Ok, I've signed up everyone as of now, revealed the pool and sent around welcome messages. (See this, in case it's helpful. At the very least, it has a pre-typed welcome message!) I think it's pretty much ready to go. As I say, doing this now, as I am busy this evening. Happy new year! J Milburn ( talk) 17:49, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
What I would have preferred to say over there was a comparison to the Wicked Witch of the West sending out her winged monkeys. Fly my pretties... fly! cackle cackle Brad ( talk) 05:03, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
For checking. I've cleared it now; I let a GA with minimal work this year slide (no names), and gave someone a note about slapdash GACs, in addition to a few removals ( GACs not closed and things from last year, for instance). Same sort of stuff as last year. J Milburn ( talk) 14:01, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm fine with all of the revisions you suggested. These were just temporary anyway; I'm not an expert at things like this and I'm glad to get some feedback. My major concern is improving and recognizing the quality of articles, and I felt that this might be a way to go about it. DCI talk 17:07, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
|
Don't worry, Ed. I haven't forgot about the favor you asked me. I returned today to Brasília. Tomorrow I'll start working on the article. I won't let you down. Thanks for everything. -- Lecen ( talk) 00:44, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Note that I disabled logging because I wasn't sure if it was going to be used; would you like me to reenable it? - Jarry1250 Deliberation needed 23:07, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Hey Ed, I left you some more comments in the manly section. Best, Drmies ( talk) 05:28, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Buggie111 ( talk) 17:01, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
"Consensus to move"? What? How did you figure there was consensus. There was no consensus! For crying out loud! Walrasiad ( talk) 02:33, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
My apologies for personalizing. But you intervened in the middle of a repeated debate at the height of its discussion that was already getting hot. I guess I was taken more than surprised and taken aback, particularly as I had been subjected to personal attack and just asked for all to take a breather and refocus. On the matter at hand, the prior title was in line with WP:COMMONNAME and WP:SOVEREIGN, but more importantly, there certainly was NOT a consensus for a change. And I had understood that until consensus is reached, pages aren't to be changed. That was the case for the prior request for change, the discussion just above that, involving more people than this one. Walrasiad ( talk) 03:33, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Looks like Walrasiad's move-warring on other João ## articles. Now to look at the history for the attack... Alarbus ( talk) 03:34, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
@Theed17: Once more, I'd like to apologize for my emotional reaction in the heat of the shock yesterday and the discourtesy by which I addressed you in this talk page. But I hope you will realize from this discussion, and the dissatisfaction expressed in the current talk page by people more polite than myself, that closing the RM and moving away from the long-standing stable name was perhaps premature. I'd like to appeal one last time for reconsideration. Walrasiad ( talk) 17:29, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Argh. I didn't hear from you, so I opened an ANI to re-open the RM discussion. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Premature RM closure of John VI of Portugal. I would be happy to compose an RfC, but it would perhaps be sensible to first restore it to the stable, long-standing state it was in before the move, before eliciting new comments. Walrasiad ( talk) 20:49, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar | |
For your work on making sure the articles on the king of Portugal are true to their names A Minha Pátria é a Língua Portuguesa! ( talk) 03:08, 7 January 2012 (UTC) |
Hi Ed, Good Sumaritan ( talk · contribs) who you blocked is asking to be unblocked on the grounds that the block is invalid. Could you please explain the block to them on their talk page? (I have to say that it's not all that obvious to me as the reason for the block is only WP:DUCK). I presume that this guy is someone's sockpuppet? - most likely TouchPoints ( talk · contribs)? Cheers, Nick-D ( talk) 05:17, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Grapple X ( submissions) has claimed the above GA review. What do you think concerning the length? It seems borderline. I'd be inclined to say that this one is just under, while his other is just over. (To any TPSs, I'm not meaning to criticise the review itself, which may or may not be perfectly appropriate.) J Milburn ( talk) 16:01, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
How closely have you been following the debacle at WT:FAC? I've asked Sven about it, but I'm pretty sure it's an off week for him, he may be busy, and I am not reading that wall of text. Res Mar 04:36, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Dear Ed,
I know this plea may be unorthodox, and you might find it a tad surprising.
This RM firestorm is going off the rails at the ANI. Recently CristianoThomas submitted a request to have me "punished" or something. And Lecen has jumped in with aggressively trying to drag several editors down. This has already generated a lot of bad blood, and is in the danger of escalating and could end up in widespread blocks on good people all around.
The ANI is still open. I don't think any other admin wants to touch this mess with a ten-foot pole. There is only one way I can see to defuse the sitation: fix the mistake yourself. Admit it was premature, restore the original page, and open an RfC.
By your taking responsibility for this, it would take the burden off an another admin of having to sort through this mess.
Doing so, we go back to the status quo, where an RfC can be initiated with wider participation. Not doing so, this mess continues, editors will continue attempting to tear each other down, personal accusations and attacks fly, petty trans-cultural insults fly, insinuations of motives, canvassing, demands for investigations, trolling through people's talk pages, etc. And throughout your judgment as admin will be repeatedly gone over and questioned.
I know Lecen is a friend of yours, whereas I, on the contrary, am probably not your favorite person right now - not only for having protested impolitely on your talk page, but also for publicly questioning your judgment at the ANI. And I have probably not earned any brownie points right now for asking this so bluntly of you.
But I appeal to you as an editor to an admin. I have no personal beef with you, or Lecen, or anyone. I have no agenda, I am not political player, I am not a Wiki superstar, nor a champion in any national or cultural war. I am not, as Lecen has insinuated, part of some great Anglo-Saxon conspiracy of cultural hostility.
I have tried my best to keep personality out of this. In all the years I have edited Wikipedia, I have never once revealed my name, nationality, office or credentials, as I believe they have no bearing on discussions. I can get testy, that is true, but I try not to get personal, or contemplate about people's biases or backgrounds. But now it is getting increasingly difficult to avoid, given ChristianoThomas & Lecen's descent into personal attacks, shoving nationality cards and accusing me (& others) of personal bias and xenophobia. An editor should not be put in a position where he has to reveal personal details to defend himself in a debate.
I am simply an editor, who normally works quietly on obscure historical topics - 14th C. nautical cartography, 16th C. Portuguese maritime history, Medieval trade routes, that kind of stuff. I disrupt none, but I am occasionally roused when someone disrupts stuff I am working on. Because the nature of my topics frequently involves cross-cultural spheres, I have worked with many editors of different backgrounds and different views and I think I have a good idea of how to strike a cross-cultural balance on Wikipedia. It is, of course, not free of headaches: on occasion, a blustering nationalist for one side or the other will show up and attempt to disrupt long-standing, carefully-balanced articles in the name of his national glory, and when challenged, descends into throwing around paranoid accusations of xenophobia. I have been accused of xenophobia by all sides from all sides - most recently of being a Moroccan xenophobe by a Spanish nationalist and a Wolof xenophobe by a Serer nationalist (that was interesting!) This is par for the course for me. And part of the reason I have been careful not to divulge my background (makes it too easy for them to try to make it about my personal bias, and not about argument.)
This John VI fiasco has played out according to script. A new editor decides to disrupt a long-standing, balanced article in name of national glory, a change which has wide ramifications and will disrupt other articles. I rouse to challenge it, and the whole things descends into cultural-baiting, personal attacks and accusations of xenophobia. What else is new?
What is new is that an admin indulged it. I knew this would result in massive disruption and a mud-slinging firestorm, which is why I panicked and hit the roof when you closed prematurely. One again, I apologize at the tone of my initial protestations. But as you witnessed, disruption across wiki pages began immediately and the heat hasn't come down. This is an lamentable situation, an unstable situation, and it is not going to go away quietly, but only likely to escalate.
So pardon me if I put my request boldly and badly: you must correct the situation. You made a judgment error on consensus to move.
Now, I understand it was well-intentioned, that you read the arguments, and so on. And you may think Lecen's numbers were compelling, and since you know Lecen and seem to trust his judgment on other matters, you may have given him the benefit of the doubt in this case. But Lecen's numbers were misleading (as you can see in the Numbers section on the talk page). And, if I may be a little brusque, it was not your job to interpret arguments anyway. This is not your area of expertise, nor really your function here. Your job was to interpret whether a consensus had been reached or not. You say 6-3, but that is not customarily enough for "consensus" in any RM I've seen. Nor is your arithmetic quite accurate - by my count, it was 6-5, with three additional indeterminate opinions, two of which can be construed against. And the vigor and activity of the opposition, the very heat of the debate on the very day, should have held your finger.
There was no consensus. You made a mistake. And if you didn't quite realize that then, then surely you realize that now? And that means, that according WP: Consensus, "no consensus" has a policy implication: it must be moved back to the long-standing, stable page.
You made a judgment call. Errare humanum est. There is no shame in that. We all make mistakes. No one will hold that against you. What they will hold against you is if you refuse to admit error and/or refuse to fix it. No one expects admins to be right all the time, but an admin who dodges responsibility for correcting his error, and shoves the mess upon other admins to resolve, is another story.
There is no need to wait for someone else to deal with it, no reason to allow that festering, pungent wound to remain exposed at ANI, while things escalate, and acrimony and antagonisms rise further and interaction between editors descends deeper into the mud. Resolve it now, resolve it yourself, resolve it according to policy. As you said before, "it is what they pay you for".
I apologize ahead of time if my tone appears too blunt. Again, I know I am probably persona non grata here. But please be clear that I don't come here to justify myself, or question or judge you. I just think things have come to a point where, for sake of peace, for the sake of restoring civility, and for the sake of policy, this needs to be rectified as soon as possible. You have the power to do so promptly, and I urge you to take on that responsibility and not wait for someone else to do so.
Thank you for your time. I know its not an easy job to be an admin, and probably thankless (most of the time). Seeing what you have to go through, I am not envious. Walrasiad ( talk) 07:56, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
I don't think an RfC should be undertaken before the move is reverted. It is common for uncertain commentators not to want to change things. They should understand what the long-standing stable name has been, and the burden of proof should be on the proponents of the move.
As for the RM, here's my count, from when you closed the RM:
For:
Against:
Now I count 7-6 (6-6 if you exclude the proposer, 6-5 if you exclude the IP).
Then there were a few indeterminate commets:
This is consensus for a move?
And a quick scan of talk pages, it seems like 5, 6 & 7 are close collaborators with 3. Lecen in the FAC. Including yourself, of course. And 6, & 7 came in on the last day. Like you did, of course.
GoodDay (who is against) came in after you closed it.
Tell me how you are deducing consensus here, because I am really not seeing it.
As for the AMI, it seems admin Dicklyon and SandyGeorgia, neither of which had participated in the talk page discussion, agreed the close was premature and/or wrong to close.
I'm not seeing what you're seeing. Walrasiad ( talk) 10:56, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Ed 17, on the advice of PBS, I am letting the ANI run its course, rather than comment there again. I have read your new replies at the ANI, and I believe they were sincere and would like to thank you for clearing it up. I am reasonably satisfied that your intent was honest.
I feel I also owe you a more personal apology about putting you through this. The pattern of Lecen's aggressive tactics over this led me to assume the worst about the situation. The discovery of his frequent presence on your talk page and what seemed like overly intimate contact, and your replies here to my protests which seemed to me rather like a brush-off, reinforced the impression of something more sinister afoot. As mentioned, I was heistant to post those allegations. I wanted to wait for the ANI to run further along, and at least wait for your reaction and reply to PBS's analysis, and that of any other neutral admin that might have a comment. And had these developed reasonably, these allegations would have never seen the light of day. But Lecen's efforts to get me blocked and derail the ANI forced my hand prematurely.
This has been an exhausting and nightmarish experience for me, as I am sure no picnic for you either. As I mentioned to PBS, I have been here for a few years, and have seen my share of contention, but nothing quite as brutish as this. And it pains me to realize that I have contributed to it, that I too have been brutish, specifically to you. And for that, I would like to extend my apologies. I saw what appeared to me like gangland tactics and bullying intimidation and was determined not to stand for it.
I still firmly believe you made a mistake, and I still believe the RM should be reopened. If it is at all helpful to your decision, or that of any other admin, I have posted what I believe is a more sober and careful account of the case for common usage in the talk page. But otherwise I will stand back and wait for the result of the ANI.
Once again, I'd like to apologize for any distress I doubtlessly have caused you. Walrasiad ( talk) 22:47, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Ed, I submitted a statement of satisfaction at the ANI. The text is:
Satisfaction and Apology I was advised to stay from the ANI, but I would like to come on the record here to thank The ed 17 for his replies to what certainly the most distressing allegations and thank him for clearing them up. I would like to record unambiguously that, for my part, I believe Ed's answers are sincere, and that I am reasonably satisfied there was no dishonest intent in the closure of the RM. Given the proximity to one of the participants, it would have probably been wiser to recuse himself to avoid the appearance of impropriety, but I believe now there was no actual impropriety and that appearances, however unfortunate, were coincidental, and that I jumped too quickly to conclusions. I would also like to extend my personal apologies to Ed for the hastiness by which I submitted these allegations, not giving this ANI time to evolve, which might have allayed my suspicions and forestalled this ordeal. And furthermore, and especially, to apologize to Ed for the unsavory strength of some of my speculations about motive, which I now retract, and if they are repeated beyond this forum, I will personally take it upon myself to repudiate. However, let me also reiterate my continued belief that the closure and move was in error, but I am satisfied that there was at least no dishonesty behind it.
If you would like me to repeat this statement and/or repudiate any of my allegations in any other forum (e.g. FA?), I would be happy to do so upon request. Walrasiad ( talk) 06:21, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
A Pasty for you! | |
From one Yooper to another, here's hoping that your 2012 is going well in real life if it isn't on-wiki as well. Imzadi 1979 → 09:10, 9 January 2012 (UTC) |
Hi Ed, just a note that I'd prefer to be contacted if there is to be a major change in a write-up that's already been set as finished, as your new version is quite a change from what I had written. I'm not saying it's worse, far from it... only as I implied in the newsroom, you may not be quite detached from the issue. Crisco 1492 ( talk) 10:30, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
I feel there is an extremely important point in SG's resignation statement that goes far beyond anything to do with Featured Articles and has a global impact. It does not appear to have been mentioned in the Signpost draft that I have seen. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 01:01, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Hey Ed, I got bored and started an article on Chilean battleship Capitán Prat. Given your area of expertise, I thought you might be able to lend a hand, particularly with regards to the service history. Think we can beat it into shape for GA? Parsecboy ( talk) 01:21, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Since you're are the administrator in charge of the situation, I had to come show you this piece of conversation I had yesterday with Walrasiad:
The ed17, the original conversation here. As you can see, I tried to reason with him and that's what I got. Now you know why no other editor is taking part on the discussion. Is this kind of behavior allowed? -- Lecen ( talk) 10:56, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Another attempt to get me blocked? Hm. Maybe it is about time I start collecting documentation on the outsized volume of personal attacks and attempts to manipulate administrators to block users in this debate. Walrasiad ( talk) 18:22, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
These I take it: Personal attacks on User:GoodDay at User talk:Jimbo Wales talk page:
Walrasiad ( talk) 03:01, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps not. But this "offer" was an attempt to bribe me into non-participation by offering to partition ( Wikipedia:Ownership of articles). While I found that unsurprising, what truly got my goat was his manipulation of a novice editor (an underage minor) to deliver the threat of continued move-warring ( Wikipedia:Page move war) if the offer was not accepted.
The toxicity in this discussion is, in my reading, very unbalanced primarily by one factor: Lecen's tactics against other editors, which have been relentlessly trying to focus on the personal. He made one brief argument (numbers) in the RM talk discussion, and since then it has all been personal attacks, insinuations of personal bias, accusations of xenophoboa, and blocking attempts. His aggressive tactics (conjoined with Alarbus's dismissive vulgarities) have been having a very chilling effect on this debate, attempting to silence or hound editors who oppose his view away, and keeping new editors from entering, which hardly seems conducive to a sober discussion and resolution.
e.g. some examples of hostility & chilling effect, from the talk page at John VI of Portugal, in the course of the RM::
This is just a couple of examples. Lots more of this personal attacks & xenophobia accusations can be found elswhere (as you well know). Which is very pot-kettle, consider only:
User:Alarbus's dismissive vulgarities about other people's posts are also easy to collect:
As evidence of their chilling effect on outside participation, I present the following comment by User:Kansas Bear on my talk page (who had not participated in the discussion, and whom I have never interacted with before):
Lots more of where that came from. And I have not even touched on the blocking attempt stunts yet.
I am not trying to present the case to block Lecen & Alarbus here, but just a brief illustration of the chilling factor I want to emphasize here, that their focus on the personal is driving out participants from the discussion.
Now, I have been no angel either - I know that and you know that. But I don't think I have made personal attacks (well, except against you....), or made people's backgrounds or nationality a factor. I deplore Lecen's tactics, which I believe are thuggish, but I have nothing against the man himself. Moreover, I believe I have made repeated attempts to return to the matter at hand, to focus on the item of discussion, to engage the topic and present the case in sober language, apologized and backtracked when I stepped over the line and felt I wasn't being productive. But witnessing Lecen's aggressive tactics to drive people away and silence opposition with personal attacks, accusations of xenophobia and other stunts, is bullying, silencing discussion and scaring away editor participation and a sane resolution.
Throughout, I have felt a strong sense of responsibility towards fellow editors, indeed to all editors of Wikipedia, to not allow such tactics to go unchallenged. Lecen knows I am the only person here upon whom accusations of cultural hostility & xenophobia can't stick (but lord how he has tried!), whereas others of different nationality & editing backgrounds are more vulnerable and more easily scared away. That is why I have been the principal target of Lecen's blocking attempts and (when those failed to scare me) bribery.
So I'd like to make a proposition, which I hope will be considered seriously: re-open the discussion. I don't particularly care in what forum or format. But I am willing to step back. I am willing to volunteer myself to be blocked from that discussion for its duration, on the condition that Lecen and Alarbus are also blocked. That way, there is no chilling effect, no fear of personal attack, personal accusations and stunts. All other editors can participate, without fear of personal attack.
(If possible, I would like it if it was engineered not as a complete block, as I would like to continue working on some other Wiki articles, but only a block on that discussion. Maybe, I can agree to a deal to vow not to participate, and agree to be subjected to an "instant block", without question, the moment an admin finds I participated in it or have tried to influence editors participating in it. This would hold for a set period of time, in which the discussion is opened. And that a similar deal be extended to Lecen & Alarbus.)
I know this is unorthodox, and if you find it hard to justify, I believe I have gathered enough evidence on both Lecen and Alarbus on their excessive resort to personal attacks and the chilling effect they have had on this debate, which I could present formally in another ANI and go through that process. But I would rather avoid opening another ugly public laundry list, and more acrimony and ordeal, and offer this proposition instead to avoid all the unpleasantness.
To summarize: open a new discussion, invite everyone to participate, except myself, Lecen and Alarbus (our existing comments can stand, and be considered, and we can read, but we cannot make any new comment or interventions for the duration of the discussion, on threat of instant block).
I believe this can go a long way to resolving this matter. If you approve, I (or you?) can formally propose it at the ANI.
Let me know what you think. Walrasiad ( talk) 22:55, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
The Admin's Barnstar | |
For this much needed closure. Mark Arsten ( talk) 18:15, 11 January 2012 (UTC) |
Your comment in the section Talk:João VI of Portugal#Requested move does not make it clear if you think that this new RM is out of order or sanctioned by you. Which is it? -- PBS ( talk) 21:16, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
I've been adding bits to your original Type N3-S ship that was based on HyperWar listing of the N3-S group. This is a relatively obscure type with all the N3-S-A1 type built for the British as requested with a coal fired plant to take advantage of their domestically available coal. More of the A2 oil fired ships were built and in U.S. use, but they were still obscure and not particularly popular. The most prominent Wikipedia reference, and that is a little backwater, is to the N3-M-A1 diesel "Bowes Coaster" type built only at Penn-Jersey with a very different profile as well as power plant. The major reason they show is the fact they appeared, almost exclusively for construction, in Navy listings (DANFS particularly) because the MC and Navy agreed to turn all Penn-Jersey MC contracts over for Navy administration during completion of the contracts. For that reason they appear in the effectively singleton Enceladus class. Note the categories of the N3-S vessels of both variants have zero pages and probably only a handful could be notable enough to warrant even a paragraph or two. If you have a chance to look, what do you think of changing the page to just the Type N3 ship (Always leave off the MC or Maritime Commission before type?) to cover all three types in one page? I doubt it will ever grow much considering the general obscurity of these vessels and it seems to make sense to cover the lot in one fairly brief page.
The whole lot could use reorganization to fit reality rather than the current almost exclusively Navy/DANFS centric look. Considering the swirling mess renames and such seem to bring to this place, as with João/John above, it may not be worth it. Palmeira ( talk) 18:12, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
It has been reasonably civilized thus far, but it began to fray at the edges this afternoon once User:Paulista01 questioned other editors right to comment [13], and quickly got personal. Evidence of disruptive and chilling impact: umbrage taken by other editors at Paulista01's comments (& mini-edit-war)
(mini-edit war: User:Prodego's first attempt to contain disruption [18], Paulista01's restores comment that launched disruption [19], Prodego reverts [20], Paulista01 reverts [21], User:PeterSymonds reverses [22].
User:Lecen thus far:
I'm not launching the ANI yet, just making you aware of attempts to cook up a hostile atmosphere and drive away other participants. If you can, persuade Lecen to rectify the tone of that last comment. Walrasiad ( talk) 23:40, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- Dank ( push to talk) 23:43, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
No, it is the IP address of the library where I usually edit Wikipedia. I have had a couple incidents of other people using my account while I had stepped away from my computer for a few minutes. Just some absent-mindedness. Wild Wolf ( talk) 13:50, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi mate, the Contest results are done and I'm just finishing off the December Article News for inclusion in this issue (actually we have to ensure the January issue uses the December Article News page, February uses January, etc, to get in sync -- will look at that shortly). I'll also do the Awards handed out in December. Do you want to look at From the Editors? That can include a reminder about Military Historian of the Year, noms having opened and voting due to start on the 21st. Not sure we have an Op-Ed though, and need to check if HcHc has his book review ready yet (we at least have one from Nick)... Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 22:01, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
On 16 January 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Chilean battleship Capitán Prat, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that in 1898, the United States Navy attempted to purchase a battleship from Chile for use against Spain? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Chilean battleship Capitán Prat.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. |
— HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:05, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
By using Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Members instead of User:The ed17/sandbox3 as your input list at User:EdwardsBot/Spam, you hit a bunch of allegedly inactive members (maybe 650 or so?). I'm not sure if this was intentional or not, but it means that—with e-mail notifications now enabled by default for talk page editing—you might wake some people up. I guess that's more of a feature than a bug... -- MZMcBride ( talk) 00:06, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Nominations for the " Military Historian of the Year" for 2011 are now open. If you would like to nominate an editor for this award, please do so here. Voting will open on 22 January and run for seven days. Thanks! On behalf of the coordinators, Nick-D ( talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:39, 16 January 2012 (UTC) You were sent this message because you are a listed as a member of the Military history WikiProject.
Hello, The ed17. Regarding the comment you made on my talk page... What is so questionable about nominating an article that was already deleted A10 previously? Furthermore, I encourage you to investigate all of the articles User:Harvey Milligan has created a little more in depth before making negative assumptions about others.
Also be sure and note that on on his talk page he has been asked previously to stop duplicating articles. User:mjroots offers him assistance in referencing articles, however he obviously just blatantly ignores them and goes on creating further articles without bothering to ever provide any references. Thanks. Stubble boy
Hello, ed17. I found this article that may be of interest to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history. The article is regarding the visit of Hubert von Rebeur-Paschwitz to Sao Paulo in 1914, he took a German squadron to Santos and received a military reception from the government of Sao Paulo. In the magazine there are many photos, all in the public domain, the magazine is from the on-line database of the Sao Paulo State Archives. Regards, Paulista01 ( talk) 20:28, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
See you on the other side. Call your congressman and Senator. Cam ( Chat)( Prof) 02:43, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
Poke. Res Mar 03:29, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
Hey Ed, since you know boats (I'm on a boat! Take a long hard look at the MF boat!), perhaps you can add a little to SS Sirio, and/or correct some of the formatting thingies that are specific to ships (it would take me hours to figure out). BTW, it's eminent DYK material if some more sources are dug up. Yes, it was prompted by an article about the Costa Concordia disaster, and I was surprised to see no coverage at all in WP: not the ship, not the captain, not even the islands where it ran aground. Thanks in advance! Drmies ( talk) 16:08, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
<3
–
GorillaWarfare
(talk) 15:26, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Finding no appropriate award in English wiki, I resorted to pinching one from the Italian:
– for patiently steering the Wiki ship through troubled and contested waters of heated controversy, for keeping you head while others were losing theirs, for the patient suffering and injuries endured through unmerited cannonades, and for bringing the ship safely to harbor.
Once again, I'd like to extend my apologies and regret for any distress I may have caused you in this affair, and thank you for all you have done. Walrasiad ( talk) 18:21, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Hey, sorry for being a little unresponsive. I should have known it would be harder to get the images uploaded than I originally imagined, especially since I've been househunting and moving this week. I'm going to see if I can get it going this weekend.
In the meantime, I thought you might appreciate this: [27]. :-) Dominic· t 02:22, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
... spoil the cookie! Your concerns about cookie metaphors may be justified, especially as I have always been a fan of the cookie as a vehicle for metaphorical expression. But I will try to spare the cookie, not spoil the chide; after all, a cookie in hand is worth two in crumbs. Geometry guy 21:56, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
I've answered the questions here; please let me know if you'd like comments on anything else. Kirill [talk] [prof] 05:50, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Hello, Ed17! Hope all is well. You might want review and comment about the above. Marcd30319 ( talk) 00:05, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Ed
[talk]
[majestic titan] 00:47, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
This isn't a fitting reply from an admin to a disparaging post from a reviewer who is running amok at FAR: I'm disappointed that you let the attack stand, and more that you responded as you did. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 04:26, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Your responses are unconvincing. I see two sexist attacks, a long-term editor who turned in her bits, and you defending your MilHist buddy while turning a blind eye to blatant attacks. You're free to continue trying to convince me otherwise, but I won't be reading. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 16:10, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the tweaks! – GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:57, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
The WikiChevrons | ||
Congratulations for being nominated as one of the military historians of the year for 2011 in recognition of your excellent work on articles on battleships and putting a huge effort into the project's newsletter and many administrative tasks. I am pleased to award you the WikiChevrons in recognition of this achievement. For the Coordinators, Nick-D ( talk) 03:28, 29 January 2012 (UTC) |
Just so you're aware, please see this note. I've made a good few other calls about content which was claimed but not eligible, but this one is perhaps a little more controversial than the others. If you feel I have overstepped, please revert me. (While I'm here, there was also this discussion, which led to a small clarification of the rules. I don't think anything else was problematic, other than a small case of some editors moderating each others' submissions pages, but they hopefully won't be doing that again. I'll add a note about that to the newsletter (want to add anything?), which will go out in just over 24 hours.) J Milburn ( talk) 22:39, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Ok, I've signed up everyone as of now, revealed the pool and sent around welcome messages. (See this, in case it's helpful. At the very least, it has a pre-typed welcome message!) I think it's pretty much ready to go. As I say, doing this now, as I am busy this evening. Happy new year! J Milburn ( talk) 17:49, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
What I would have preferred to say over there was a comparison to the Wicked Witch of the West sending out her winged monkeys. Fly my pretties... fly! cackle cackle Brad ( talk) 05:03, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
For checking. I've cleared it now; I let a GA with minimal work this year slide (no names), and gave someone a note about slapdash GACs, in addition to a few removals ( GACs not closed and things from last year, for instance). Same sort of stuff as last year. J Milburn ( talk) 14:01, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm fine with all of the revisions you suggested. These were just temporary anyway; I'm not an expert at things like this and I'm glad to get some feedback. My major concern is improving and recognizing the quality of articles, and I felt that this might be a way to go about it. DCI talk 17:07, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
|
Don't worry, Ed. I haven't forgot about the favor you asked me. I returned today to Brasília. Tomorrow I'll start working on the article. I won't let you down. Thanks for everything. -- Lecen ( talk) 00:44, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Note that I disabled logging because I wasn't sure if it was going to be used; would you like me to reenable it? - Jarry1250 Deliberation needed 23:07, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Hey Ed, I left you some more comments in the manly section. Best, Drmies ( talk) 05:28, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Buggie111 ( talk) 17:01, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
"Consensus to move"? What? How did you figure there was consensus. There was no consensus! For crying out loud! Walrasiad ( talk) 02:33, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
My apologies for personalizing. But you intervened in the middle of a repeated debate at the height of its discussion that was already getting hot. I guess I was taken more than surprised and taken aback, particularly as I had been subjected to personal attack and just asked for all to take a breather and refocus. On the matter at hand, the prior title was in line with WP:COMMONNAME and WP:SOVEREIGN, but more importantly, there certainly was NOT a consensus for a change. And I had understood that until consensus is reached, pages aren't to be changed. That was the case for the prior request for change, the discussion just above that, involving more people than this one. Walrasiad ( talk) 03:33, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Looks like Walrasiad's move-warring on other João ## articles. Now to look at the history for the attack... Alarbus ( talk) 03:34, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
@Theed17: Once more, I'd like to apologize for my emotional reaction in the heat of the shock yesterday and the discourtesy by which I addressed you in this talk page. But I hope you will realize from this discussion, and the dissatisfaction expressed in the current talk page by people more polite than myself, that closing the RM and moving away from the long-standing stable name was perhaps premature. I'd like to appeal one last time for reconsideration. Walrasiad ( talk) 17:29, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Argh. I didn't hear from you, so I opened an ANI to re-open the RM discussion. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Premature RM closure of John VI of Portugal. I would be happy to compose an RfC, but it would perhaps be sensible to first restore it to the stable, long-standing state it was in before the move, before eliciting new comments. Walrasiad ( talk) 20:49, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar | |
For your work on making sure the articles on the king of Portugal are true to their names A Minha Pátria é a Língua Portuguesa! ( talk) 03:08, 7 January 2012 (UTC) |
Hi Ed, Good Sumaritan ( talk · contribs) who you blocked is asking to be unblocked on the grounds that the block is invalid. Could you please explain the block to them on their talk page? (I have to say that it's not all that obvious to me as the reason for the block is only WP:DUCK). I presume that this guy is someone's sockpuppet? - most likely TouchPoints ( talk · contribs)? Cheers, Nick-D ( talk) 05:17, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Grapple X ( submissions) has claimed the above GA review. What do you think concerning the length? It seems borderline. I'd be inclined to say that this one is just under, while his other is just over. (To any TPSs, I'm not meaning to criticise the review itself, which may or may not be perfectly appropriate.) J Milburn ( talk) 16:01, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
How closely have you been following the debacle at WT:FAC? I've asked Sven about it, but I'm pretty sure it's an off week for him, he may be busy, and I am not reading that wall of text. Res Mar 04:36, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Dear Ed,
I know this plea may be unorthodox, and you might find it a tad surprising.
This RM firestorm is going off the rails at the ANI. Recently CristianoThomas submitted a request to have me "punished" or something. And Lecen has jumped in with aggressively trying to drag several editors down. This has already generated a lot of bad blood, and is in the danger of escalating and could end up in widespread blocks on good people all around.
The ANI is still open. I don't think any other admin wants to touch this mess with a ten-foot pole. There is only one way I can see to defuse the sitation: fix the mistake yourself. Admit it was premature, restore the original page, and open an RfC.
By your taking responsibility for this, it would take the burden off an another admin of having to sort through this mess.
Doing so, we go back to the status quo, where an RfC can be initiated with wider participation. Not doing so, this mess continues, editors will continue attempting to tear each other down, personal accusations and attacks fly, petty trans-cultural insults fly, insinuations of motives, canvassing, demands for investigations, trolling through people's talk pages, etc. And throughout your judgment as admin will be repeatedly gone over and questioned.
I know Lecen is a friend of yours, whereas I, on the contrary, am probably not your favorite person right now - not only for having protested impolitely on your talk page, but also for publicly questioning your judgment at the ANI. And I have probably not earned any brownie points right now for asking this so bluntly of you.
But I appeal to you as an editor to an admin. I have no personal beef with you, or Lecen, or anyone. I have no agenda, I am not political player, I am not a Wiki superstar, nor a champion in any national or cultural war. I am not, as Lecen has insinuated, part of some great Anglo-Saxon conspiracy of cultural hostility.
I have tried my best to keep personality out of this. In all the years I have edited Wikipedia, I have never once revealed my name, nationality, office or credentials, as I believe they have no bearing on discussions. I can get testy, that is true, but I try not to get personal, or contemplate about people's biases or backgrounds. But now it is getting increasingly difficult to avoid, given ChristianoThomas & Lecen's descent into personal attacks, shoving nationality cards and accusing me (& others) of personal bias and xenophobia. An editor should not be put in a position where he has to reveal personal details to defend himself in a debate.
I am simply an editor, who normally works quietly on obscure historical topics - 14th C. nautical cartography, 16th C. Portuguese maritime history, Medieval trade routes, that kind of stuff. I disrupt none, but I am occasionally roused when someone disrupts stuff I am working on. Because the nature of my topics frequently involves cross-cultural spheres, I have worked with many editors of different backgrounds and different views and I think I have a good idea of how to strike a cross-cultural balance on Wikipedia. It is, of course, not free of headaches: on occasion, a blustering nationalist for one side or the other will show up and attempt to disrupt long-standing, carefully-balanced articles in the name of his national glory, and when challenged, descends into throwing around paranoid accusations of xenophobia. I have been accused of xenophobia by all sides from all sides - most recently of being a Moroccan xenophobe by a Spanish nationalist and a Wolof xenophobe by a Serer nationalist (that was interesting!) This is par for the course for me. And part of the reason I have been careful not to divulge my background (makes it too easy for them to try to make it about my personal bias, and not about argument.)
This John VI fiasco has played out according to script. A new editor decides to disrupt a long-standing, balanced article in name of national glory, a change which has wide ramifications and will disrupt other articles. I rouse to challenge it, and the whole things descends into cultural-baiting, personal attacks and accusations of xenophobia. What else is new?
What is new is that an admin indulged it. I knew this would result in massive disruption and a mud-slinging firestorm, which is why I panicked and hit the roof when you closed prematurely. One again, I apologize at the tone of my initial protestations. But as you witnessed, disruption across wiki pages began immediately and the heat hasn't come down. This is an lamentable situation, an unstable situation, and it is not going to go away quietly, but only likely to escalate.
So pardon me if I put my request boldly and badly: you must correct the situation. You made a judgment error on consensus to move.
Now, I understand it was well-intentioned, that you read the arguments, and so on. And you may think Lecen's numbers were compelling, and since you know Lecen and seem to trust his judgment on other matters, you may have given him the benefit of the doubt in this case. But Lecen's numbers were misleading (as you can see in the Numbers section on the talk page). And, if I may be a little brusque, it was not your job to interpret arguments anyway. This is not your area of expertise, nor really your function here. Your job was to interpret whether a consensus had been reached or not. You say 6-3, but that is not customarily enough for "consensus" in any RM I've seen. Nor is your arithmetic quite accurate - by my count, it was 6-5, with three additional indeterminate opinions, two of which can be construed against. And the vigor and activity of the opposition, the very heat of the debate on the very day, should have held your finger.
There was no consensus. You made a mistake. And if you didn't quite realize that then, then surely you realize that now? And that means, that according WP: Consensus, "no consensus" has a policy implication: it must be moved back to the long-standing, stable page.
You made a judgment call. Errare humanum est. There is no shame in that. We all make mistakes. No one will hold that against you. What they will hold against you is if you refuse to admit error and/or refuse to fix it. No one expects admins to be right all the time, but an admin who dodges responsibility for correcting his error, and shoves the mess upon other admins to resolve, is another story.
There is no need to wait for someone else to deal with it, no reason to allow that festering, pungent wound to remain exposed at ANI, while things escalate, and acrimony and antagonisms rise further and interaction between editors descends deeper into the mud. Resolve it now, resolve it yourself, resolve it according to policy. As you said before, "it is what they pay you for".
I apologize ahead of time if my tone appears too blunt. Again, I know I am probably persona non grata here. But please be clear that I don't come here to justify myself, or question or judge you. I just think things have come to a point where, for sake of peace, for the sake of restoring civility, and for the sake of policy, this needs to be rectified as soon as possible. You have the power to do so promptly, and I urge you to take on that responsibility and not wait for someone else to do so.
Thank you for your time. I know its not an easy job to be an admin, and probably thankless (most of the time). Seeing what you have to go through, I am not envious. Walrasiad ( talk) 07:56, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
I don't think an RfC should be undertaken before the move is reverted. It is common for uncertain commentators not to want to change things. They should understand what the long-standing stable name has been, and the burden of proof should be on the proponents of the move.
As for the RM, here's my count, from when you closed the RM:
For:
Against:
Now I count 7-6 (6-6 if you exclude the proposer, 6-5 if you exclude the IP).
Then there were a few indeterminate commets:
This is consensus for a move?
And a quick scan of talk pages, it seems like 5, 6 & 7 are close collaborators with 3. Lecen in the FAC. Including yourself, of course. And 6, & 7 came in on the last day. Like you did, of course.
GoodDay (who is against) came in after you closed it.
Tell me how you are deducing consensus here, because I am really not seeing it.
As for the AMI, it seems admin Dicklyon and SandyGeorgia, neither of which had participated in the talk page discussion, agreed the close was premature and/or wrong to close.
I'm not seeing what you're seeing. Walrasiad ( talk) 10:56, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Ed 17, on the advice of PBS, I am letting the ANI run its course, rather than comment there again. I have read your new replies at the ANI, and I believe they were sincere and would like to thank you for clearing it up. I am reasonably satisfied that your intent was honest.
I feel I also owe you a more personal apology about putting you through this. The pattern of Lecen's aggressive tactics over this led me to assume the worst about the situation. The discovery of his frequent presence on your talk page and what seemed like overly intimate contact, and your replies here to my protests which seemed to me rather like a brush-off, reinforced the impression of something more sinister afoot. As mentioned, I was heistant to post those allegations. I wanted to wait for the ANI to run further along, and at least wait for your reaction and reply to PBS's analysis, and that of any other neutral admin that might have a comment. And had these developed reasonably, these allegations would have never seen the light of day. But Lecen's efforts to get me blocked and derail the ANI forced my hand prematurely.
This has been an exhausting and nightmarish experience for me, as I am sure no picnic for you either. As I mentioned to PBS, I have been here for a few years, and have seen my share of contention, but nothing quite as brutish as this. And it pains me to realize that I have contributed to it, that I too have been brutish, specifically to you. And for that, I would like to extend my apologies. I saw what appeared to me like gangland tactics and bullying intimidation and was determined not to stand for it.
I still firmly believe you made a mistake, and I still believe the RM should be reopened. If it is at all helpful to your decision, or that of any other admin, I have posted what I believe is a more sober and careful account of the case for common usage in the talk page. But otherwise I will stand back and wait for the result of the ANI.
Once again, I'd like to apologize for any distress I doubtlessly have caused you. Walrasiad ( talk) 22:47, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Ed, I submitted a statement of satisfaction at the ANI. The text is:
Satisfaction and Apology I was advised to stay from the ANI, but I would like to come on the record here to thank The ed 17 for his replies to what certainly the most distressing allegations and thank him for clearing them up. I would like to record unambiguously that, for my part, I believe Ed's answers are sincere, and that I am reasonably satisfied there was no dishonest intent in the closure of the RM. Given the proximity to one of the participants, it would have probably been wiser to recuse himself to avoid the appearance of impropriety, but I believe now there was no actual impropriety and that appearances, however unfortunate, were coincidental, and that I jumped too quickly to conclusions. I would also like to extend my personal apologies to Ed for the hastiness by which I submitted these allegations, not giving this ANI time to evolve, which might have allayed my suspicions and forestalled this ordeal. And furthermore, and especially, to apologize to Ed for the unsavory strength of some of my speculations about motive, which I now retract, and if they are repeated beyond this forum, I will personally take it upon myself to repudiate. However, let me also reiterate my continued belief that the closure and move was in error, but I am satisfied that there was at least no dishonesty behind it.
If you would like me to repeat this statement and/or repudiate any of my allegations in any other forum (e.g. FA?), I would be happy to do so upon request. Walrasiad ( talk) 06:21, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
A Pasty for you! | |
From one Yooper to another, here's hoping that your 2012 is going well in real life if it isn't on-wiki as well. Imzadi 1979 → 09:10, 9 January 2012 (UTC) |
Hi Ed, just a note that I'd prefer to be contacted if there is to be a major change in a write-up that's already been set as finished, as your new version is quite a change from what I had written. I'm not saying it's worse, far from it... only as I implied in the newsroom, you may not be quite detached from the issue. Crisco 1492 ( talk) 10:30, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
I feel there is an extremely important point in SG's resignation statement that goes far beyond anything to do with Featured Articles and has a global impact. It does not appear to have been mentioned in the Signpost draft that I have seen. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 01:01, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Hey Ed, I got bored and started an article on Chilean battleship Capitán Prat. Given your area of expertise, I thought you might be able to lend a hand, particularly with regards to the service history. Think we can beat it into shape for GA? Parsecboy ( talk) 01:21, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Since you're are the administrator in charge of the situation, I had to come show you this piece of conversation I had yesterday with Walrasiad:
The ed17, the original conversation here. As you can see, I tried to reason with him and that's what I got. Now you know why no other editor is taking part on the discussion. Is this kind of behavior allowed? -- Lecen ( talk) 10:56, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Another attempt to get me blocked? Hm. Maybe it is about time I start collecting documentation on the outsized volume of personal attacks and attempts to manipulate administrators to block users in this debate. Walrasiad ( talk) 18:22, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
These I take it: Personal attacks on User:GoodDay at User talk:Jimbo Wales talk page:
Walrasiad ( talk) 03:01, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps not. But this "offer" was an attempt to bribe me into non-participation by offering to partition ( Wikipedia:Ownership of articles). While I found that unsurprising, what truly got my goat was his manipulation of a novice editor (an underage minor) to deliver the threat of continued move-warring ( Wikipedia:Page move war) if the offer was not accepted.
The toxicity in this discussion is, in my reading, very unbalanced primarily by one factor: Lecen's tactics against other editors, which have been relentlessly trying to focus on the personal. He made one brief argument (numbers) in the RM talk discussion, and since then it has all been personal attacks, insinuations of personal bias, accusations of xenophoboa, and blocking attempts. His aggressive tactics (conjoined with Alarbus's dismissive vulgarities) have been having a very chilling effect on this debate, attempting to silence or hound editors who oppose his view away, and keeping new editors from entering, which hardly seems conducive to a sober discussion and resolution.
e.g. some examples of hostility & chilling effect, from the talk page at John VI of Portugal, in the course of the RM::
This is just a couple of examples. Lots more of this personal attacks & xenophobia accusations can be found elswhere (as you well know). Which is very pot-kettle, consider only:
User:Alarbus's dismissive vulgarities about other people's posts are also easy to collect:
As evidence of their chilling effect on outside participation, I present the following comment by User:Kansas Bear on my talk page (who had not participated in the discussion, and whom I have never interacted with before):
Lots more of where that came from. And I have not even touched on the blocking attempt stunts yet.
I am not trying to present the case to block Lecen & Alarbus here, but just a brief illustration of the chilling factor I want to emphasize here, that their focus on the personal is driving out participants from the discussion.
Now, I have been no angel either - I know that and you know that. But I don't think I have made personal attacks (well, except against you....), or made people's backgrounds or nationality a factor. I deplore Lecen's tactics, which I believe are thuggish, but I have nothing against the man himself. Moreover, I believe I have made repeated attempts to return to the matter at hand, to focus on the item of discussion, to engage the topic and present the case in sober language, apologized and backtracked when I stepped over the line and felt I wasn't being productive. But witnessing Lecen's aggressive tactics to drive people away and silence opposition with personal attacks, accusations of xenophobia and other stunts, is bullying, silencing discussion and scaring away editor participation and a sane resolution.
Throughout, I have felt a strong sense of responsibility towards fellow editors, indeed to all editors of Wikipedia, to not allow such tactics to go unchallenged. Lecen knows I am the only person here upon whom accusations of cultural hostility & xenophobia can't stick (but lord how he has tried!), whereas others of different nationality & editing backgrounds are more vulnerable and more easily scared away. That is why I have been the principal target of Lecen's blocking attempts and (when those failed to scare me) bribery.
So I'd like to make a proposition, which I hope will be considered seriously: re-open the discussion. I don't particularly care in what forum or format. But I am willing to step back. I am willing to volunteer myself to be blocked from that discussion for its duration, on the condition that Lecen and Alarbus are also blocked. That way, there is no chilling effect, no fear of personal attack, personal accusations and stunts. All other editors can participate, without fear of personal attack.
(If possible, I would like it if it was engineered not as a complete block, as I would like to continue working on some other Wiki articles, but only a block on that discussion. Maybe, I can agree to a deal to vow not to participate, and agree to be subjected to an "instant block", without question, the moment an admin finds I participated in it or have tried to influence editors participating in it. This would hold for a set period of time, in which the discussion is opened. And that a similar deal be extended to Lecen & Alarbus.)
I know this is unorthodox, and if you find it hard to justify, I believe I have gathered enough evidence on both Lecen and Alarbus on their excessive resort to personal attacks and the chilling effect they have had on this debate, which I could present formally in another ANI and go through that process. But I would rather avoid opening another ugly public laundry list, and more acrimony and ordeal, and offer this proposition instead to avoid all the unpleasantness.
To summarize: open a new discussion, invite everyone to participate, except myself, Lecen and Alarbus (our existing comments can stand, and be considered, and we can read, but we cannot make any new comment or interventions for the duration of the discussion, on threat of instant block).
I believe this can go a long way to resolving this matter. If you approve, I (or you?) can formally propose it at the ANI.
Let me know what you think. Walrasiad ( talk) 22:55, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
The Admin's Barnstar | |
For this much needed closure. Mark Arsten ( talk) 18:15, 11 January 2012 (UTC) |
Your comment in the section Talk:João VI of Portugal#Requested move does not make it clear if you think that this new RM is out of order or sanctioned by you. Which is it? -- PBS ( talk) 21:16, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
I've been adding bits to your original Type N3-S ship that was based on HyperWar listing of the N3-S group. This is a relatively obscure type with all the N3-S-A1 type built for the British as requested with a coal fired plant to take advantage of their domestically available coal. More of the A2 oil fired ships were built and in U.S. use, but they were still obscure and not particularly popular. The most prominent Wikipedia reference, and that is a little backwater, is to the N3-M-A1 diesel "Bowes Coaster" type built only at Penn-Jersey with a very different profile as well as power plant. The major reason they show is the fact they appeared, almost exclusively for construction, in Navy listings (DANFS particularly) because the MC and Navy agreed to turn all Penn-Jersey MC contracts over for Navy administration during completion of the contracts. For that reason they appear in the effectively singleton Enceladus class. Note the categories of the N3-S vessels of both variants have zero pages and probably only a handful could be notable enough to warrant even a paragraph or two. If you have a chance to look, what do you think of changing the page to just the Type N3 ship (Always leave off the MC or Maritime Commission before type?) to cover all three types in one page? I doubt it will ever grow much considering the general obscurity of these vessels and it seems to make sense to cover the lot in one fairly brief page.
The whole lot could use reorganization to fit reality rather than the current almost exclusively Navy/DANFS centric look. Considering the swirling mess renames and such seem to bring to this place, as with João/John above, it may not be worth it. Palmeira ( talk) 18:12, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
It has been reasonably civilized thus far, but it began to fray at the edges this afternoon once User:Paulista01 questioned other editors right to comment [13], and quickly got personal. Evidence of disruptive and chilling impact: umbrage taken by other editors at Paulista01's comments (& mini-edit-war)
(mini-edit war: User:Prodego's first attempt to contain disruption [18], Paulista01's restores comment that launched disruption [19], Prodego reverts [20], Paulista01 reverts [21], User:PeterSymonds reverses [22].
User:Lecen thus far:
I'm not launching the ANI yet, just making you aware of attempts to cook up a hostile atmosphere and drive away other participants. If you can, persuade Lecen to rectify the tone of that last comment. Walrasiad ( talk) 23:40, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- Dank ( push to talk) 23:43, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
No, it is the IP address of the library where I usually edit Wikipedia. I have had a couple incidents of other people using my account while I had stepped away from my computer for a few minutes. Just some absent-mindedness. Wild Wolf ( talk) 13:50, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi mate, the Contest results are done and I'm just finishing off the December Article News for inclusion in this issue (actually we have to ensure the January issue uses the December Article News page, February uses January, etc, to get in sync -- will look at that shortly). I'll also do the Awards handed out in December. Do you want to look at From the Editors? That can include a reminder about Military Historian of the Year, noms having opened and voting due to start on the 21st. Not sure we have an Op-Ed though, and need to check if HcHc has his book review ready yet (we at least have one from Nick)... Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 22:01, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
On 16 January 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Chilean battleship Capitán Prat, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that in 1898, the United States Navy attempted to purchase a battleship from Chile for use against Spain? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Chilean battleship Capitán Prat.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. |
— HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:05, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
By using Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Members instead of User:The ed17/sandbox3 as your input list at User:EdwardsBot/Spam, you hit a bunch of allegedly inactive members (maybe 650 or so?). I'm not sure if this was intentional or not, but it means that—with e-mail notifications now enabled by default for talk page editing—you might wake some people up. I guess that's more of a feature than a bug... -- MZMcBride ( talk) 00:06, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Nominations for the " Military Historian of the Year" for 2011 are now open. If you would like to nominate an editor for this award, please do so here. Voting will open on 22 January and run for seven days. Thanks! On behalf of the coordinators, Nick-D ( talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:39, 16 January 2012 (UTC) You were sent this message because you are a listed as a member of the Military history WikiProject.
Hello, The ed17. Regarding the comment you made on my talk page... What is so questionable about nominating an article that was already deleted A10 previously? Furthermore, I encourage you to investigate all of the articles User:Harvey Milligan has created a little more in depth before making negative assumptions about others.
Also be sure and note that on on his talk page he has been asked previously to stop duplicating articles. User:mjroots offers him assistance in referencing articles, however he obviously just blatantly ignores them and goes on creating further articles without bothering to ever provide any references. Thanks. Stubble boy
Hello, ed17. I found this article that may be of interest to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history. The article is regarding the visit of Hubert von Rebeur-Paschwitz to Sao Paulo in 1914, he took a German squadron to Santos and received a military reception from the government of Sao Paulo. In the magazine there are many photos, all in the public domain, the magazine is from the on-line database of the Sao Paulo State Archives. Regards, Paulista01 ( talk) 20:28, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
See you on the other side. Call your congressman and Senator. Cam ( Chat)( Prof) 02:43, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
Poke. Res Mar 03:29, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
Hey Ed, since you know boats (I'm on a boat! Take a long hard look at the MF boat!), perhaps you can add a little to SS Sirio, and/or correct some of the formatting thingies that are specific to ships (it would take me hours to figure out). BTW, it's eminent DYK material if some more sources are dug up. Yes, it was prompted by an article about the Costa Concordia disaster, and I was surprised to see no coverage at all in WP: not the ship, not the captain, not even the islands where it ran aground. Thanks in advance! Drmies ( talk) 16:08, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
<3
–
GorillaWarfare
(talk) 15:26, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Finding no appropriate award in English wiki, I resorted to pinching one from the Italian:
– for patiently steering the Wiki ship through troubled and contested waters of heated controversy, for keeping you head while others were losing theirs, for the patient suffering and injuries endured through unmerited cannonades, and for bringing the ship safely to harbor.
Once again, I'd like to extend my apologies and regret for any distress I may have caused you in this affair, and thank you for all you have done. Walrasiad ( talk) 18:21, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Hey, sorry for being a little unresponsive. I should have known it would be harder to get the images uploaded than I originally imagined, especially since I've been househunting and moving this week. I'm going to see if I can get it going this weekend.
In the meantime, I thought you might appreciate this: [27]. :-) Dominic· t 02:22, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
... spoil the cookie! Your concerns about cookie metaphors may be justified, especially as I have always been a fan of the cookie as a vehicle for metaphorical expression. But I will try to spare the cookie, not spoil the chide; after all, a cookie in hand is worth two in crumbs. Geometry guy 21:56, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
I've answered the questions here; please let me know if you'd like comments on anything else. Kirill [talk] [prof] 05:50, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Hello, Ed17! Hope all is well. You might want review and comment about the above. Marcd30319 ( talk) 00:05, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Ed
[talk]
[majestic titan] 00:47, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
This isn't a fitting reply from an admin to a disparaging post from a reviewer who is running amok at FAR: I'm disappointed that you let the attack stand, and more that you responded as you did. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 04:26, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Your responses are unconvincing. I see two sexist attacks, a long-term editor who turned in her bits, and you defending your MilHist buddy while turning a blind eye to blatant attacks. You're free to continue trying to convince me otherwise, but I won't be reading. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 16:10, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the tweaks! – GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:57, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
The WikiChevrons | ||
Congratulations for being nominated as one of the military historians of the year for 2011 in recognition of your excellent work on articles on battleships and putting a huge effort into the project's newsletter and many administrative tasks. I am pleased to award you the WikiChevrons in recognition of this achievement. For the Coordinators, Nick-D ( talk) 03:28, 29 January 2012 (UTC) |
Just so you're aware, please see this note. I've made a good few other calls about content which was claimed but not eligible, but this one is perhaps a little more controversial than the others. If you feel I have overstepped, please revert me. (While I'm here, there was also this discussion, which led to a small clarification of the rules. I don't think anything else was problematic, other than a small case of some editors moderating each others' submissions pages, but they hopefully won't be doing that again. I'll add a note about that to the newsletter (want to add anything?), which will go out in just over 24 hours.) J Milburn ( talk) 22:39, 30 January 2012 (UTC)