Wikipedia

User:The ed17/Archives/37

< User:The ed17 | Archives

I believe this will help

edit

"It was one of the three giants which would compose the 'White Fleet', that Brazil had ordered to England in 1906. The initial contract was signed with Armstrong Whitworth (Elswick) and foresaw the construction of three battleships. The first to be ready was the Minas Geraes. The battleship São Paulo, of similar configuration, was finished a little later. The third ship, the battleship Rio de Janeiro, even bigger than the others, would not be delivered. With the purchase of these 'leviathans', as was they were called then, the federal government expected to remedy the technological backwardness in which the Navy had saw itself sink since the Armada revolt (1893). The ships—that is, the Brazilian naval force, at the beginning of the 20th century—formed, in the expression of historian Pereira da Cunha in his work about the 1910 revolt, 'a shameful patchwork, and a rotten snips'." (page 75)

"Due to this regrettable situation, the minister of Navy of the Rodrigues Alves government (1902-1906), Admiral Júlio César de Noronha, managed to approve in the National Congress, in October 1904, a naval program whose piéce de résistance was the purchase of three battleships, initialy inspired in the British Triumph class with 13,000 ton of displacement, as well as three armoured cruisers. This plan was altered at the end of 1906 due to act of the new Minister of Navy in the Afonso Pena government (1906-1909), Admiral Alexandrino." (page 75)

[...]

"On 17 April 1910, the Minas Gerais appeared at last along the Gauanabara bay, after having passed in the United States to escort the American warship that brought back the body of Joaquim Nabuco, first Brazilian diplomat to be named Brazilian ambassador—not minister anymore— in the USA, in the context of the foreign policy of the Baron of Rio Branco of closing ties with that country." (page 76)

[...]

"In the neighbor Argentina, the mood was other. Since August 1981, when the Brazilian Congress rejected the treaty that had put an end to the dispute in the frontier between Santa Catarina and the Argentine region of Misiones, the relations between both countries oscillated between good and bad, according to the political faction that occupied power in the Platine country. Chile, on its turn, saw a good relation with Brazil as the core to its policy in the continent. After 1902, Chile and Argentina agreed on limiting its war fleet. It was in this scenario that broke out the news of our [Brazilian] naval plan. Chile did not worry much with the situation." (page 76)

"But in Argentina, the simple announcement of our [Brazilian] intentions provoked a huge repercussion. 'It would be enough only one of the battleships ordered by Brazil to destroy the entire Argentine fleet', affirmed on November 1906, from Buenos Aires, Chancellor [Minister of Foreign Affairs] [Manuel Augusto] Montes de Orca. In contrast, in Rio de Janeiro, his [Brazilian] counterpart, Rio Branco, saw in the Brazilian drednoughts an excelent opportunity to project in the region and in the world the image of a modern and powerful country. It was not a surprise, this, that he dismissed as an absurd the Argentine suggestion that Brazil should sell to Chile and to Argentina two of the [three] purchased dreadnoughts, keeping only one, in exchange for smaller ships of the Argentine and Chilean navies, with the purpose of reestablish the naval 'equilibrium' between the three South-american nations." (page 76)

"Immediately afterwards, the substitution of Montes de Orca for Estanisláo Zeballos, a personal enemy of Rio Branco since 1895—when he definitively for the latter the border litigation known as the Misiones Question, in which Brazil prevailed in the arbitratement by American Pesident Cleveland—, only worsened the mood between the two countries, that reached a high temperature at the middle of 1908. It was then the Argentine chancellor conceived the 'defensive diplomacy' idea directed against the so-called desire of Baron of Rio Branco to attack his country when the ships of the 'White Fleet' arrive in Brazil. With this mood, on 10 June he presented to the cabinet a plan "that consisted of an immediate formal offer of a diplomatic negotiation with Brazil, to demand the division of its fleet with us [Argentines]". In case of a refusal, he said, 'we [Argentines] would make them know that we were not willing to allow the incorporation of the great battleships in their [Brazilian] fleet'." (page 76)

"At least in Zeballos' mind—who in his first term as chancelor proposed to the USA, in 1891, to support Argentina..." (page 76)

"...in a war against Chile—, his country would give Brazil a deadline of eight days, and at the same he would make talks in Europe to explain his gesture to the great power. In the last case, he predicted the 'occupation of Rio de Janeiro, which according to the Ministers of War and Navy, was an easy and proven goal, given the helpless situation of Brazil'. For the well being of everyone, it was not the Brazilian capital that fell, but instead the hasty minister of Foreign Affairs of Argentina. After the publication of his fantastic plan by the [Argentine] La Nación newspaper, the Platine government had no other choice but to fire him." (page 77)

[...]

"In the following years, Argentina and Chile also acquired dreadnoughts, without greater tensions in the waters of the South, and with time the world forgot Brazil and its dreadnoughts. With the rise of submarines and aircraft carriers in the First [World] War, ships as those had become white elephants [...]." (page 77)
Author: Matins Filho, João Roberto
Magazine: Revista de História da Biblioteca Nacional (History Magazine of the National Library)
Year: 3
Issue: 27
Published by: SABIN
Published in: Rio de Janeiro
ISSN: 1808-4001

I hope this might be useful. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 00:13, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Lecen, you just became my new favorite person. ;-) What's the title of this article? THANK YOU very much! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:47, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
The title is Colossos do mares (Colossuses of the seas or Seas' colossuses). I have another issue of this magazine that is focused on Rio Branco and tells more about the crisis with his Argentine counterpart. I'll translate it for you. Regards! P.S.: I answered at my talkpage to your suggestion of joining a wikiproject devoted to Portuguese-Brazilian history. --Lecen (talk) 10:46, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Just two more citation-related questions: what pages do the full article fall under (as in, begins on __ and ends on __), and the year is 2008, right? (2005 + 3 years) Thanks so much, Lecen -- I really appreciate what you are doing. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 12:41, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Don't bother. I like to help. The magazine was published on December 2007 (so says the cover). The article begins at page 74 and ends at page 77. You cann see it in the official website in here. The article can be read online in here (albeit without pictures). I did not translated the remaining parts of the article because there was nothing that you did not have already through other sources. --Lecen (talk) 13:01, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
I've fixed the citation and added any relevant information – again, thanks so much! Out of curiosity, were any of the pictures in the original article credited to the Brazilian Navy? If so, they're {{Attribution}} (same template here and on Commons) if you ever get the urge to scan and upload them. ;-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:55, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Lecen, another quick question: can you give me the year number (1, 2, 3?), issue number, page number for the paragraph beginning "Em 1910, o presidente Hermes foi recebido ...", and total page range for this article if you have it in your possession? I'm going to use it to show Germany's push to build the ships. I've actually never seen anything on them attempting to get the Brazilian order, only the later Rivadavias, so this is mightily exciting. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 08:30, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
I've scanned and uploaded this picture. Unfortunately, the magazine superimposed a newspaper cover over the photo. However, I believe you could request the editors at Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Photography workshop. There is some damage to the image at the upper left corner too. This link that you provided me with was not published in the magazine. It's an article in the website. You'll have to use the website itself as source for this one. If you need anything else. Feel free to call me. I'm always glad to help. --Lecen (talk) 02:29, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program Newsletter: 28 January 2011

edit
 


This is the first issue of the Wikipedia Ambassador Program newsletter. Please read it! It has important information about the the current wave of classes, instructions and advice, and other news about the ambassador program.



Delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 00:35, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Proposed new WikiProject University of Connecticut

edit

I remember you mentioning to me at one point that you were a Connecticut Huskies fan, so I thought I'd ping you with this:

 

You are cordially invited to join the newly-proposed WikiProject University of Connecticut, designed to promote collaboration and improvement on UConn-related articles on Wikipedia. Specifically, the following articles are proposed to be within the new WikiProject's scope:

  • The University itself, including the campuses, notable buildings, notable academic programs, and notable professors;
  • The Connecticut Huskies athletic teams, including the men's basketball, women's basketball, and football teams, their coaches, players, facilities, and history;
  • Notable alumni, including both athletes and non-athletes.

Currently no one WikiProject covers all UConn-related content:

WikiProject University of Connecticut, when created, will be a centralized location to coordinate monitoring and improvement of UConn-related articles.

To comment on the proposed creation of the new WikiProject University of Connecticut, click here. To join the proposed WikiProject, click here, as the membership list is transcluded directly on the proposal page. Thank you for your attention, and GO HUSKIES! –Grondemar

–Grondemar 01:58, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Awesome, I've added my name! Thanks for the note, Grondemar. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:59, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Online Ambassador Program

edit

As promised, here are my thoughts. While the program is certainly worthy, I am concerned that you are overadvertising it and I suspect you are seeing a small backlash. I see the notice when I run my watchlist, and of course the notices on my page. It's overdone, I'm afraid. Too much advertising can be as much of a problem as too little.

Make a list of people you know from their body of work that you would want if they applied, and ask them. Set up an application process for others. If you like, call them two different things so that the egalitarians don't get their noses out of joint.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:00, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

We went and invited people that were active at GAN and DYK reviewing, which was a rather large pool. Overadvertising is an interesting point, but we're soliciting people through talk page messages – we can't expect people to read it without posting it directly on their talk page. The ones we are soliciting can submit applications and will normally be automatically accepted after a few emails. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:55, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Question about ITN points

edit

Hello, I'm thinking of making another claim for ITN points at the WikiCup. This time, I'm the main contributor of the relevant sections[1][2], but is this "a significant amount of content"? Here's a link to the ITN nomination. I just thought I'd ask you first before making a claim not to look greedy. If you think this is borderline again, then I will probably not claim it. Nanobear (talk) 23:00, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

That looks fine to me, thanks for asking though :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:55, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

US 30 in Iowa FAC

edit

Since you mentioned it, I'm letting you know that I renominated U.S. Route 30 in Iowa at FAC. –Fredddie™ 04:45, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll go support it now. I hope you get enough reviews this time around... Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:55, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

RE: Phases

edit

I don't think that's necessary. Even if I agreed that the main page was too large (and I don't), it would make more sense to spin off something else, like the members list or the resources. If anything, the FTs and GTs can probably go to the progress page, since they are all listed on the showcase. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 16:51, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

WikiCup 2011 January newsletter

edit
 

We are half way through round one of the WikiCup. Signups are now closed, and we have 129 listed competitors, 64 of whom will make it to round two. Congratulations to   The Bushranger (submissions), who, at the time of writing, has a comfortable lead with 228 points, followed by   Hurricanehink (submissions), with 144 points. Four others have over 100 points. Congratulations also go to   Yellow Evan (submissions), who scored the first points in the competition, claiming for Talk:Hurricane King/GA1,   Miyagawa (submissions), who scored the first non-review points in the competition, claiming for Dognapping, and   Jarry1250 (submissions) who was the first in the competition to use our new "multiplier" mechanic (explanation), claiming for Grigory Potemkin, a subject covered on numerous Wikipedias. Thanks must also go to Jarry1250 for dealing with all bot work- without you, the competition wouldn't be happening!

A running total of claims can be seen here. However, numerous competitors are yet to score at all- please remember to submit content soon after it is promoted, so that the judges are able to review entries. The number of points that will be needed to reach round two is not clear- everyone needs to get their entries in now to guarantee their places! If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 22:44, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 January 2011

edit
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 02:41, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Almirante Latorre

edit

Hey Ed, I came across an illustration of the ship here on page 364. It's from the USNI, so it's automatically PD. Parsecboy (talk) 17:36, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

There's also one for Rio de Janiero on page 836. Parsecboy (talk) 17:48, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
I think the USNI is a private foundation, not part of the federal government. However, this was published in 1913, meaning it's PD-1923. :-) Thanks very much! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:45, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

edit

I was beginning to wonder if I should requests semiprotection of my userpage; seems you've taken care of it. I don't intend to do anything with it for the forseeable future, so there's no real reason for non-autoconfirmed editors to touch it. I have to admit though, it was amusing to see someone try (and fail) to tag it for G11 7 times. Thanks again. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 06:42, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. I stumbled across your page and thought you might want semi-protection. How do you fail seven times?! Haha, sad. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 07:47, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
I tagged that user's page for advertising, and his response was to retaliate and tag mine. It was pretty pathetic, actually; I knew what was happening, but I wanted to see if he'd get it before being blocked as a vandal/spammer. Obviously not. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 07:59, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Mentor

edit

Hello. I am a graduate student in Public Administration at Montana State University. My Native American Studies Law and Policy class is working on a Wikipedia project and I was hoping you would be my mentor. I am new to Wikipedia and have yet to begin writing or editing an article. Let me know if you have time to help me out. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiwriter24 (talk • contribs) 16:28, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello Wikiwriter, sorry for the delay. I would be happy to be your mentor! Just let me know if you need any assistance. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:47, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

WikiCup Running Totals page

edit

Hi Ed, thought I'd check in with you about this. I noticed on the Cup's running totals page that there's a large block of entries that got duplicated somehow, and some appear to be missing from it. (The Vought XSO2U article was what caught my attention - its GA and GAR are listed twice, but its DYK isn't there at all...). Thought y'all might want to know. :) - The Bushranger One ping only 18:27, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Is this still an issue? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:47, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Yeah. 2 each of the GA and GAR, no DYK, and a bunch of others appear to have been duplicated on the list as well, not just mine but others' too. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:28, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
I've left a {{tb}} to this conversation on Jarry's page, the guy who runs the WikiCup bot. Thanks, Bushranger! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:12, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Weird, I'll take a look at it when I get a chance (tomorrow in all likelihood). Thanks for the report, - Jarry1250 [Who? Discuss.] 21:53, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Still not perfectly certain I've fixed this. The text log, [3] seems better than the onwiki version, even thought the two are supposed to be identical. I've manually updated the onwiki page from the text log, hopefully the bot will keep the two in sync now. If not, it may give me more evidence to try and fix this. - Jarry1250 [Who? Discuss.] 17:39, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Novels Collaboration for February

edit

Thank you everyone who participated in the January Collaboration, it was quite a success with 5 new C class articles, 3 stub kills and several articles were removed from our backlogs. In support of the Great Backlog Drive, the WikiProject Novels Collaboration for February is going to help remove backlog candidates in the backlogs related to WikiProject Novels. Please join us, and help us wikify, reference, clean up plot sections and generally improve Novels content, Sadads (talk) 21:30, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

You are recieving this message because you are a member of WikiProject Novels according to Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Members

The Signpost: 7 February 2011

edit
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 02:14, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Peruvian Battleship?

edit

I saw you work with south American battleships and I had a questions. Does the Huáscar count as a battleship? The article calls it an ironclad but List of battleships of minor navies calls it's a battleship. Spongie555 (talk) 07:15, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello, no it does not. Huáscar is an ironclad warship by definition. That list also has ships of the line, etc... the name isn't very descriptive of its contents. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:46, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Maybe List of capital ships of minor navies might be better? - The Bushranger One ping only 04:48, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
That would work much better... I'll move it now. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:54, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

DYK

edit

Thanks for chipping in about designation-systems.net being relaible, it's appreciated. Of course, now another reviewer is questioning its reliability with regards to a different article. I've pointed them to the JB-4 discussion. Thanks again! - The Bushranger One ping only 04:48, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

You are very welcome. You may want to copy/paste that text (and link!) into your sandbox for future use. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:52, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program Newsletter: 13 February 2011

edit
 


This is the second issue of the Wikipedia Ambassador Program Newsletter, with details about what's going on right now and where help is needed.


  • Userboxes and profiles - Add an ambassador userbox to your page, and make sure you've added your mentor profile!
  • Be a coordinating ambassador - Pick and class and make sure no students fall through the cracks.
  • New screencasts - Short videos on watchlists and a number of other topics may be useful to students.
  • Updates from Campus Ambassadors - Ambassadors are starting to report on classroom experiences, both on-wiki and on the Google Group.
  • Other news - There's a new on-wiki application for being an Online Ambassador, and Editing Friday #2 is today!
  • Things you can do - This is just a sample; if you're eager for something to do, there's plenty more.

Delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 18:26, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

marking mentees' userpages

edit

Hey Ed! This is just a quick reminder: please be sure to add {{WAP student}} (for an example, see User:Sfofana) the user pages of your mentees. And once they are working on articles, be sure to tag the talk pages with {{WAP assignment}}. Cheers--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 18:49, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Whoops, I've tagged them. Thanks for the note! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:45, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 February 2011

edit
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 02:36, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

DYK note?

edit

In the DYK entry for SHARP you noted that only one of the entries should be in the Bib section. I'm confused about this, why doesn't the main article source go there too? Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:43, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Why make a reader move from the reference entry to the bibliography when the reference is only used once? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:46, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Oh. I never normally do that. Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:14, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Appending southern kalaripayuttu with varma ati is illogical

edit

Varma ati or marma ati is a part of kalaripayuttu. And southern kalaripayuttu is different from northern and central. Y delete the entire article Southern kalaripayuttu because of vandalism.please reconsider. please also go thru this.thank you!! [4]

All can be contained in the same overall article, and the edit warring on that page between you and the other IP was ridiculous. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:24, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

then change the topic or somethin.varma ati is a branch of kalari.not the name of the martial arts.thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.164.160.12 (talk) 07:56, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Done Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 08:58, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

ok.the anonymous is repeatedly deleting the contents(which has reference of course) I posted in Varma ati.what should i do?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.174.6.9 (talk) 15:01, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Space policy

edit

Hi Ed, I have no idea if I'm doing this right. i just wanted to update you and tell you that my topic for the public policy project is the Space policy of the United States. Any suggestions on where to start? Thanks! Ander2em (talk) 16:06, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello! You almost had it right. Use the "+" button at the top (next to "history") to add a new section. To reply to a message left in a section, use the [edit] button right above and to the right of this text (aka section editing).
Everyone has their own preferred methods of copyediting, but I would say to take on only one section at a time. I like to use two tabs when copyediting – one to read the article, the other to edit it, but that's your call. I'm sure you'll have more questions as you go along, but don't be afraid to ask. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 16:23, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! My assignment for this week is to have one paragraph written, posted, and cited. If you have gone to the page, you'll see it has already been started. As I go about finishing/writing this article, should I just leave what is already written there and expand? Also, any tips on citing? I've been looking into the citing format of other articles but I could use more guidance. This is intimidating! Ander2em (talk) 18:30, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Oh, you have to write a paragraph, my bad. The article looks like it covers all the basic points, so perhaps you can add a paragraph on one of the shorter sections, or replace it with one that is more detailed? Formatting sources on Wikipedia doesn't have very many rules. If you are comfortable with MLA/Chicago/etc., feel free to use those style guides; otherwise, {{cite book}}/{{cite web}}/{{cite journal}}/etc. are fine, and I can show you how to use them (I personally use Chicago, but my early articles like this one use the templates).
Actually adding sources into Wikipedia looks complicated but is actually relatively simple once you get the hang of it. I made a quick example page here, if that helps. Still, the main thing is that you use a reliable source. Editors like me can fix a broken reference, but we can't fix it when you use a poor source. ;-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:01, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Great, thank you! So I am working on the International Space Law section for now. I found a great explanation of what exactly the international space laws do and proclaim and I would like to quote this in my paragraph. Can I take the explanation (it's a few sentences), put quotations around it, then do the "ref" thing right after it? Ander2em (talk) 20:01, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Sorry if I am blowing up your talk page! About the citing, I was just going to cite things like I usually do and put it between the "ref" and "/ref" format. I looked at the cite web thing you posted but I don't quite understand that yet. So for now, the normal MLA citing will work? Ander2em (talk) 20:14, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Hahah, don't be sorry, it's fine! You can quote it, but it is normally better to paraphrase the explanation. Otherwise, you have it spot on. You don't need a reference after every consecutive sentence, but they all have to be sourced to the same thing if you do that.
On citing, I have my foot in my mouth. If you are starting a page from scratch, whatever citation method you like is fine. However, this is a pre-existing page, meaning you should conform to the style already being used, which in this case are the cite templates. Sorry for the confusion. :/ Where is the explanation you found? I'll walk you through how to put it into a template citation, or you can try it yourself: if it's a book, just copy/paste and fill in the blanks! {{cite book|last= |first= |title= |location= |publisher= |year= |ISBN= }} It's basically the same thing with web pages: {{cite web |url= |title= |author= |date= |work= |accessdate=16 February 2011}}
Does that make sense? Otherwise I can show you a few more examples on here or IRC until you get the hang of it. I know it's a bit complicated and throwing a lot at you at once... sorry for that :/ Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:33, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Gotcha, I am down with copying and pasting! Where do I copy and paste it to though? Do you have access to my sandbox? If so, can you look/fix what I have so far? And any suggestions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ander2em (talk • contribs) 20:50, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Also, I was going to expand on the principles and declarations I listed...but I also wanted to provide a link to each one. Is that possible since it's not on Wikipedia? Or should I not link it at all? And if I should link, how do I do that? haha...questions, questions. Thanks for being patient! Ander2em (talk) 20:59, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
I fixed the reference -- you needed a {{reflist}} and to have <ref> ... </ref> around it. :-) Why did they adopt these treaties? What have they done? Stuff like that would help.
You could add a link to "External links" section at the bottom of the article, but multiple links might be a bit much! You could also use them as primary-source references if we're talking about the actual laws on the UN's site? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:18, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm definitely getting most of my information from that one site with the actual principles and declarations. I've decided to focus my writing and editing in the "international law" section and I think that will be enough for my project. I'm having fun adding all the info :) It's so cool to see the finished project! It is still clearly unfinished though.
Mainly I'm going to have issues citing. If you look on the article page, you'll see I have been added information about each principle and declaration under their subtitles. Do I need to cite after each description? Or should I save it for the end? And any tips on the format? Ander2em (talk) 19:55, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Isn't it fun knowing your changes are visible to everyone in the world right away? :-) Are the principle and declarations all quoted from the same source? If so, I'd just cite it right after the colon ("The five declarations and principles are:"). If they aren't quotes, cite it right after. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:44, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Okay, problem! I found a Wikipedia page- Space Law...and this is more of what I have been writing about. Should I move the information I put on the Space policy of the United States about International Law onto Space Law ??? I think my teacher said that it was okay if information was repeated on different pages so the reader wouldn't have to click on a million links to understand what the original article is talking about. But what does Wikipedia say about that? Ander2em (talk) 20:02, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Another thought...look at Space policy. I could put in a section about International Law there and add in what I've written already for Space policy of the United States. And then continue to elaborate on different countries' national laws. I think I like this idea best because we are supposed to be increasing our articles by five-fold and I feel like I could do more work on Space policy. Let me know your thoughts! Ander2em (talk) 20:09, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiCup/History/2011

edit

Seems the bot has gone on the fritz for updating it - it hasn't been updated since torwards the end of the 14th. And a well-meaning editor has manually updated one editor's numbers while leaving all the others... thought this should be brought to your attention. :) - The Bushranger One ping only 19:18, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Okay, this is a bit embarrassing... I told it not to update the page any more for maintenance, then forgot to turn updates back on again afterwards. Ahem. Should be fine now, and all previous scores accredited. Happy editing, - Jarry1250 [Who? Discuss.] 20:12, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
No worries. Life happens sometimes. Glad to know the bot didn't become roadkill! :) - The Bushranger One ping only 20:20, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
LOL. Jarry, it's fine. Just don't let it happen again, lest we are forced to tar and feather you. ;) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:33, 16 February 2011 (UTC)


well some people never listen.. perhaps you should take a look at this article Kalarippayattu again. He is purposely deleting 'Nadar' from the article again. I see no reason why Nadars should be excluded from the kalaripayattu article. It is our culture. By doin all this the anonymous is practicing racism here.either block the anonymous or delete anything which has to do with caste from the kalaripayattu article.Thank you.


Scott Waltershied

edit

Probably the guy is non-notable, but the way forward in respect of the alleged copyvio is to advise the poster of OTRS, I would have thought, since it looks like the poster was either the copyright holder or associated with the copyright holder. I was also confused over the DRV since it looked as if an attempt to redact apparent copyvio had removed any discussion up to that point. Don't know if you saw the DRV earlier? Rich Farmbrough, 18:54, 18 February 2011 (UTC).

I assumed the matter would be taken care of elsewhere... I just wasn't going to restore a copyvio. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:33, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Here is the diff of the copyright violation redaction. No discussion was removed.

The nominator of the DRV, Mcgawkelly (talk · contribs), was blocked for edit warring, threats, and being a sockpuppet of the blocked Pprice1 (talk · contribs). Because the OP is blocked, all revisions of Scott Waltershied are copyright infringing, and the subject is not notable per the lack of reliable sources in a Google search and at Google News Archive, this early DRV closure is acceptable. Cunard (talk) 11:06, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Manual DYK update

edit

Ed, this is by no means to discourage you - thanks, off course, just don't forget to reset the queue counter and clear the queue after update (I've done that). I also normally wait 10-15 min after update due time, hoping the bot resets itself (it can do that, though probably not this time). Cheers. Materialscientist (talk) 06:56, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I saw the bot was down and thought I'd try to help out while I was online. :-) I'll remember those for next time, sorry! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:03, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

DYK points

edit

After this edit I still have no points added. Is everything ok with it?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:33, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

The bot hasn't run yet.[5] Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:03, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Early DRV closures

edit

Although I do not disagree with any of your DRV closures, I ask that you let them run for the full seven days unless there are exceptional circumstances, such as the discussions at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 February 14 (where WP:SNOW was applicable), or uncontroversial requests, such as the restoration of a contested prod. Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 February 10#Extravagance should have run for the full seven days and been closed no earlier than 19:50, 17 February 2011 (UTC) since it was initiated on 19:50, 10 February 2011 (UTC). DRV is the final court of appeal, so to prevent potential controversy, it is best to let the DRV discussions run the full seven days. This also allows more admins to close DRVs and guards against admins' closing earlier and earlier than the set 7 days (see DGG's comment at User talk:Spartaz/Archive9#closing in September 2009). Cunard (talk) 10:55, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Huh, damn, I was wondering if there was a 'normal' time limit just now, so I went and found that there was... and now I read this message. I will certainly adhere to that from now on, my apologies. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:59, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
No worries. Wikipedia:Deletion review/Administrator instructions, Wikipedia:Deletion review/Perennial requests, and Wikipedia talk:Deletion review are also good reads to familiarize yourself with DRV. Cunard (talk) 00:46, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

newsletter

edit

I've got the from the editors section done, can you rig up the front page either today or tomorrow so we can get this thing out (only three weeks late, I think we've set ourselves a new record!). Cam (Chat)(Prof) 23:06, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh my god, I'm mortified. I had time to do the editors section, but it completely slipped my mind. Thanks Cam. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 08:47, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Volume LVIX, January 2011

edit
 
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 16:51, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Mentoring students: be sure to check in on them

edit

This message is going out to all of the Online Ambassadors who are, or will be, serving as mentors this term.

Hi there! This is just a friendly reminder to check in on what your mentees are doing. If they've started making edits, take a look and help them out or do some example fixes for them, if they need it. And if they are doing good, let them know it!

If you aren't mentoring anyone yet, it looks like you will be soon; at least one large class is asking us to assign mentors for them, and students in a number of others haven't yet gotten to asking ambassadors to be their mentors, but may soon. --Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 20:09, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 February 2011

edit
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 18:36, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Mentor request

edit

Hi The ed17,

I am a junior at James Madison Univeristy. I noticed that you were actually helping a couple of students in my class already and I was hoping you wouldn't mind helping me as well. The first girl I emailed still has not emailed me back and I really need help to continue this project. I am working on the Uniform State Narcotic Drug Act. I would really appreciate hearing back from you as soon as possible. Thanks! Feurerkm (talk) 19:35, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I think Kate intends to be your mentor, but I can certainly help you anyway while she recovers from the flu. What do you need? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:44, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
I am having trouble with my citations. I believe I am doing internal citations, but I can't seem to figure out how not to repeat them. I'm not sure if I am explaining that correctly, but I have like three different paragraphs with the same citations and in the reference section each shows up as a different number.

Feurerkm (talk) 19:14, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I have a midterm in an hour and a half, so I have to run. WP:REFNAME explains what you need to do, but it's filled with wikijargon... if you still need help, just say the word and I'll get on IRC in roughly three hours. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:26, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi! I was wondering if you could look over my page (the Uniform State Narcotic Drug Act) to see if there is anything else I should add or anything you think I should change. I would greatly appreciate it. Thanks Feurerkm (talk) 18:46, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

List of USS Triton submerged circumnavigation crew

edit

Hi, Ed17! Hope things are doing better for you. I discovered that the above list was deleted by User:Nakon. I was not notified about this. Is there anything that can be done about this? Thanks! Marcd30319 (talk) 00:10, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Hey Marc! They are, but I still have a paper due tomorrow... yippie. I can restore the article to your userspace, but it really isn't a viable article under Wiki guidelines. Sorry friend :/ Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:16, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Glad things are easing up. My new job is settling down. Regarding the above, I always considered it to be a list, not an article. Also, I thought it would hve been nice to hasve been approached about its matter. My motivation for creating this list was I thought it was appropriate to include a crew list in order to recognise their contribution of the success of Operation Sandblast. In an [All Hand magazine interview, Captain Edward L. Beach pointed out that any story about Operation Sandblast wasn't a story only about himself but his entire crew. Please restore the list o my user page for my reference. Thanks and continued good fortune. Marcd30319 (talk) 13:17, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
And I am glad to hear it is settling! The problem, I think, lies in WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Could you create the crew list on an external site and link to it at the bottom of the article, perhaps? I'm restoring it to User:Marcd30319/List of USS Triton submerged circumnavigation crew. You're welcome, and good fortune to you as well. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:26, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Gay Nigger Association of America DRV

edit

Regarding your closing of the GNAA DRV:

  • "Most blogs are not reliable sources", I don't see a single unreliable blog cited. I count 31 "reliable" sources using the highest standard of "reliability". All of the blogs cited, except for one, are reliable.
  • "It's not the number of sources, it's the number of reliable, third-party sources that directly deal with the GNAA." - There are plenty of these.
  • A number of users gave no valid policy whatsoever behind their comments, in fact, most of them are listed at WP:ATA.
  • You also seem to have closed yet another DRV early: "Huh, damn, I was wondering if there was a 'normal' time limit just now, so I went and found that there was... and now I read this message. I will certainly adhere to that from now on, my apologies. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 4:59 pm, 19 February 2011, last Saturday (5 days ago) (UTC−5)"

Regards, LiteralKa (talk) 00:18, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I closed it based on my interpretation of the debate; I'm sorry you disagree. If you want my advice, step back and get a breath of fresh air. You are much to involved in these debates and will end up getting yourself blocked. Seven days is not early. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:49, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
It wasn't even a full six days. I bet you can't even name three of those "unreliable blogs" you closed the DRV early based on. LiteralKa (talk) 00:51, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
again, I would like to specifically enumerate the non-blog reliable sources attached to the draft:

Again, if these are not enough reliable sources to satisfy WP:GNG, then please do tell what is. riffic (talk) 00:59, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Let's count: 18-19-20-21-22-23-24-closed on the 25th. Seven days. I am not getting into a separate debate with you on the reliability of the sources, because frankly I don't really care, and that was not why I closed the DRV. I closed it because there was no consensus to restore the article. Everything else was a warning for future DRV requests. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:03, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
You did a great job of ignoring the obvious fact that you closed it more than ten hours early. And yes, it is why you closed it. You cited "unreliable blogs", that's pretty clear right there. LiteralKa (talk) 01:04, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Two hours and eight minutes early, based on when it opened, I suppose. How are you doing your math? And no, that is not why I closed it, I merely meant to highlight what I thought was a very important point. I don't know why you are still arguing about this with me, but I'm not going to respond any more. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:08, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Well obviously that "very important point" is a good way to point out that there just might not be any logic behind keeping the page deleted. Closing it ASAP isn't very appropriate for one of the more controversial DRVs. LiteralKa (talk) 01:10, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Was any consensus going to form? No. Was it simply spawning more drama? Yes. No reason not to close it. Goodbye. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:13, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
"No reason not to close it": a very good reason for ending the discussion of one of the most controversial DRVs early, which you said you wouldn't ever do again less than a week ago. LiteralKa (talk) 01:15, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Being perfectly honest, I just looked at the dates, not the time. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:21, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Very professional of you. LiteralKa (talk) 01:23, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
And this is why I edit Wikipedia as a hobby, not a job. Thanks for your input. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:24, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
The entire GNAA issue appears to be a protracted troll. Cla68 (talk) 01:30, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
To me, it seems as if editor's own biases towards the GNAA, whether it be by the GNAA's actions, name, or same other reason, are clouding their judgment. The article, had it been about a charity group with the same amount of citeable, reliable sources, would have hardly had the same flak that the GNAA has gotten. Whether or not you like the subject matter being discussed. As was mentioned in the DRV, most all of the arguments against recreation dealt with such ideas as " if they aren't friends with Wikimedia, they shouldn't be on here", "it was deleted 30 times already, delete again", "nothing much has changed". Not one of these are strong arguments, and all of which were disproven, multiple times, in the DRV. It really seems that some of the editors are not looking at this subjectively, but have built up a vendetta against the article, due to it being such a controversial one. While I try to assume good faith, it gets pretty hard to when every argument that is made is backed by emotions, not logic and verifiable facts.
Also, it's quite amusing to see how riffic's argument was totally ignored. I'd like to know, as well, what notability is really needed, for I need to clean up half of wikipedia if this argument holds true.
Acostoss (talk) 16:30, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I would also read the discussion as "allow recreation." The "endorse" !votes were in general quite weak, and based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:NOTAGAIN. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:57, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Editing Fridays article for 24 February 2011

edit

--Guerillero | My Talk 00:29, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't able to make it. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:37, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

National Maritime Museum Collaboration

edit

I just wanted to let you know that I am having discussions with the National Maritime Museum about them releasing a large tranche of information about Royal Navy warships to us. Your input as a Milhist coordinator would be particularly welcome at Wikipedia:GLAM/NMM. Regards, The Land (talk) 19:52, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Wow! Nice work, I will certainly be keeping an eye on that page. Land, you're awesome. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:37, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
I am to please. Am glad it's getting an enthusiastic reception. The Land (talk) 11:45, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Battlecruisers FLC

edit

Hey, Ed, there are a couple of issues that Bushranger has brought up at the FLC that you seem better suited to address than me (mostly B-65 stuff). Cam (Chat)(Prof) 06:51, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, I think I've addressed them! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:37, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
I'll check back in to the FLC later today. :) - The Bushranger One ping only 18:47, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=User:The_ed17/Archives/37&oldid=1144597985"