographs, Vol. 2. 1896-1918".
http://www.gwpda.org/naval/ahsubs.htm. Retrieved 8 February 2010. That's an excerpt from a book by Lothar Baumgartner and Erwin Sieche, so the citation needs to be formatted with {{
cite book}} while the link is used for
convenience. 17:25, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Hello,
regarding [3], we do have Free replacement for this file readily available on Commons. See File:Mogador-2-guns.jpg for instance. Rama ( talk) 08:59, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Hey Ed, thanks for taking care of that situation for me. Msa is getting to be a problem; no doubt you noticed he was blocked just last month for socking to further his strange POV in regards to screws/propellers and arabic numerals/named numbers. Something tells me this isn't going to end well for him, unless he learns to follow the MOS and drop his quasi-nationalistic crusade. Parsecboy ( talk) 20:41, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia talk:In the news#Country links for nationalities. Thanks! — David Levy 20:08, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
TomStar81 ( Talk) 06:43, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
- MBK 004 09:59, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi. Will you please review Kurfurst's comments on the KGV Battleship talk page? It is very tiring to have him always making personal attacks. thanks. Damwiki1 ( talk) 01:41, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Kurfurst's behavior is disruptive and seems to me to be bordering on vandalism. There is no support for his edits (just the opposite actually) on the talk page, and I don't know why he is allowed to behave this way. Damwiki1 ( talk) 17:49, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Regarding the immune zones, R&R state completely different values, that I discussed in the talk page. How can such completely different figures be reconciled? We can add them as footnotes, but putting them in the article would just be ping-ponging. I added as much of Kurfurst's language as possible to the recent editd and I am willing to work with him, except that his rigid insistance on a single source makes it very difficult. Regarding Kurfurst's behavior look at his comments above. It is most one long personal attack. This should not be permitted and you have warned him about this recently. I do my absolute best to avoid responding in kind. I'm not picking on G&D, but I would like to create an article based upon facts that can be verified via several sources. I have an extensive library related to naval history, and quite frankly G@D, made lots of mistakes in Allied Battleships that become apparent when referencing other works. Damwiki1 ( talk) 19:03, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments; I'm curious, which decisions of mine did you disagree with? If you would prefer to respond off wiki, that's OK, either way is fine. Thanks! -- Avi ( talk) 06:24, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Please check my comment at WT:DYK. Materialscientist ( talk) 06:43, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Are you available to do the DYK update at 6 pm UTC (that's five hours from now)? See WT:DYK#Next update. (Note that I'm sending this message to several admins.) Ucucha 12:47, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Please reinstate the protection on this article. It was protected because it is a constant target for the sockpuppets of User:Bambifan101. -- Collectonian ( talk · contribs) 23:57, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi Ed, I'm reviewing The Fox and the Hound (novel) for FAC, and I was just wondering why you reprotected it today. [7] There haven't been any IP edits since July 2008. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 05:18, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Ed, hope all is well. I have been doing some major revisions/edits on the USS Triton (SSRN-586) article in anticipation for an A-List review by the WikiProject Military history. I have attempted to set this process, but I am flummozed. Any help will be appreciated. I'd like to have this as a FAC for 11 May 2010, the 50th anniversary of the end of the Triton submerged circumnavigation voyage. Marcd30319 ( talk) 00:44, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Following up to your e-mail: Ed, sorry about the kerfuffle at the A-List review for the USS Triton (SSRN-586. I was actually looking forward to the review, and even TREKphiler's comments, while somewhat juvenile, were not unhelpful. However, what set me off was the indiscriminate gutting of the radar picket info in the Design History section. To understand Triton, one must understand its radar picket function. Also, TREKphiler has a tendency to pepper his edits with personal aside. An example is in Operation Sandblast with footnote 15. As a senior technical writer with over 30 years of experience, including six working at General Dynamics Electric Boat, plus a college graduate in history, I am more than willing to have my copy edited, but my preference is to do the writing myself. Perhaps if the review board can provide a laundry list of suggested edits, I can incorporate them into the article's copy. If there are any questions, then we can discuss the matter. What I am asking is that I remain the lead writer in this, and the review board can provide the editorial direction needed to upgrade the article to the A-list. If there any minor technical corrections (e.g., Triton's vs. Triton's), then by all means, please do so. I also suggest that the Triton's GA Review could address many questions, particularly as it pertains to SPS issues. Please let me know what you think about this, convey my apologies and willingness to go forward with the A-List review to TomStar81, and thank you again for your help on this matter. Marcd30319 ( talk) 18:25, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
USS Triton (SSRN-586) A-List Review Status
Hi, Ed17!
I have been busy working on the A-list review for the USS Triton article. I have addressed many of the issues that have arisen, revised the article content, and created a The Way Forward section to aid in the process. I also have several issues which I may need some guidnace. Again, thank you for your support and TomStar81 and the rest of the project, too. Marcd30319 ( talk) 01:58, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
As you seem to be active, could you check out the request I made for Pierre McGuire to be semi-protected? Thanks, Connormah ( talk | contribs) 04:14, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Hey ed17,
Tedder has assumed that because people disagree with the ridiculous way he has edited the Boss reception page, they are SPA.
I'm so keen to edit Tedder's work because he has provided neither balance (which he claims to want to achieve) nor a fair representation.
He has dedicated 151 words to criticism of the show, including six or seven quotes.
In comparison a mere 51 words have been used to quote praise for the show, with just two quotes.
That's not balanced, nor representative (reception to the show has been predominantly positive, see links).
Originally (before Tedder decided his opinion was superior to all who had previously combined to created a balanced (and admittedly positive, for reception has been positive on the whole) edit) there were quotes from 5 print papers complementing the show. Now they have been reduced to a point of near non-existence.
Criticisms are often far-flung (see New York Daily News pans it, saying "we can probably assume Waste Management won't become a workers' paradise." How is this the show's fault? Or representative of the show's reception?), or invalid (see "LA Times called it derivative (being a spinoff of FOX's Secret Millionaire)." ...Boss' producers were behind Millionaire).
I hope you can see that this 'editor' has abused his power, and is clearly biased in matters relating to Boss. I also hope you could edit, or allow someone else to edit, the page in an appropriate matter.
I would love to be contacted in order to be informed of why this is not possible, if you decree it so. I can't see how this is reasonable at all.
BlueRiver28
P.s. Being a new user, I'm unsure of how to ask a question (despite the guide). I hope you can forgive this.
Quoted below is Tedder's edit, (I've put the positive in bold, as you can see it is non-existent)
CBS's premiere of Undercover Boss on February 7, 2010, immediately following the network's coverage of Super Bowl XLIV, delivered 38.6 million viewers, meaning it had the largest audience ever for a new series following the Super Bowl since the advent of people meters in 1987, the largest audience ever to watch the premiere episode of a reality series, the most watched new series premiere overall on television since Dolly on September 27, 1987 (39.47m), and the third largest post-Super Bowl audience behind Friends Special on January 28, 1996 and Survivor: The Australian Outback on January 28, 2001.[6]
The New York Daily News praised it as "an hour of feel-good television for underappreciated workers", but pans it, saying "we can probably assume Waste Management won't become a workers' paradise... [it] also isn't spectacular TV."[7] Reviewers with the Chicago Sun-Times,[8] The Baltimore Sun,[9] and The New York Times complimented the opening episode.[10] "The show is a welcome change from reality concepts based on humiliating people," concluded The Wall Street Journal.[11]
The Washington Post wrote in a negative review, "What we get instead is a hollow catharsis for a nation already strung out on the futility of resenting those who occupy CEO suites."[12] TheStreet.com also exposed the opening episode, calling it a "public relations valentine", and showing that the editing of the show was skewed, stating "The producers of Undercover Boss (at best) failed to do their homework".[13] Entertainment Weekly panned it, calling the first episode a "CBS-organized publicity stunt" and "a recruiting tool for a worker uprising".[14] The Los Angeles Times called it derivative (being a spinoff of FOX's Secret Millionaire) and also that it was 'cooked' for TV, with the low-level workers being hand-picked.[15]
The show received mixed reviews on Metacritic,[16] it currently[when?] holds a 59 out of 100 score. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.35.19.199 ( talk) 19:16, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
I do appreciate that ed17, and I appreciate you taking the time. I agree wholeheartedly in terms of providing solely positive information, that was more of a reaction to Tedder's insistence on a 3:1 negative ratio. I apologise. While the print media have, admittedly, not been overly positive the overall reception to the show has not been negative, let alone by a ratio of 3:1! I agree that there should be a balance, but Tedder is not capable of providing that. A 1:1 ratio would be balanced, and if would be nice if the positive reaction to the show could be documented in a more thorough and wholehearted way. If the page was not semi-protected I'm sure a balance, incorporating a variety of editor's opinions, could be achieved. Those who aren't anti-Boss (like Tedder is) could provide the positive part, and substantiate it.
It's simply that currently the show is one of the most popular shows on television with an average audience of around 22.5m, and the reception section really does not portray this due to seemingly one-sided editing.
Thanks ed17.
-- BlueRiver28 ( talk) 20:08, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Appreciate the rewrite ed17. Far more balanced.
-- BlueRiver28 ( talk) 20:19, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Be aware that this does not have the fate of the vessel, such a glaring omission for a selected article blurb don't you think? I'd bet the lead of the article needs to be modified as well. - MBK 004 04:05, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I am a student and am working on an article on the Effect of World War 1 on Children in the United States for my Shaping of the Modern World history class, instructed by user: Auntieruth55. I am working on this article with user: santolinek, where our sandbox is located. We have a rough outline of our article, if you have any questions or comments please feel free to let us know!
Thank you very much! :) Donovank ( talk) 04:24, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Any help you can offer here over the next few days would be very helpful. J Milburn ( talk) 00:34, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Hey. Thanks for that. That account was created just for that edit; how sad :(
Sorry I missed your rise to adminship back in September (I've been pretty inactive for the past few months). I was actually in the US in September.
Cheers. Oliver Fury, Esq. message • contributions 22:37, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Hello Ed, How are you doing?
You said:
"I'm sorry Tony, but I spotted the problems and decided to nominate it. Could you at least comment on this point? "Second, I'm not sure this article should be an article; can anyone give me another example of an article about the citizens of a country in a war? I can't find any besides Hispanic Americans in World War II (also written by Tony); otherwise, the only ones I can find are about countries in wars, like Military history of Canada during the Second World War." Again, I'm sorry for all this, but that's the nature of FARs"
You state that you don't consider Puerto Ricans in World War II an article just because you can't find another example of an article about the citizens of a country in a war. I don't think that just because you couldn't find another example it makes it much less of an article. I guess that everyone is entitled to their own opinion and I also respect that. In my opinion the article or articles are encyclopedic, educational and instructional. The contributions which Puerto Ricans and Hispanics have made to the United States have for too long been ignored by historians, the same ones that up to recent years have ignored the contributions made by the African Americans, and have fallen into the cracks of time often to be forgotten. My work here on Hispanic history has been acclaimed by governments, universities and believe it or not the Pentagon itself. As a matter of fact this week I received an e-mail from the members of the University of Puerto Rico at Mayagüez chapter of 'Students for Free Culture' who held a meeting at the Free Culture Conference in DC stating that : "Santiago is the one who has done such incredible work on documenting the Puerto Rican people and cultural topics on Wikipedia that has been recognized by the Senate of Puerto Rico." Like I said, I respect the opinions of everyone in regard to the articles that I have written or created, but for me what really counts is the positive opinions of respected institutions outside of Wikipedia including the Government of Puerto Rico.
Take care and have a great day. Tony the Marine ( talk) 04:24, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Replied in the same place. J Milburn ( talk) 09:22, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Hello, Ed, my response is here. Marcd30319 ( talk) 20:09, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
We are half way through round one of the WikiCup. We've had some shakeups regarding late entries, flag changes and early dropouts, but the competition is now established- there will be no more flag changes or new competitors. Congratulations to Sasata ( submissions), our current leader, who, at the time of writing, has more listed points than Hunter Kahn ( submissions) and TonyTheTiger ( submissions) (second and third place respectively) combined. A special well done also goes to Fetchcomms ( submissions)- his artcle Jewel Box (St. Louis, Missouri) was the first content to score points in the competition.
Around half of competitors are yet to score. Please remember to submit content soon after it is promoted, so that the judges are able to review entries. 64 of the 149 current competitors will advance to round 2- if you currently have no points, do not worry, as over half of the current top 64 have under 50 points. Everyone needs to get their entries in now to guarantee their places in round 2! If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, by email or on IRC. Good luck! J Milburn, Garden, iMatthew and The ed17 Delivered by JCbot ( talk) at 00:22, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Title: Guadalcanal : decision at sea : the naval battle Publication Date: 1988 Call Number: 940.5426 HAMMEL NativeForeigner Talk/ Contribs 18:44, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Started on the copyedit - some questions etc on the talk page. Sorry for the delay (busy busy busy!) EyeSerene talk 10:52, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Progress report ... I'd like to replace a lot of the DANFS stuff, but apart from Friedman (which I have here), I'm having trouble finding any books online. Of the references currently listed at BB-55, only this site and this site list their sources, and there are no previews available at Google Books for any of those. In the external links, hnsa.org may be useful. Still poking around; let me know if you have suggestions for sources. - Dank ( push to talk) 15:57, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm getting ready to take USS Congress (1799) for a second run at FAC soon. If you could briefly look for copy editing it might need I would appreciate it. Of course I invite any slapping around to fix things that escaped me. One thing that bothers me is the Later Career section which I feel is too generic of a title but have drawn a blank for an alternative title. -- Brad ( talk) 01:07, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
| |||
|
New featured articles:
New featured lists: New featured pictures: New featured sounds: New A-Class articles:
| ||
| |||
| |||
| |||
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) 03:02, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
The
January 2010 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) 04:52, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Your
Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for
featured picture status,
File:USS New Jersey (BB-16) in camouflage coat, 1918 edit.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates.
jjron (
talk) 12:50, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
|
Re Battle of Winterthur (1799) FAC, do you know how to add a map with coordinates to an info box? Auntieruth55 ( talk) 23:17, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi Ed, I've decided to come here rather than ask for another page protection on the official page. I was wondering if you could possibly page protect EA Sports MMA for the exact same reasons as were given for UFC Undisputed 2010, please. If so, that would be great. Thanks for the protection to the UFC page. Paralympiakos ( talk) 02:30, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
I will first say thank you for attending to the article, but I believe your decision was hasty. This is not really a case for consensus, because peer reviewed scientific articles were added that specifically discuss Chadic speakers. It is not up to me to prove they have a place there, but rather those removing them need good reasons for doing so. None have been offered.
Please remove the page protection, or either restore the article to the proper state. DinDraithou ( talk) 04:46, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
images at Battle of Wintherthur (1799). I don't know how to change them, and although that may not be the "perfectest" image for the infobox, it's what is available. I don't want this to die for lack of supports. Auntieruth55 ( talk) 22:54, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Later today I am going to add some material to the washington article. Make sure it looks good, because I have limited article writing experience. :) NativeForeigner Talk/ Contribs 23:23, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
My image of a French gun (File:Canonde138mmMle1929.jpg) is being disputed as replaceable. This is the only image I've been able to find of this gun anywhere so there's little chance of a free version being found. A drawing could be created, as it could of almost anything, but so what? There's nothing at hand to illustrate the article. Can you check into this for me?-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 23:39, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi ed, thanks for updating ITN recently. Next time you do it could you also update the timer at the same time? It's there so we can keep track of how "fresh" ITN is. I have retrospectively done it for the Superbowl but it is much easier if it is done at the time, many thanks - Dumelow ( talk) 08:12, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi Ed. I was trying to get the German Type UB I submarines to GT status but the nomination failed because SM U-10 (Austria-Hungary) and SM U-11 (Austria-Hungary) were still at B-class. User:Bellhalla, the main contributor to these articles seems to have retired so I was going to finish the work that I belive he planed to do and give him the credit for it (I'll just get credit for the nom and any work that still needs to be done. Anyway, I just asked Malleus if these two articles are ready for a GAN and he said that they are and that I should nominate them now. However, he also said that I should get a second opinion. What do you tihnk about them? Are they really ready?-- Coldplay Expért Let's talk 22:04, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Okay, they aren't too bad except for the references. IN SM U-10, you provide a map from Google Maps when the link in {{
coord}} does the same thing. Also, the citation "Austrian or Austro-Hungarian Navy, WW1". Naval-history.net.
http://www.naval-history.net/WW1NavyAustrian.htm#ss. Retrieved 2010-02-09. is not reliable (luckily, it looks like Gardiner p. 343 covers all of that?
[2])
In SM U-11, I see this citation: Erwin Sieche. "The Austro-Hungarian Submarine Force". "Austro-Hungarian Warships In Photographs, Vol. 2. 1896-1918".
http://www.gwpda.org/naval/ahsubs.htm. Retrieved 8 February 2010. That's an excerpt from a book by Lothar Baumgartner and Erwin Sieche, so the citation needs to be formatted with {{
cite book}} while the link is used for
convenience. 17:25, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Hello,
regarding [3], we do have Free replacement for this file readily available on Commons. See File:Mogador-2-guns.jpg for instance. Rama ( talk) 08:59, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Hey Ed, thanks for taking care of that situation for me. Msa is getting to be a problem; no doubt you noticed he was blocked just last month for socking to further his strange POV in regards to screws/propellers and arabic numerals/named numbers. Something tells me this isn't going to end well for him, unless he learns to follow the MOS and drop his quasi-nationalistic crusade. Parsecboy ( talk) 20:41, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia talk:In the news#Country links for nationalities. Thanks! — David Levy 20:08, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
TomStar81 ( Talk) 06:43, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
- MBK 004 09:59, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi. Will you please review Kurfurst's comments on the KGV Battleship talk page? It is very tiring to have him always making personal attacks. thanks. Damwiki1 ( talk) 01:41, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Kurfurst's behavior is disruptive and seems to me to be bordering on vandalism. There is no support for his edits (just the opposite actually) on the talk page, and I don't know why he is allowed to behave this way. Damwiki1 ( talk) 17:49, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Regarding the immune zones, R&R state completely different values, that I discussed in the talk page. How can such completely different figures be reconciled? We can add them as footnotes, but putting them in the article would just be ping-ponging. I added as much of Kurfurst's language as possible to the recent editd and I am willing to work with him, except that his rigid insistance on a single source makes it very difficult. Regarding Kurfurst's behavior look at his comments above. It is most one long personal attack. This should not be permitted and you have warned him about this recently. I do my absolute best to avoid responding in kind. I'm not picking on G&D, but I would like to create an article based upon facts that can be verified via several sources. I have an extensive library related to naval history, and quite frankly G@D, made lots of mistakes in Allied Battleships that become apparent when referencing other works. Damwiki1 ( talk) 19:03, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments; I'm curious, which decisions of mine did you disagree with? If you would prefer to respond off wiki, that's OK, either way is fine. Thanks! -- Avi ( talk) 06:24, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Please check my comment at WT:DYK. Materialscientist ( talk) 06:43, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Are you available to do the DYK update at 6 pm UTC (that's five hours from now)? See WT:DYK#Next update. (Note that I'm sending this message to several admins.) Ucucha 12:47, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Please reinstate the protection on this article. It was protected because it is a constant target for the sockpuppets of User:Bambifan101. -- Collectonian ( talk · contribs) 23:57, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi Ed, I'm reviewing The Fox and the Hound (novel) for FAC, and I was just wondering why you reprotected it today. [7] There haven't been any IP edits since July 2008. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 05:18, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Ed, hope all is well. I have been doing some major revisions/edits on the USS Triton (SSRN-586) article in anticipation for an A-List review by the WikiProject Military history. I have attempted to set this process, but I am flummozed. Any help will be appreciated. I'd like to have this as a FAC for 11 May 2010, the 50th anniversary of the end of the Triton submerged circumnavigation voyage. Marcd30319 ( talk) 00:44, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Following up to your e-mail: Ed, sorry about the kerfuffle at the A-List review for the USS Triton (SSRN-586. I was actually looking forward to the review, and even TREKphiler's comments, while somewhat juvenile, were not unhelpful. However, what set me off was the indiscriminate gutting of the radar picket info in the Design History section. To understand Triton, one must understand its radar picket function. Also, TREKphiler has a tendency to pepper his edits with personal aside. An example is in Operation Sandblast with footnote 15. As a senior technical writer with over 30 years of experience, including six working at General Dynamics Electric Boat, plus a college graduate in history, I am more than willing to have my copy edited, but my preference is to do the writing myself. Perhaps if the review board can provide a laundry list of suggested edits, I can incorporate them into the article's copy. If there are any questions, then we can discuss the matter. What I am asking is that I remain the lead writer in this, and the review board can provide the editorial direction needed to upgrade the article to the A-list. If there any minor technical corrections (e.g., Triton's vs. Triton's), then by all means, please do so. I also suggest that the Triton's GA Review could address many questions, particularly as it pertains to SPS issues. Please let me know what you think about this, convey my apologies and willingness to go forward with the A-List review to TomStar81, and thank you again for your help on this matter. Marcd30319 ( talk) 18:25, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
USS Triton (SSRN-586) A-List Review Status
Hi, Ed17!
I have been busy working on the A-list review for the USS Triton article. I have addressed many of the issues that have arisen, revised the article content, and created a The Way Forward section to aid in the process. I also have several issues which I may need some guidnace. Again, thank you for your support and TomStar81 and the rest of the project, too. Marcd30319 ( talk) 01:58, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
As you seem to be active, could you check out the request I made for Pierre McGuire to be semi-protected? Thanks, Connormah ( talk | contribs) 04:14, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Hey ed17,
Tedder has assumed that because people disagree with the ridiculous way he has edited the Boss reception page, they are SPA.
I'm so keen to edit Tedder's work because he has provided neither balance (which he claims to want to achieve) nor a fair representation.
He has dedicated 151 words to criticism of the show, including six or seven quotes.
In comparison a mere 51 words have been used to quote praise for the show, with just two quotes.
That's not balanced, nor representative (reception to the show has been predominantly positive, see links).
Originally (before Tedder decided his opinion was superior to all who had previously combined to created a balanced (and admittedly positive, for reception has been positive on the whole) edit) there were quotes from 5 print papers complementing the show. Now they have been reduced to a point of near non-existence.
Criticisms are often far-flung (see New York Daily News pans it, saying "we can probably assume Waste Management won't become a workers' paradise." How is this the show's fault? Or representative of the show's reception?), or invalid (see "LA Times called it derivative (being a spinoff of FOX's Secret Millionaire)." ...Boss' producers were behind Millionaire).
I hope you can see that this 'editor' has abused his power, and is clearly biased in matters relating to Boss. I also hope you could edit, or allow someone else to edit, the page in an appropriate matter.
I would love to be contacted in order to be informed of why this is not possible, if you decree it so. I can't see how this is reasonable at all.
BlueRiver28
P.s. Being a new user, I'm unsure of how to ask a question (despite the guide). I hope you can forgive this.
Quoted below is Tedder's edit, (I've put the positive in bold, as you can see it is non-existent)
CBS's premiere of Undercover Boss on February 7, 2010, immediately following the network's coverage of Super Bowl XLIV, delivered 38.6 million viewers, meaning it had the largest audience ever for a new series following the Super Bowl since the advent of people meters in 1987, the largest audience ever to watch the premiere episode of a reality series, the most watched new series premiere overall on television since Dolly on September 27, 1987 (39.47m), and the third largest post-Super Bowl audience behind Friends Special on January 28, 1996 and Survivor: The Australian Outback on January 28, 2001.[6]
The New York Daily News praised it as "an hour of feel-good television for underappreciated workers", but pans it, saying "we can probably assume Waste Management won't become a workers' paradise... [it] also isn't spectacular TV."[7] Reviewers with the Chicago Sun-Times,[8] The Baltimore Sun,[9] and The New York Times complimented the opening episode.[10] "The show is a welcome change from reality concepts based on humiliating people," concluded The Wall Street Journal.[11]
The Washington Post wrote in a negative review, "What we get instead is a hollow catharsis for a nation already strung out on the futility of resenting those who occupy CEO suites."[12] TheStreet.com also exposed the opening episode, calling it a "public relations valentine", and showing that the editing of the show was skewed, stating "The producers of Undercover Boss (at best) failed to do their homework".[13] Entertainment Weekly panned it, calling the first episode a "CBS-organized publicity stunt" and "a recruiting tool for a worker uprising".[14] The Los Angeles Times called it derivative (being a spinoff of FOX's Secret Millionaire) and also that it was 'cooked' for TV, with the low-level workers being hand-picked.[15]
The show received mixed reviews on Metacritic,[16] it currently[when?] holds a 59 out of 100 score. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.35.19.199 ( talk) 19:16, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
I do appreciate that ed17, and I appreciate you taking the time. I agree wholeheartedly in terms of providing solely positive information, that was more of a reaction to Tedder's insistence on a 3:1 negative ratio. I apologise. While the print media have, admittedly, not been overly positive the overall reception to the show has not been negative, let alone by a ratio of 3:1! I agree that there should be a balance, but Tedder is not capable of providing that. A 1:1 ratio would be balanced, and if would be nice if the positive reaction to the show could be documented in a more thorough and wholehearted way. If the page was not semi-protected I'm sure a balance, incorporating a variety of editor's opinions, could be achieved. Those who aren't anti-Boss (like Tedder is) could provide the positive part, and substantiate it.
It's simply that currently the show is one of the most popular shows on television with an average audience of around 22.5m, and the reception section really does not portray this due to seemingly one-sided editing.
Thanks ed17.
-- BlueRiver28 ( talk) 20:08, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Appreciate the rewrite ed17. Far more balanced.
-- BlueRiver28 ( talk) 20:19, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Be aware that this does not have the fate of the vessel, such a glaring omission for a selected article blurb don't you think? I'd bet the lead of the article needs to be modified as well. - MBK 004 04:05, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I am a student and am working on an article on the Effect of World War 1 on Children in the United States for my Shaping of the Modern World history class, instructed by user: Auntieruth55. I am working on this article with user: santolinek, where our sandbox is located. We have a rough outline of our article, if you have any questions or comments please feel free to let us know!
Thank you very much! :) Donovank ( talk) 04:24, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Any help you can offer here over the next few days would be very helpful. J Milburn ( talk) 00:34, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Hey. Thanks for that. That account was created just for that edit; how sad :(
Sorry I missed your rise to adminship back in September (I've been pretty inactive for the past few months). I was actually in the US in September.
Cheers. Oliver Fury, Esq. message • contributions 22:37, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Hello Ed, How are you doing?
You said:
"I'm sorry Tony, but I spotted the problems and decided to nominate it. Could you at least comment on this point? "Second, I'm not sure this article should be an article; can anyone give me another example of an article about the citizens of a country in a war? I can't find any besides Hispanic Americans in World War II (also written by Tony); otherwise, the only ones I can find are about countries in wars, like Military history of Canada during the Second World War." Again, I'm sorry for all this, but that's the nature of FARs"
You state that you don't consider Puerto Ricans in World War II an article just because you can't find another example of an article about the citizens of a country in a war. I don't think that just because you couldn't find another example it makes it much less of an article. I guess that everyone is entitled to their own opinion and I also respect that. In my opinion the article or articles are encyclopedic, educational and instructional. The contributions which Puerto Ricans and Hispanics have made to the United States have for too long been ignored by historians, the same ones that up to recent years have ignored the contributions made by the African Americans, and have fallen into the cracks of time often to be forgotten. My work here on Hispanic history has been acclaimed by governments, universities and believe it or not the Pentagon itself. As a matter of fact this week I received an e-mail from the members of the University of Puerto Rico at Mayagüez chapter of 'Students for Free Culture' who held a meeting at the Free Culture Conference in DC stating that : "Santiago is the one who has done such incredible work on documenting the Puerto Rican people and cultural topics on Wikipedia that has been recognized by the Senate of Puerto Rico." Like I said, I respect the opinions of everyone in regard to the articles that I have written or created, but for me what really counts is the positive opinions of respected institutions outside of Wikipedia including the Government of Puerto Rico.
Take care and have a great day. Tony the Marine ( talk) 04:24, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Replied in the same place. J Milburn ( talk) 09:22, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Hello, Ed, my response is here. Marcd30319 ( talk) 20:09, 27 February 2010 (UTC)