User talk:The ed17

User Talk OMT Articles E-mail

The Bugle: Issue LXIII, May 2011

Your Military History Newsletter Project News: From the editors – Contest results, A-class medal recipients Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Editorial: Hawkeye's thoughts on the article writing process

To begin or stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 23:37, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello, The ed17. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Triple_Crown/Nominations#The_ed17.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

SMS Zrinyi

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)

Hey WS, Chicago does it like this. See Morgan, "Revolt of the Lash". If you have more than one chapter to cit, see all of the Conway's citations. If you use {{cite book}}, I believe you would use |chapter=Austria-Hungary, with |last=Sieche |first=Erwin and |editor1-last=Gardiner |editor1-first=Robert |editor2-last=Gray |editor2-first=Randal. That should produce Sieche, Erwin (1984). "Austria-Hungary". In Gardiner, Robert; Gray, Randal (eds.). Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships: 1906–1921. Annapolis: Naval Institute Press.

I'll note that in proper style guides (e.g. MLA, Chicago, APA), the editor names should not be last, first... you see why I don't use the templates anymore. ;-) Regards, Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 04:14, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Hey, sorry for the delay in responding. Thanks a lot Ed! When I get the chance, I'll try that. BTW, you make a good point about not using the templates. Perhaps we should bring this up somewhere? To try to change the way the Templates are structured?--White Shadows ^{Stuck in square one} 23:58, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Hey, no big deal and anytime! I left a note at Template talk:Cite book, but I don't use them because they don't produce a real citation style... it's a mashup of APA with a couple other things. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 00:27, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Alright. Anyway, I'll probably give you a ping again when I'm done, just to see if I did it correctly. (I also need to go through the other A-H BBs and fix them up to, before Buggie or I nominate another one for an ACR)--White Shadows ^{Stuck in square one} 00:35, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh! One more thing, I guess it would be best to switch over to the proper style guide when nominating the article at FAC? Or would they let it slide considering that it's not standard in the templates?--White Shadows ^{Stuck in square one} 00:38, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Haha, WS, it's fine to use the templates! They are fully accepted at FAC. I just choose to use Chicago because I'm a history major. You're allowed to use whatever style you want so long as it is consistent. :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 01:00, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Really? I'm going to major in History in College when I enter next year. I inserted what you showed me in the citation but it came out rather odd...where did I go wrong? (Sorry for all the questions, I'm feel like a new editor here!)--White Shadows ^{Stuck in square one} 01:02, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Eh, I don't mind the questions! Link me to the article and I'll take a look after work... I have a 9pm to close shift tonight (=about four hours, which isn't worth it, but at least it's an atypical shift!) Where are you planning on attending college? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 01:23, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Here you go. Thanks again. As for college...I'm still not sure. I want to attend UVA (I live in Virgina) but my father (my parents divorced when I was about 1) currently works as a Business Professor (Technically Marketing) at South Carolina so I may very well end up going there, considering that we get a rather decent discount. However, for my PhD, I want to attend UCLA (I have an aunt and cousins who live in LA so it's not that big of a deal) as they have one of the best History Programs in the nation among public colleges.--White Shadows ^{Stuck in square one} 01:28, 13 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)

You do make a point. I will likely go there for my Bachelor's degree. Anyway, in other news, thanks for fixing the citation. I found this edit especially funny! Now all that's left if I'm not mistaken (which I usually am), is fixing the issue regarding citations and footnotes. The first footnote, while correct, is technically original research. There is no source that I know of that states that while Zrinyi was launched after HMS Dreadnought, she is still a pre-Dreadnought battleship. Is it acceptable to remove the citation altogether? By reading the article, one would know that Zrinyi is a PD and that she was launched in 1910...--White Shadows ^{Stuck in square one} 19:05, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Aside from the first footnote, these are the last two outstanding issues:

• This is not clear: Zrínyi was powered by two-shaft four-cylinder vertical triple expansion engines rated at 19,800 indicated horsepower and a top speed of 20.5 knots (38.0 km/h; 23.6 mph). The engine(s) drove the propeller shafts, right? Or did they have shafts of their own? The engines don't have a top speed. They gave the ship a top speed so you need to add a verb.
• How many boilers of what type? You need to provide this to support the infobox, with appropriate links.

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)

Re footnote, it's your choice but I think I did the same thing here (note N9). The engines powered propellers that could drive the ship through the water at a maximum of 20.5 knots (38.0 km/h; 23.6 mph). That's a little thing I picked up over time. :-) In Minas Geraes-class battleship, I used the sentence "Eighteen boilers provided power to the engines, which in turn rotated the two three-bladed propellers with 23,500 shaft horsepower." Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:38, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 June 2011

• Board elections: Time to vote

• News and notes: Board resolution on controversial content; WMF Summer of Research; indigenous workshop; brief news

• In the news: 60% of doctors use Wikipedia; growing in India; brief news

• Recent research: Various metrics of quality and trust; leadership; nerd stereotypes

• WikiProject report: Make your own book with Wikiproject Wikipedia-Books

• Featured content: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: Two cases pending resolution; temporary desysop; dashes/hyphens update

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:32, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

My RfA

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)

You are very welcome – good luck in any future attempts. I'm sure you'll pass then. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 04:14, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

File:NATO Operation Deep Water 1957.jpg

The above image used in Operation Strikeback is a candidate for speedy deletion.Marcd30319 (talk) 12:53, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Never mind, Ed17. The photo has been deleted without even the courtesy of discussion. Talk about speedy! Marcd30319 (talk) 13:27, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Marc, hope you're still doing well! Speedy deletions are for uncontroversial calls and are assumed to not need discussion. In this case, the image wasn't necessarily in the public domain – as the nominator put it: "Stars and Stripes is only partially funded by the DoD - their website says "Stories and photos by Stars and Stripes staffers are copyrighted, and may not be reprinted or used without permission."" He appears to be correct in this assessment, although not under G12 but F9. Apologies! Do you know of/can you find any other images that would have been taken by a federal government employee? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 04:14, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

DYK for South American dreadnought race

Materialscientist (talk) 00:04, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Congrats on yet another DYK entry. Shame you couldn't get it in a day sooner—June 11 is Navy Day in Brazil, you know ;) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 03:56, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks muchly. I suppose I could have asked for the 11th, but it's too late now. :-) Regarding [1], would you like to fix the translation at Tenente revolts then? I'm pretty sure that's where I copied it from... Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 04:13, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Sure. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 17:47, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:45, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

South American dreadnought race

Hey, Ed, what is left to have South American dreadnought race nominated for Featured article? --Lecen (talk) 00:24, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Lecen! I hope you're still well, and I'm glad to see you back. Right now the article is going through a Milhist A-class review, and I will probably nominate it at FAC soon after it passes (assuming it does). What are you working on? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 01:45, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Got tired of those royals' articles and now I'm trying to come back by writing about Brazil's greatest soldier: Luís Alves de Lima e Silva, Duke of Caxias. I don't have good quality books about that dreadnought race, but only a few magazine articles, as you know. However, I'm going after a decent photo of the Baron of Rio Branco that may be added to the article. --Lecen (talk) 01:50, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

That one is looking good so far – nice work! I don't have any good books for you either, although I can tell you that the companion volume to Latin America's Wars was pretty good, so the 1791–1899 volume might help you a bit. If you find any more journal articles, feel free to send them my way. ;-) Do you have Jstor? I found a couple good journal articles that may interest you. Good luck with the photo, and thanks! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 02:04, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes! Please, send them to me! --Lecen (talk) 20:49, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

ITNC

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)

Thanks for the note. I restored the {archive} tags. It was a completely unproductive discussion – no consensus will result from the discussion, and the race has started anyway. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 02:43, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

What a piss take that really is. The final shame of ITN/C. Losing the argument? Don't want to play anymore? Then take your ball home and archive the discussion! Claim that it is unproductive, even though other people were still discussing right up to that point, and even though if no admin with any sense ever turned up, it would have been moot in 12 hours anyway! Jesus Christ. This fucking site. Unfuckingbelievable. MickMacNee (talk) 02:48, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Get a grip and drop the stick. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 02:51, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Losing the argument? I didn't take part in it, and I don't really care about the outcome. All I saw was a good cut-off of unproductive yet contentious and heated discussion, and I complimented Passerby on it. Then you reverted, so I re-reverted. On a related note, Mick, I mean this in the best way possible, but take a short break from the computer... go somewhere quiet and fish, or play some tennis, or do anything that'll get your mind off things. You're really taking some of these discussions way too personally. I mean, is there really a big difference between posting a minor blurb on a website now or twelve hours from now? Does it really matter in the grand scheme of life? Your friend, Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 02:57, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

No big difference at all. It's already well and truly ruined my weekend. You're forgetting of course it won't even go up when it finishes, becuase I'm not going to waste my time on it if I cannot further expose the farce that causes it to appear five hours late when nobody really gives a crap anymore, and 365 apparently takes a week to write the summaries so that's out too, and none of the other ITN opposers really give a shit whether it goes up after either, not enough to do any actual work except to give their 2c of varying degrees of knowledge of ITN or the event, or of anything infact. It's already rewarded Kevin for the disgraceful tactic of torpedoing nominations based on mythical discussions he's never going to start, just for a bit of mindless BURO. It's already ensured SP can do whatever he did today rather than continue his 'if it was updated' stories while I wasted it arguing in a discussion that he was going to ensure never finished anyway. It's rewarded 365 because he's managed to get me reported to ANI for 'though crime' and then fuck off while I have to put up with the likes of RD232 doing his innocent passer by act and the likes of Bjmullen POV pushing on the very same day he acts the victim in there. I shall have to be content with the fact that the point you actually cut it off at, is rather embarassing to the only person who was actually trying to make any serious defence of the opposing argument, in this supposed unimportant issue. So unimportant, it's been emphatically 'won' in one way, but not the other. MickMacNee (talk) 03:24, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 June 2011

• News and notes: Wikipedians 90% male and largely altruist; 800 public policy students add 8.8 million bytes; brief news

• In the news: Revere, Palin and Colbert generate activity; British Wikipedia "cleanser"; brief news

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Aircraft

• Featured content: Featured lists hit the main page

• Arbitration report: More workshop proposals in Tree shaping case; further votes in PD of other case

• Technology report: 1.18 extension bundling; mobile testers needed; brief news

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:43, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Re. Minas Geraes

Don't worry.. :). Thank you by the nice article. Leandromartinez (talk) 07:32, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Wow, what a nice job (South American dreadnought race)! We don't have anything similar about this issue at pt.wiki, what a shame... We will appreciate if you could create a stub :) About the title, i'm not sure about, but Dreadnought = Encouraçado? Thanks! Leandromartinez (talk) 08:12, 16 June 2011 (UTC) PS: Sorry by my bad english.

Thanks. Well, i think Corrida armamentista sul-americana dos encouraçados seems better... The portuguese language it's a little crazy, the grammar, a nightmare. :) Leandromartinez (talk) 09:48, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Problem with Talk page edits

Hello, The ed17. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Bbb23 (talk) 00:02, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Operation Counter Punch & Operation Deep Water

Hi, Ed! Could you set up the categories for these articles' Talk page? Thanks!Marcd30319 (talk) 14:14, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Marc! I'll get to it tonight after work. :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:31, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

And it's done! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 08:52, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Ed! How about Operation Longstep, too?Marcd30319 (talk) 15:56, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Yup, but before I rate it, can you expand on who 'won' and who 'lost'? You say that the Blues landed troops but not what the Greens did about it, if anything. :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 09:52, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Done!Marcd30319 (talk) 12:28, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay, it's assessed! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:34, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Pe-8 photo

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)

I did. Could you contact a Commons admin to see what the original source was? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 07:43, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to hear a few suggestions

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)

Hey Lecen, I have work in 25 minutes so I can't respond very well at the moment, but my quick advice is to hold on. If we can get an RfC together and organized, we can let a wider body of editors decide the issue, which can then be enforced in FAC and other places (assuming we can't find a compromise before that). We'll work through this, alright? :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:40, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. I don't want you to get involved. I'm going to wait for other editors to express their point of view. i just wanted to let you know how arbitrary things are. The good news are that I just bought a book solely about the dreadnought arms race. I'm going to read it and help you out with that article. --Lecen (talk) 00:07, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

That's mainly what I was going to try and help with – I did not plan on jumping into the debate and rekindling all the fires! Unfortunately you will see arbitrary decisions at times because people who have followed the disputes, like me, are considered to be too involved to take any administrator actions. Re arms race, I'd hug you but you're a few too many miles away. ;-) Thanks very much – I definitely appreciate it. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 09:50, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

The detail in the third paragraph of Lecen's post is incorrect. I have already said that I have no problem with alternative names in leads on multiple occasions e.g. [2][3]. I would like to request that Lecen restricts himself from talking about me on any user talk pages, and I will reciprocate. His misrepresentation of my opinions over multiple pages is unhelpful and divisive. DrKiernan (talk) 08:05, 20 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 notived that most Japanese warships of the late 19th Century were acquired in foreign shipyards. When Japan began building its own ships? --Lecen (talk) 01:11, 23 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)

Well, it is an alternate spelling that readers will find in sources... I'm not confusing the two, it's simply a matter of practicality. On the matter of an English translation, could "Theresa Christine" function as the English translation instead? So the lead could be "Dona^[A] Teresa Cristina (Portuguese, English: Theresa Christine)^[B]" or just "English:"? The [B] would explain the differences in Portuguese orthography, similar to Minas Geraes-class battleship. Maybe? (trying to find a compromise here that will be acceptable to both of you so you and Kiernan can go your separate ways!) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 03:06, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

This reminds me of the Judgment of Solomon. You can't simply cut the baby in two pieces to please both parties. What if there were 3,4 or 5 editors with different views? So far no one has answered me why Teresa Cristina's article is the only in Wikipedia where the subject's name is not allowed to have its name translated to English. Nonetheless, this is something that you should not worry about it. You have more to do and I'll open a RFC to deal with it later. However, I'd like to thank you for having tried (and I know you did your best) to at least resolve the problem. You're a good person and I admire that. --Lecen (talk) 16:27, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Am I really speaking Greek there? I must improve my English at all costs... I want to add an Anglicized form of her name regardless of the fact that is or not a single book which does. They keep checking the Google books but that's not the point. In fact, nowdays when some dispute must be resolved in Wikipedia, all user rely on "Google books hits". Makes no sense, but that's how it is. What I do want is to keep the articles about Brazilian royals in the same standard as all other articles about royals. Be sincere, is it so hard to understand? If yes, could you exlain me the correct way to say it in English? --Lecen (talk) 11:51, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I think their argument is that you'd be able to find a translated name for the other royals in sources, but the same doesn't apply to Teresa Cristina. The problem is that if no sources use the alternate name you desire, their argument is the only one that holds water based on WP's policies (WP:V trumps naming guidelines). :/ FWIW, I think they have a point with "Therese Christine" – Therese isn't a very common name in English and looks more like a French translation. "Theresa Christina" is both an alternate name (old Portuguese) and an English translation, and I hope we can find a good/better way to include it. I think a lot of the problem here is that other royals have clearly-established translations (Pedro -> Peter, for instance) whereas Teresa is used in English and has no real translation except to alternative forms of the word. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 10:02, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

re: Racing dreadnoughts

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)

The Signpost: 20 June 2011

• News and notes: WMF Board election results; Indian campus ambassadors gear up; Wikimedia UK plans; Malayalam Wikisource CD; brief news

• In the news: Wikipedia could become trusted medical resource; neologism controversy; news in brief

• WikiProject report: The Elemental WikiProject

• Featured content: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: One case comes to a close; initiator of a new case blocked as sockpuppet

• Technology report: Engineering department restructured; "break MediaWiki and be reverted"; news in brief

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 16:14, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Dapi89

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:

• Dapi89 reverted the edits of two editors a total of three times, two with abusive edit summaries; "don't be silly","this is now vandalism","not good enough"
• Both editors had cautioned Dapi89 about the nature of his edits [4][5].
• Dapi89's response to one of them was "don't you dare" [6]

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)

You're very wrong, and I'm appalled that this experience is considered "routine and normal." Slapping a template on Dapi's page that calls him a new user (which, by the way, he didn't even realize was a template), and then to reply with 'it's a template, GOFIXIT' is impersonal, cold, and doesn't address the root of the issue. It was clear that Dapi did not understand why the image was being removed, and while Beetstra did make an attempt at a personal comment, Dapi reverted one minute after that (did he not view the image beforehand?). Without waiting any longer, Beetstra blocked. In short: an overly harsh and stringent enforcing of the rules drove a valuable editor off the project. Please, examine your methods and NFUR interactions before this happens again. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:15, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

• I fully expect that editors who edit war in ignorance of WP:NFCC policy when directly told multiple times will find themselves blocked. In fact, I will ask for such people to be blocked. If you feel this is improper behavior, and remain appalled, then I recommend bringing it to the attention of WP:AN/I. I'm surprised that an administrator would find it acceptable that an experienced editor, who knows full well the edit warring policy, and should be permitted to continue with his edit war in violation of multiple policies. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:36, 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)

Hold up. Experienced editor != familiar with every policy, let alone NFCC. I only have a knowledge of it because I forced myself to read pages on it back when I was trying to find the copyright status on some image I wanted to use in an article. Appalled was a rather strong word that I used in the heat of the moment, but I still have serious disagreements with how this was approached. An editor was templated but obviously didn't understand what the problem was. There was an attempt at a personal message explaining the situation, which I thanked Beetstra for, but it happened one minute before the last revert, so I doubt he read the message before reverting. Nonetheless he was blocked soon after for two weeks.

There's a reason we have a protect button too. I don't think Dappi understood the point you were all getting at, and even if he did after Beetstra's message, he was blocked so quickly that he never was given a chance to understand. Perhaps educating these editors in the ways of NFCC (as I can tell you that many don't know much if anything about it) rather than dropping heavy-handed templates and blocks on them would result in less work for you guys down the road? Serious thoughts here, no sarcasm. I'm not going to ANI with this because I believe all of you were acting in good faith – I'd just like you to see the other side of the fence too. Also, FWIW, given some of the topics Dapi wrote on, I'm pretty sure he's weathered worse. I don't know why this pushed him over the edge, but it did. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 02:17, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

• Hold up nothing. He was edit warring, and he knew it. Never given a chance to understand? He never gave himself a chance to understand. He just continued edit warring. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:51, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

• He reverted three times before being given an adequate explanation for the image's removal – he was just following WP:BRD. Obviously that shouldn't apply in this situation, but how was he to know? He probably thought Δ was the one edit-warring! (hence my comment above about educating editors about NFCC... completely separate from our disagreement here, I really hope you take that idea on, because that can only lead to an easier time for all NFCC patrollers!) I firmly believe that the image could have been quickly removed after a short discussion that resulted in no blocks or hard feelings, and I would have supported a block in this instance if he had ignored a 'real' message given to him before we reached the edit warring stage. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 02:57, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Military history sources question

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. ResMar 18:54, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd add as many cites as you can from as many varied works as possible to prove that you've done an adequate amount of research for such a large-scale article, but that's just me. :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 02:51, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I now have a third reference, but I can't really add anything else of the half-books from Google Books. Might be able to go library browsing, but I don't know about that. ResMar 04:30, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, when I'm not at college, my local library is mostly useless: it's too small. Having said that, I'd recommend looking into your state's inter-library loan system. You can normally acquire any book from any library in the state, so you way be able to get a really good reference (for a month-ish, at least!) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 07:43, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Found my card. How long do these transfers take? I'm leaving for vacation in 7 days. :/ Anyway, I've requested this bunch. Should be enough, I think. I'll take a break and edit some other things on the interm. Thanks for the help! ResMar 02:54, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Inter-library loan can be amazing. It certainly allowed me to write a college paper on the Marian reforms! Depends on the mail system. I've found that some libraries get them in the mail on the next business day, while some others take a little bit of time. Good luck! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 03:22, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Mapping the Russian Fleet

Hello, The ed17. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

from John Eight Thirty-two (talk) 15:56, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 June 2011

• News and notes: ArbCom database theft; WikiLove to roll out on the English Wikipedia; brief news

• In the news: Russian president uploads to Wikimedia Commons; brief news

• WikiProject report: The Continuous Convention: WikiProject Comics

• Featured content: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: Proposed decision for Tree shaping case

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:52, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Disambig

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)

Also RV Thomas G. Thompson and USNS Thomas G. Thompson are the same. PMG (talk) 08:14, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Wait, so you want to move the disambiguation pages? I.e. Belet to USS Belet? I don't think that will work because "Belet" etc. don't just apply to ships... Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 10:03, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

No no. What I want is

• Take Belet,
• Move

*USS ''Belet'' (DE-599), a United States Navy destroyer escort converted during construction into the high-speed transport [[USS Belet (APD-109)|USS ''Belet'' (APD-109)]]

*[[USS Belet (APD-109)|USS ''Belet'' (APD-109)]], a United States Navy high-speed transport in commission from 1945 to 1946

to USS Belet Example lest say USS Tonawanda

• Leave in Belet note something like Leyden (disambiguation): USS Leyden, the name of more than one United States Navy ship

PMG (talk) 10:59, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations again!

		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, EyeSerenetalk 07:24, 29 June 2011 (UTC)