Hi Ed, as a friendly reminder, this ACR is ready for closing (I think). Cheers, Nick-D ( talk) 22:52, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
|
Hey ed....I remember that you said that in Conway's, there was a section called "Austria-Hugary" that dealt with the ships from said nation. So...how would I go about adding that (and the author of the section) into the current citation on that article?
BTW, I can't seem to open the "Templates" button when editing articles....any ideas?
All the best,-- White Shadows Stuck in square one 21:34, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
I think I fixed it for you. :-) I'd go to South Carolina if it isn't that different – I dunno how much you realize it now (I didn't, in my senior year of HS), but money turns out to be a big factor. It kind of sucks. :P I might be going to grad school at East Carolina for their maritime studies grad program... Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:25, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
To be totally honest, I really do not know how to go about fixing this. I don't quite understand the first one, and I cannot find anything about the second.--
White Shadows
Stuck in square one 00:22, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
I just wanted to take a minute to thank you very much for supporting me in my recent RfA. Even though it was unsuccessful, I appreciate your trust. With much gratitude, jsfouche ☽☾ Talk 02:18, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
The above image used in Operation Strikeback is a candidate for speedy deletion. Marcd30319 ( talk) 12:53, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
On 12 June 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article South American dreadnought race, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the Brazilian government's order for dreadnought battleships (one pictured) led to a South American naval arms race? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Materialscientist ( talk) 00:04, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Hey, Ed, what is left to have South American dreadnought race nominated for Featured article? -- Lecen ( talk) 00:24, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Not a major surprise. As you've not commented on the discussion, perhaps you should close it instead. Strange Passerby ( talk • cont) 02:32, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Don't worry.. :). Thank you by the nice article. Leandromartinez ( talk) 07:32, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
-- Bbb23 ( talk) 00:02, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi, Ed! Could you set up the categories for these articles' Talk page? Thanks! Marcd30319 ( talk) 14:14, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
You may have noticed that I've got somebody trying to delete File:PetlyakovPe-8.jpg for lacking a source, when a source is not required under the NFUR. Can you take a look at this and see if there's anything else I need to do to stop this process?-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 20:47, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
As you are well aware, I was blocked yesterday. Once you have some time, please take a careful read on this thread. According to the other editor: "Do you accept placing the alternative forms in a footnote as a compromise? Or do you insist that they be placed in parentheses in the first line of the lead?"
When I asked if this rule was supposed to be taken by all other articles on royals, such as Franz Joseph I of Austria, Nicholas II of Russia and John II of France, he said that no, only Teresa Cristina of the Two Sicilies is supposed to follow this rule he created from his mind. In case you don't remember, he is the very same editor who gave me a huge headache on Princess Maria Amélia of Brazil that led Dank to intervene. He also went after me on another article I have just recently nominated: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Afonso, Prince Imperial of Brazil/archive1.
For some reason that I'm not aware, he is against alternative forms of names in any article about royals which I work on, but not on any other. Is that a huge coincidence?
What makes me more sad is that he and I are treated as the same by administrators, as we were both spoiled children fighting over a toy. I tried to warn them that this guy is stalking and harassing me but all I heard was: "that's not our problem". And I was even blocked!
What am I supposed to do?! -- Lecen ( talk) 17:27, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Ed, Brazilian battleship Riachuelo (1883) and Brazilian battleship Aquidabã are regarded as late ironclad ships or as pre-dreadnoughts? -- Lecen ( talk) 12:38, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
I like to make a few remarks about Teresa Cristina's article, if you don't mind. You're losing your time with the farce back there. That's one pointless discussion, since the final result has been decided regardless of any discussion. Having said that, now I'd like to tell you that it makes no sense to add "Theresa Christina" as an alternative spelling. That was never under discussion. This "Theresa Christina" as an alternative spelling that you find there is nothing more than simply her name as it was written in the 19th century and as how many historians call her. Now, what was really the problem in the article? I just wanted to add a translation (or even a possible translation) to her name from Portuguese to English. That's all. Pedro II means "Peter II" in English. Afonso means "Alphonse". Maria means "Mary". Etc, etc, etc... The names "Theresa Christina" and "Therese Christine" are just anglicized forms of her name. Please, do not confuse this English name Theresa Christina with the "Theresa Christina" (yes, it's the same spelling) used in several sources that it's as how her name was written in 19th century Portuguese. Why I wanted to add "Theresa Christina" (as I also added "Peter II" to Pedro II of Brazil)? Just so that Brazilian royals' articles could have the same standard as other articles such as Franz Joseph I of Austria and Ludwig III of Bavaria. Both have their names are in their native languages (German), but an anglicized form can be seen in parantheses at the beginning of the lead ("Francis Joseph I" and "Louis III"), as in any other article about a royal in Wikipedia. That's all I wanted to do with articles about Brazilian royals, that is, to follow the same standard. Please tell me if I'm not being able to be clear enough, because unfortunately, this is the feeling I have. -- Lecen ( talk) 13:36, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi Ed, I'll get onto it now. You'll be entertained to see that there's a blizzard warning for the Australian Capital Territory where I live! Nick-D ( talk) 08:31, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Re: this comment you made; With respect, I do not find your argument compelling. Allow me to rephrase, and treat this as if we were referring to a well intentioned new editor who doesn't see that something is obviously vandalism by our standards "the vandalism was in the article for months. A few more days could have kept a valuable contributor on Wikipedia". I make no distinction between new editors, admins, or arbcom members. I look at the facts of the case, and unless someone is not in good standing treat all as the same. Facts:
You say we shouldn't template the regulars. Yet, the templates are there to clearly communicate with agreed upon wording what the issue at hand is. So, we're not supposed to give them agreed upon wording because they're experienced and because it's somehow hostile, while it's ok to template newcomers because they're not experienced and it's ok to be hostile to them? If experience counts for anything here, it's that Dapi89 (who has previously been blocked for edit warring) knew well what the consequences of edit warring were. It wasn't a spat with a single editor, it wasn't a content dispute, it was his willful ignorance of NFCC policy, edit warring policy, and dispute resolution policy. Treating this situation in the way that it was is entirely routine and normal. A person engaging in edit warring while knowingly breaching policy will get blocked. That anybody involved in this is somehow responsible for his departure is improper. It was his choice to depart Wikipedia over something he knew well was improper on his part. I don't want to lose him from this project. He's done a lot of good work. But, if he feels it necessary to leave because he got upset over his willful ignorance and willingness to edit war, then so be it. I thank him for his contributions, and wish him well in future endeavors. -- Hammersoft ( talk) 14:25, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Re: this comment. To expand, if Dapi wants to leave the project over something as minor as this altercation, that's his business. I don't feel any culpability in this, nor should Δ or Beetstra. If someone self immolates themselves because you brought them up short on a blatant violation of our policies, that doesn't mean we should change our policies or refuse to tell people they're in violation and when they continue to violate it block them. There's a reason we have the block button. There's a reason we have the {{ unblock}} template too. He could very easily have made such a request acknowledging he was edit warring, assuring he would not do it again and would honor NFCC policy, and it would have been reviewed and most likely he would have been unblocked within a few hours if not minutes. I'm not terribly concerned that he's decided to get even angrier over this and decided to leave. If someone is that easy to agitate over something so blatant, ...well, such actions speak for themselves. -- Hammersoft ( talk) 22:49, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Would it be ok to leave what is already there in Military history of the Russian Empire intact, and refer to third and fourth sources for the remainder of the article? Looking back over what I've read so far, mostly it is the details that are different. Res Mar 18:54, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
from John Eight Thirty-two ( talk) 15:56, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Hello
Usually I just translate from en.wiki to pl.wiki articles from Category:United States Navy ship names but today I was doing some fixes in en.wiki. And I have problems with couple articles:
Two entries (USS and USS) Belet, Kirwin, Rednour, Ruchamkin, Tollberg, Yokes
Two entries (USS and non USS): Baton Rouge (disambiguation), Bering Strait (disambiguation), Coos Bay (disambiguation), Cook Inlet (disambiguation), Rockaway, Unimak, Yakutat
In my opinion (I translate more than 1000 such articles from en to pl.wiki) that first group for sure should be moved to seperate articles USS XXX. Also second part (even if that second name is not USS) was usually moved to USS XXX (I have seen many such articles).
Can you do that? My english is not so good when I am trying to write, so I don`t want make articles with errors. PMG ( talk) 07:46, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
PMG ( talk) 10:59, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
The Military history A-Class medal with oak leaves | ||
For your outstanding work on on Minas Geraes-class battleship, Brazilian battleship São Paulo and South American dreadnought race, all of which were promoted to A-class between January and June 2011. On behalf of the coordinators, EyeSerene talk 07:24, 29 June 2011 (UTC) |
Thank you very much, Ed, for closing Talk:September 11 attacks#Arthur Rubin reverts good faith edits. Would you edit your closure from "Clear consensus for option one" to "Clear consensus for [[#Moving on to a general consensus|option one]]"? Because the discussion is long, a link to the subsection where the proposal was made will make it easier to understand your closure when the page is archived. Also, would you quote option 1 in the close?
On an unrelated note, would you close any of the discussions at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Wikipedia talk:Notability (video games)#Proposal 2 and Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (icons)? Perhaps Wikipedia talk:Notability (video games)#Proposal 2 and/or Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Page mover if you don't want to do too much reading? If you don't have the time or inclination, then no worries. Thank you for your work. Cunard ( talk) 09:26, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
The NFC debate was recently archived by ClueBot III ( talk · contribs), which modified the AN link. Despite its being in the archives, it can still be closed. I would move it back to Wikipedia talk:Non-free content in wait for a proper closure, but Wikipedia talk:Non-free content is long enough as it is. I agree with your recusals from the Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (icons) RfCs since you have a strong opinion about those issues.
Thank you for pledging to look at the other two discussions later. :) Best, Cunard ( talk) 02:00, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi Ed, as a friendly reminder, this ACR is ready for closing (I think). Cheers, Nick-D ( talk) 22:52, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
|
Hey ed....I remember that you said that in Conway's, there was a section called "Austria-Hugary" that dealt with the ships from said nation. So...how would I go about adding that (and the author of the section) into the current citation on that article?
BTW, I can't seem to open the "Templates" button when editing articles....any ideas?
All the best,-- White Shadows Stuck in square one 21:34, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
I think I fixed it for you. :-) I'd go to South Carolina if it isn't that different – I dunno how much you realize it now (I didn't, in my senior year of HS), but money turns out to be a big factor. It kind of sucks. :P I might be going to grad school at East Carolina for their maritime studies grad program... Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:25, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
To be totally honest, I really do not know how to go about fixing this. I don't quite understand the first one, and I cannot find anything about the second.--
White Shadows
Stuck in square one 00:22, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
I just wanted to take a minute to thank you very much for supporting me in my recent RfA. Even though it was unsuccessful, I appreciate your trust. With much gratitude, jsfouche ☽☾ Talk 02:18, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
The above image used in Operation Strikeback is a candidate for speedy deletion. Marcd30319 ( talk) 12:53, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
On 12 June 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article South American dreadnought race, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the Brazilian government's order for dreadnought battleships (one pictured) led to a South American naval arms race? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Materialscientist ( talk) 00:04, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Hey, Ed, what is left to have South American dreadnought race nominated for Featured article? -- Lecen ( talk) 00:24, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Not a major surprise. As you've not commented on the discussion, perhaps you should close it instead. Strange Passerby ( talk • cont) 02:32, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Don't worry.. :). Thank you by the nice article. Leandromartinez ( talk) 07:32, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
-- Bbb23 ( talk) 00:02, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi, Ed! Could you set up the categories for these articles' Talk page? Thanks! Marcd30319 ( talk) 14:14, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
You may have noticed that I've got somebody trying to delete File:PetlyakovPe-8.jpg for lacking a source, when a source is not required under the NFUR. Can you take a look at this and see if there's anything else I need to do to stop this process?-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 20:47, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
As you are well aware, I was blocked yesterday. Once you have some time, please take a careful read on this thread. According to the other editor: "Do you accept placing the alternative forms in a footnote as a compromise? Or do you insist that they be placed in parentheses in the first line of the lead?"
When I asked if this rule was supposed to be taken by all other articles on royals, such as Franz Joseph I of Austria, Nicholas II of Russia and John II of France, he said that no, only Teresa Cristina of the Two Sicilies is supposed to follow this rule he created from his mind. In case you don't remember, he is the very same editor who gave me a huge headache on Princess Maria Amélia of Brazil that led Dank to intervene. He also went after me on another article I have just recently nominated: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Afonso, Prince Imperial of Brazil/archive1.
For some reason that I'm not aware, he is against alternative forms of names in any article about royals which I work on, but not on any other. Is that a huge coincidence?
What makes me more sad is that he and I are treated as the same by administrators, as we were both spoiled children fighting over a toy. I tried to warn them that this guy is stalking and harassing me but all I heard was: "that's not our problem". And I was even blocked!
What am I supposed to do?! -- Lecen ( talk) 17:27, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Ed, Brazilian battleship Riachuelo (1883) and Brazilian battleship Aquidabã are regarded as late ironclad ships or as pre-dreadnoughts? -- Lecen ( talk) 12:38, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
I like to make a few remarks about Teresa Cristina's article, if you don't mind. You're losing your time with the farce back there. That's one pointless discussion, since the final result has been decided regardless of any discussion. Having said that, now I'd like to tell you that it makes no sense to add "Theresa Christina" as an alternative spelling. That was never under discussion. This "Theresa Christina" as an alternative spelling that you find there is nothing more than simply her name as it was written in the 19th century and as how many historians call her. Now, what was really the problem in the article? I just wanted to add a translation (or even a possible translation) to her name from Portuguese to English. That's all. Pedro II means "Peter II" in English. Afonso means "Alphonse". Maria means "Mary". Etc, etc, etc... The names "Theresa Christina" and "Therese Christine" are just anglicized forms of her name. Please, do not confuse this English name Theresa Christina with the "Theresa Christina" (yes, it's the same spelling) used in several sources that it's as how her name was written in 19th century Portuguese. Why I wanted to add "Theresa Christina" (as I also added "Peter II" to Pedro II of Brazil)? Just so that Brazilian royals' articles could have the same standard as other articles such as Franz Joseph I of Austria and Ludwig III of Bavaria. Both have their names are in their native languages (German), but an anglicized form can be seen in parantheses at the beginning of the lead ("Francis Joseph I" and "Louis III"), as in any other article about a royal in Wikipedia. That's all I wanted to do with articles about Brazilian royals, that is, to follow the same standard. Please tell me if I'm not being able to be clear enough, because unfortunately, this is the feeling I have. -- Lecen ( talk) 13:36, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi Ed, I'll get onto it now. You'll be entertained to see that there's a blizzard warning for the Australian Capital Territory where I live! Nick-D ( talk) 08:31, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Re: this comment you made; With respect, I do not find your argument compelling. Allow me to rephrase, and treat this as if we were referring to a well intentioned new editor who doesn't see that something is obviously vandalism by our standards "the vandalism was in the article for months. A few more days could have kept a valuable contributor on Wikipedia". I make no distinction between new editors, admins, or arbcom members. I look at the facts of the case, and unless someone is not in good standing treat all as the same. Facts:
You say we shouldn't template the regulars. Yet, the templates are there to clearly communicate with agreed upon wording what the issue at hand is. So, we're not supposed to give them agreed upon wording because they're experienced and because it's somehow hostile, while it's ok to template newcomers because they're not experienced and it's ok to be hostile to them? If experience counts for anything here, it's that Dapi89 (who has previously been blocked for edit warring) knew well what the consequences of edit warring were. It wasn't a spat with a single editor, it wasn't a content dispute, it was his willful ignorance of NFCC policy, edit warring policy, and dispute resolution policy. Treating this situation in the way that it was is entirely routine and normal. A person engaging in edit warring while knowingly breaching policy will get blocked. That anybody involved in this is somehow responsible for his departure is improper. It was his choice to depart Wikipedia over something he knew well was improper on his part. I don't want to lose him from this project. He's done a lot of good work. But, if he feels it necessary to leave because he got upset over his willful ignorance and willingness to edit war, then so be it. I thank him for his contributions, and wish him well in future endeavors. -- Hammersoft ( talk) 14:25, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Re: this comment. To expand, if Dapi wants to leave the project over something as minor as this altercation, that's his business. I don't feel any culpability in this, nor should Δ or Beetstra. If someone self immolates themselves because you brought them up short on a blatant violation of our policies, that doesn't mean we should change our policies or refuse to tell people they're in violation and when they continue to violate it block them. There's a reason we have the block button. There's a reason we have the {{ unblock}} template too. He could very easily have made such a request acknowledging he was edit warring, assuring he would not do it again and would honor NFCC policy, and it would have been reviewed and most likely he would have been unblocked within a few hours if not minutes. I'm not terribly concerned that he's decided to get even angrier over this and decided to leave. If someone is that easy to agitate over something so blatant, ...well, such actions speak for themselves. -- Hammersoft ( talk) 22:49, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Would it be ok to leave what is already there in Military history of the Russian Empire intact, and refer to third and fourth sources for the remainder of the article? Looking back over what I've read so far, mostly it is the details that are different. Res Mar 18:54, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
from John Eight Thirty-two ( talk) 15:56, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Hello
Usually I just translate from en.wiki to pl.wiki articles from Category:United States Navy ship names but today I was doing some fixes in en.wiki. And I have problems with couple articles:
Two entries (USS and USS) Belet, Kirwin, Rednour, Ruchamkin, Tollberg, Yokes
Two entries (USS and non USS): Baton Rouge (disambiguation), Bering Strait (disambiguation), Coos Bay (disambiguation), Cook Inlet (disambiguation), Rockaway, Unimak, Yakutat
In my opinion (I translate more than 1000 such articles from en to pl.wiki) that first group for sure should be moved to seperate articles USS XXX. Also second part (even if that second name is not USS) was usually moved to USS XXX (I have seen many such articles).
Can you do that? My english is not so good when I am trying to write, so I don`t want make articles with errors. PMG ( talk) 07:46, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
PMG ( talk) 10:59, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
The Military history A-Class medal with oak leaves | ||
For your outstanding work on on Minas Geraes-class battleship, Brazilian battleship São Paulo and South American dreadnought race, all of which were promoted to A-class between January and June 2011. On behalf of the coordinators, EyeSerene talk 07:24, 29 June 2011 (UTC) |
Thank you very much, Ed, for closing Talk:September 11 attacks#Arthur Rubin reverts good faith edits. Would you edit your closure from "Clear consensus for option one" to "Clear consensus for [[#Moving on to a general consensus|option one]]"? Because the discussion is long, a link to the subsection where the proposal was made will make it easier to understand your closure when the page is archived. Also, would you quote option 1 in the close?
On an unrelated note, would you close any of the discussions at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Wikipedia talk:Notability (video games)#Proposal 2 and Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (icons)? Perhaps Wikipedia talk:Notability (video games)#Proposal 2 and/or Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Page mover if you don't want to do too much reading? If you don't have the time or inclination, then no worries. Thank you for your work. Cunard ( talk) 09:26, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
The NFC debate was recently archived by ClueBot III ( talk · contribs), which modified the AN link. Despite its being in the archives, it can still be closed. I would move it back to Wikipedia talk:Non-free content in wait for a proper closure, but Wikipedia talk:Non-free content is long enough as it is. I agree with your recusals from the Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (icons) RfCs since you have a strong opinion about those issues.
Thank you for pledging to look at the other two discussions later. :) Best, Cunard ( talk) 02:00, 30 June 2011 (UTC)