Wikipedia

User:The ed17/Archives/48

< User:The ed17 | Archives

Ready to go...

edit

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)

Cock-up with the welcome notes, caused a little bit of drama. My fault. Should all be fixed now, I hope it doesn't marr the competition. J Milburn (talk) 19:05, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Nice job! Sorry about the late reply, I saw this last night and decided I wasn't in a very good state to be editing. Doesn't look like it was much of a mistake, we'll be fine. Happy New Year to you too! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:56, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

snark

edit

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)

Eh, it's no different from any other clique here on Wikipedia. I'm sure that if one of Parsecboy's articles were FARed, you, me, SHIPS, and the battleship editors would be doing the same thing. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 07:11, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
You must be joking, Ed, I'll never have an article FARed ;) Parsecboy (talk) 12:13, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
You won't, you were just an example. ;) I probably will at some point (Nevada and Alaska need to be rewritten), but we'll cross that bridge when we get to it. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 16:16, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
If that article was packed with puffery and lacked citations then I'd be the first one to fire a volley at it. I was just going to mention Nevada to you. It's creeping up the list of FA's with maint tags. And Illinois is troublesome. Release your monkeys on those. Brad (talk) 20:10, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Oh, I'd do the same, but the point in choosing Parsec is that his articles don't have that. For that matter, I don't think yours do either, but I was trying to use someone not named us. Anyway. That's worrisome. Nevada probably only needs a modest cleanup and heavy copyedit, so I'll get around to it eventually. I'm a little more worried about Alaska because I missed a lot of sources plus it needs a total rewrite. I think those are my only two FAs with significant issues, though. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:58, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Nevada I believe has some Global Security or FAS sources in it so those should be deleted with fire. As for Illinois I'm reluctant to start the FAR process on it because I'm sure that I've gained a reputation for being the "Iowa class articles killer"™. Yet the article is an embarrassment. Brad (talk) 07:12, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Gah, why did I use those? The Nevada class GlobalSecurity refs will be easy to remove; weirdly it's the SSBN refs that I'll have trouble with. I'll probably have to troll through primary documents on HyperWar to find replacements, if I do. What BB-65 and 66 need is to have someone take four hours and merge them into the class article. Doesn't stop the problems with some of the other articles, though. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 07:47, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Actually there are some rather serious topics on the talk page of Nevada that should be addressed. The article passed FA over three years ago like Constitution did. I've been doing work on Constitution to keep it to current standards. Just the name of the game I guess. Brad (talk) 04:12, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Paperwork, paperwork...

edit

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)

Yeah, I suspect we'll get a decent amount of this for the first week or so. Also, thanks for implicitly reminding me to put the log back on my watchlist. ;-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 16:13, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 January 2012

edit

A-class criteria

edit

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. DCItalk 17:07, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

This Month in GLAM: December 2011

edit
 


Headlines

To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

Unsubscribe · Global message delivery 17:17, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Dreadnought race

edit

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)

WikiCup logging

edit

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)

That'd be great- I've been using it! J Milburn (talk) 23:39, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Same! I think the page will spiral upwards in bytes in a couple weeks, but by then we can hopefully spotcheck five and delete the rest. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:39, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Dreadnoughts

edit

Hey Ed, I left you some more comments in the manly section. Best, Drmies (talk) 05:28, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

What a funny comment. ResMar 04:41, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Mail

edit
 
Hello. 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 remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Buggie111 (talk) 17:01, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

João VI

edit

"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)

I read the discussion, looked at the strength of the arguments, and saw a consensus to move. It's what they pay me to do. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:35, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
I don't know how on earth you could make that deduction. The discussion was still going on. What you have done mars dozens upon dozens of pages. I find that unacceptable. I'm going to request an immediate reversal of this decision. Walrasiad (talk) 02:38, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Discussion had been going on for weeks, and consensus was clearly in favor of a move. Take any action you want, but I doubt that the close will be reversed. I've been surprised before, though. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:41, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
The discussion involved the same nationalist-minded party that has been pushing for this repeatedly before. Their claims didn't go through the first several times, opponents have grown tired of it. So I guess just try, try again until they find a naive administrator? A terrible decision. You have given these guys license to romp through all Portugal-related pages and do immense damage to WP. Walrasiad (talk) 02:48, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Nationalist? Not that I have seen, but alright, let's run with this. Even if they are all 'nationalist', they made better arguments and provided much better substantiation for their points, which is why the article has been moved. I don't believe that I am naive, but anything's possible, and I have no idea how article titles will "do immense damage to [Wikipedia]." In any case, I'm not going to alter my close. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:56, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Nationalist, yes. It messes things up because ALL the pages related to Portuguese history use the anglicized monarch names. It is consistent with WP policy on monarch names. Whether John of France, Spain, Poland or whatever, it's John. .......And there they go! Triumphantly reversing all the monarch pages within minutes of your terrible decision. I am now going to have to reverse them all. Thanks a lot for messing things up and piling a ton of work on the rest of us. Easy for you to make decisions when you don't have to clean up after them. Walrasiad (talk) 03:00, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) WP:CCC, although moving all of them based on one article's RM may be a tad presumptuous. The article I moved is now in line with WP:COMMONNAME and the closely related point three at WP:SOVEREIGN. Why don't you open an RfC on the matter, instead of blindly edit-warring and attacking other editors? Comment on content, not contributors, and try to rebut their points with hard evidence. If you can't, that may be an indication that you are fighting for a lost cause.
Also, given the comment you just deleted, I'm very close to blocking you for personal attacks. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:13, 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)

I restored those pages to the name they have had for years until Lumastan changed them all five minutes ago. Different kings, different pages. That said, I am still appealing this decision for reopening the discussion. Walrasiad (talk) 03:42, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Well you and I see the discussion differently, but this is why a neutral editor closes them. Anyway, this discussion is going nowhere. I'm not actually sure of the process for appealing a RM, but you're of course free to do so. In the meantime: Alarbus, that's within guidelines. You'll probably have to start an RfC or multiple RMs to move them all. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:44, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
I am having trouble figuring that out myself. I suppose I'd have to do a new RM? Walrasiad (talk) 03:49, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
I only looked briefly, but I looked deep into history on a few and this has gone back and forth more than a few times. I think it just more of the same hostility that's screwing the whole project up. Alarbus (talk) 03:54, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Eh, the easier route is to start an RfC on all of the articles, as there's a good chance a new RM will be seen as pointy and closed very quickly. Given the breadth of the proposal, I'd recommend putting it on a WikiProject talk page (WP:PORTUGAL?). @Alarbus, this is why an RfC will be good. One side is going to be very unhappy but this will hopefully lay the matter to rest so we can all go back to our pet projects (shameless self promotion, of course). ;-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:56, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
I only saw this RM today, only started editing the Brazilian and Portuguese monarchy articles a few days ago. Not my issue, really, but seems some have been at this for ages. I believe it's really mostly about diacritic marks. Megabytes of discussion over them. People are insane (as a species;). Alarbus (talk) 04:07, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Proof of that is over at WP:LAME, have fun Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:09, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Well, I have given my reply on this in my last message at Talk:João VI of Portugal, if you are at all interested. Consistency and clarity are virtues in communication and teaching, and it is worth defending. And this move undermines it. As you have made a decision, I too have made a decision: I am going to suspend my own "pet projects" on Portuguese history. If you consider that "lame", so be it. But it is hardly encouraging to contribute content composed according to certain long-standing norms, only to have them arbitrarily changed. Walrasiad (talk) 06:51, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Ed, there is something that Walrasiad has been ignoring, although I said several times over and over on João (John) VI's talk page: if we follow strictly the rules of WP:COMMONNAME as he has insisted, then the name should João VI. If we turn the option "English only" on Google books, we'll find 53,800 results for João and 40,800 results for John. Since he has been reverting all other Portuguese Kings named João back to John, this means that he has a peculiar understanding of when applying rules (or in other words: when it suits him). What to do now? Can he simply ignore the move discussion and revert the name back to John? --Lecen (talk) 16:42, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Nice try. Different kings. Since you love running numbers, why don't you actually do the same exercise for the others? e.g. "Joao II" 37,400 versus "John II" 110,000 results. Walrasiad (talk) 16:55, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Heck, why, even just running the longer phrase "Joao VI of Portugal" (8,010), vs. "John VI of Portugal" (16,000) proves your results are very misleading. Walrasiad (talk) 17:03, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
I had no idea historians called "Augustus of Rome", or "Justinian of Byzantium" or similar. Do not confuse the title of a Wikipedia's article with the actual name used by historians to call a person. The "of Country X" is used only to distinguish someone with similar name from another place. --Lecen (talk) 17:06, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Yet there you have it. Both names use the same phrasing. "Joao VI of Portugal" is only half of "John VI of Portugal". Clearly the latter is twice as common. If you play with numbers, you're likely to get burned by numbers. Walrasiad (talk) 17:16, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
You see, I had to see you saying "...flows much better, much clearer, than clumsy, ugly, low recognition Portuguese spellings"; as well as SergeWoodzing saying "Most readers of English are not interested in language lessons forced upon them by people of other language cultures, just like most readers of Portuguese are not interested in language lessons forced upon them by people of other language cultures". Also what you said to ed17 was certainly not nice either. Xenophobia apart, it's precisely this kind of behavior on Wikipedia that made me leave this place. People are free to insult others and sometimes they are applauded and nothing happens to them. Neither SergeWoodzing nor GoodDay have ever done any kind of contribution to Portuguese-related articles. In fact, they never revealed any kind of interested on the subject. They are desperate to keep the "John" for other reasons. In your case, if you dislike Portuguese, I hve no idea why you bother working on articles about it. However, I'll give you one advice: you're not obliged to call "João III" by his native name. You may still write your articles by using first "João III", followed by "(English: John III)" and use the English version for the remaining of the article. Since you have no interest on actually contributing on Portuguese royals' articles, their name in it won't matter to you. --Lecen (talk) 17:30, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
And now once again with personal attacks and aspersions. I have never revealed to you who I am, nor where I am from, and yet you repeatedly claim to know my motivations, accusing me of being some English-speaking fanatic, a xenophobe, who dislikes Portuguese. My contributions speak for themselves. I have contributed to many, many articles on Portuguese history, with the clarity, accuracy and depth that is necessary to inform an English-speaking audience that is not likely familiar with the topic, including linking extensively to original Portuguese sources to ensure that the curious can follow it up more deeply. If that is "dislking Portugal", I certainly seem have an odd way of showing it, since I do put in a lot of time supplying content. And not for self-promoting baubles nor shiny awards nor to "right great wrongs", nor for nationalist glorification nor soapboxing, but rather because I actually want to teach people about Portuguese history. To that end, I legitimately believe clarity and communication are of paramount importance. I don't know why you find it so hard to wrap your head around that. Walrasiad (talk) 18:25, 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)

Wahoo, this looked like it snowballed since I went offline last night. I need to go to work but will comment later. In the meantime, can someone draft an RfC so we're not sitting in traction and not moving towards a true resolution? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:55, 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)

A barnstar for you!

edit
  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)
Thanks, but I only moved the article because consensus was in (I assume?) your favor. Had it been the other way, I would have closed it as no consensus. Regards, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:13, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Good Sumaritan

edit

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)

Thanks for the note Nick, I've commented. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:51, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Concentrate and Ask Again/GA1

edit

  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)

  Jezhotwells (submissions) has claimed Talk:Geneva Conference (1976)/GA1 and Talk:Victoria Falls Conference (1975)/GA1 which also seem borderline. Again, I'd be inclined to remove them, but as I was already removing another of his, I wasn't so sure. J Milburn (talk) 16:08, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
We don't give points for straight approvals, right? If I remember that right... I don't want people to fluff, but one sentence of suggested changes isn't enough for me. I think Jezhotwells', while short, are borderline okay because what he put showed that he was putting out some work in critically analyzing the articles, but I wouldn't object if you removed them. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:22, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Prompt

edit

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. ResMar 04:36, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I've kept up with it but haven't wanted to comment much... there's a lot of personal animosity in there. Why? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:40, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Appeal to resolve RM

edit

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)

Thanks you for your post; it must have taken you hours to write! I'm fine with you posting here (you're certainly not persona non grata, anyone is welcome to post here anytime), and your tone seems fine to me. I'm sorry, but I still believe that my close was correct. I have not seen any neutral editors question my judgement of the consensus, only the same few people arguing it out on multiple pages, like ANI, WQA, etc. More pragmatically speaking, there's also no need to move it back before an RfC (side note: I'm hoping to draft one in two to three days) and cause even more drama, when the decision as to the page's name will be made in the RfC. I'm hoping, if you and the other opposers agree, to be a neutral party in the RfC to watch for and remove mudslinging and personal comments, so that the RfC doesn't fall into the same pit as the ANI and WQA. I'll leave the final judgement of the RfC to a different admin, unless y'all really think I need to close it too. What are your thoughts? P.S. yes, an admin's job can be thankless. This is why you'll normally find me writing articles or at WP:Milhist. ;-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 08:26, 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:

  • 1. Cristiano Tomas (proposer)
  • 2. Hchc2009
  • 3. Lecen
  • 4. Peterkingiron
  • 5. Paulista01
  • 6. Asyntax
  • 7. Alarbus

Against:

  • 1. Jafeluv
  • 2. 70.24.244.248
  • 3. Sergewoodzing
  • 4. Walrasiad
  • 5. Flamarande
  • 6. Jorge Alo

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:

  • 1. Ajaxsmack - wondered what, if anything, had changed since prior RM. No statement of preference.
  • 2. Loveshade - re-stated the policy. No statement of preference.
  • 3. Kauffner - disputed Lecen's results, but did not state own preferene
  • 4. Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy - did not state own preference, but voted for in prior RM

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, I am afraid your failure to correct this error, and Lecen's increasing shenanigans have forced me to prematurely submit a case at the AMI questioning the ethical properiety behind your RM move and asking that you be removed from decision-making power over it. You might wish to look it over. I regret things have gotten to this stage, and I had hoped to avoid airing these allegations and that you would make the right decision in light of PBS's analysis, but since Lecen seems bloody-minded on having me blocked and derailing this AMI, I had to present this case prematurely, lest I not be available to do so later. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Premature RM closure of John VI of Portugal Walrasiad (talk) 04:12, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Fair enough. I apparently have many more interactions with Lecen than I thought. I've replied there, and I'm hoping it's coherent while I'm practically falling asleep. I'll review the rest of your links sometime tomorrow. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:24, 10 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)

Thanks! That's all really appreciated on my end. The whole situation was just unnecessarily nasty, and the anti-nationalist comments (perceived or real) that lead to pro-nationalist comments just blew the whole thing to smithereens. That's what sucks about internet discussions. As soon as the kindling catches, it's like trying to stop Greek fire; sometimes drastic measures, like the one taken at WT:FAC right now, are the only thing that can stop it.
As for FAC, everything should be okay as the allegations weren't conclusive and occurred away from the process. Anyway, I don't hold grudges or anything, so don't worry about me wiki-stalking you or anything. This is random, but looking at your article contribs, have you ever thought of joining WP:Milhist? We have an A-class process that I think you might be interested in. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:51, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm relieved. I was afraid I had hurt you too deeply for retrieval. You might also be glad to know that I've begun to patch things up with ChristianoThomas. I am afraid Lecen, however, is going to take longer. He just showed up at my talk page with a highly irregular offer to effectively partition "ownership" of different John articles, deploying poor young Christiano as his stooge. I nearly bit his head off.
On MilHist: well, to be frank, I don't really know how WikiProjects operate. And, unlike you, I don't have the patience or meticulousness for careful quality-assurance. I look for neglected areas and just pump them with content, quality be damned (well, almost). Besides, my interest is not military per se, but rather trade (nautical & colonialism just comes with that). I presume there are a lot grognards at MilHist and I doubt I could keep up with them. My few outright military history articles (e.g. Battle of Tangier (1437), Battle of Cochin (1504)) were incidental to this theme (i.e. I needed to link to them, the articles didn't exist, so I wrote them myself). But I am not a natural military historian, and quality assurance for the areas I cover would be daunting - there simply aren't that many secondary sources for it (have had to resort a lot to chronicles, in archaic Portuguese, for details; not sure how English-speaking MilHist people would handle that. I doubt any of my articles could climb above C-class).
On the John VI: as mentioned, I would still like to appeal to you to reverse the close & move on John VI. I have already posted in the talk page a new set of careful and more accurate numerical measures of preponderance of names. This is having repercussions on John V, with all the same things going on, and confusing editors coming in from the RM page. Poor Jimbo Wales is now getting an earful. And I pretty much expect that every other day from now on there's going to be repeated flips & moves, & reiterations of this debate across different pages (and God forbid Spanish, French or others hear about this and try the same stunt with theirs, citing this as an example). This is a very unstable situation. You must reverse your close & move, the debate needs to be re-opened and settled once and for all, or at least return to where it was long-standing & stable and taken up in a few months time. But the current situation is highly unstable, is having repercussion across other pages, and will not simply go away. Please consider this seriously. This is not merely about John VI, nor even merely about royal biographies. It affects how all history articles are written. Walrasiad (talk) 08:05, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, I saw that below. Even if you consider the 'offer' to be a poor idea, you shouldn't bite people's heads off. It's just continuing the madness that is this whole debate! If we can all keep it civil, maybe we can actually find a resolution; without it, everyone's going to be too mad to agree to anything.
We're basically just a large group of people who like military history. Even if you don't want to contribute specific quality content, you could always join and contribute to discussions on the talk page, or review articles that strike your fancy. We're a pretty collegial and welcoming group of people, and I'm sure some discussions could benefit from some of your opinions or ideas.
Hah, this all migrated to Jimbo's talk page? Lovely. I see that discussion fell apart in either xenophobic remarks or remarks that could be interpreted as xenophobic. Can't we all get along? Sigh. I am not going to move it back; I still think my assessment of the local consensus was correct, I haven't seen a discussion with outside editors that hasn't been hijacked by overpersonalized remarks between the warring factions (which drives everyone else away), and most importantly, I'm way too involved by this point to do much of anything. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 11:39, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

A Pasty for you!

edit
  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)
You just reminded me how hungry I am. Shameful. I'm hoping my year will start off on the right foot when I return to Marquette and college in a few hours. :-) And of course, I hope the same for you. Let me know if I can help with pictures or anything. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:28, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Well, we have plenty of snow here in Negaunee, so I'm sure you'll find enough for your liking when you arrive! (Yeah, I'm still here for the holidays, and not in any hurry to head south just yet. Imzadi 1979 → 09:44, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Eh, I'm clearly in the minority here but snow is not my favorite thing to deal with. Especially with the tires on my car(!). Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:58, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
You're not the only one though. We got into a nasty little snow storm on M-28coming back from a day trip to the Northern Lower right before Christmas. Fortunately, when I do decide to head back, I can schedule my return trip for a nice day. Imzadi 1979 → 10:01, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, I went up for New Year's and decided to drive back on the night of Jan 1st. Bad decision. Rumble strips serve as good yellow and white lines when the road is covered in snow. Anyway, I need sleep. I'll be back on tomorrow afternoon-ish. Peace, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 10:07, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Signpost

edit

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'm not sure how I'm attached; I don't really have an opinion on any of it and could care less what happens, as long as there is still a process to submit my articles to. ;-) I think my participation was limited to !voting in favor of an RfC, but only because with so much comment and mudslinging, there really isn't another option. My apologies for not contacting you, but I hope you agree with most of the changes. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 10:35, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
  • It reads fine, I just did a couple of small changes (hopefully you agree with them; in case you were planning on asking, I cut vitriol as not all of our readers are native speakers of English). Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:38, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
As a side note, the detachment issue is a reference to you being quite active at FAC and thus perhaps more attached to the process as run. Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:40, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
That's fine, it reads better in your version anyway! I see what you mean now, and I hope my previous answer shows that I'm relatively neutral unless someone wants to abolish FAC, which seems unlikely. I've copyedited myself a bit and will look it over again tomorrow, when it's not 5am, to make sure it's ready for publishing. Thanks Crisco! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 10:53, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
  • You're welcome, and OMG at you being up at 5am your time. I'd have conked out. Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:41, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I changed the word "devolved", which I thought carried an unintentional implication. Aside from that, I will refrain from expressing an opinion :).--Wehwalt (talk) 13:11, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
I think it should be moved off of Featured content and into a special Discussion report, however. It fits the second theme better than the first. ResMar 14:21, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Perhaps. I have no qualms with running FC without a lead story this week. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:15, 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)

That's because it really has nothing to do with subject of the article: FAC and the leadership debate. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:10, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Quick question for you, after noticing that SG seems to be taking the original draft as a personal attack and the talk page of the article is rife with hate for it: did you see the draft as a personal attack, or just something that needed more background and a more comprehensive summary? I tried to keep it as neutral as possible, but... Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:49, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
    • I didn't really notice the title/picture combo until later (as you may be able to tell by my confused replies on her page), but while I can see how you meant it, I could also see how it could be construed as an attack. It happens, don't beat yourself up over it. The original draft was just really short on information and gave an entirely unneeded focus on TCO's RfC, which was not the main story. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:18, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
      • Understood, and taking a fuller look at WT:FAC agreed. It seems that there is a happy ending here as well; the prose looks great and the discussion is winding down. Thanks a lot! Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:29, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
        • Anytime! I had a good time writing it. Thanks for not taking offense when I completely overwrote your text with no warning, too. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:51, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
          • Nah, no biggie. After all, it does say (literally) everywhere: "If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here." Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:13, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 January 2012

edit

Capitan Prat

edit

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)

I can add a bit, though most of my 'expertise' is in the political history that lead to the dreadnought race and not so much the naval history of the time. We may be able to get it to GA, but there won't be enough information out there for FA. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:51, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Also. "[You] got bored". You better hope Parsecgirl doesn't see that comment or she's going to start asking for more time with you. ;-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 11:55, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
She was in the room with me, doing homework for her master's - that's why I was bored, because she was otherwise occupied ;)
As for Capitan Prat, there's really no way to get her past GA (if we can get that far!). Thanks for what you've been able to do so far. Parsecboy (talk) 12:41, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Heh, fine, you got lucky ... this time. ;-) That's about all I have until I go home and will have maybe a sentence or two from English's Armed Forces of Latin America. I found this, but that claims the process started in 1884 – is that incorrect? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:20, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

John/Joao VI

edit

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:

Dear Walrasiad,
After time of thinking, I would like to say I am sorry we have been at odds. I do not like to be at odds with people, and sometimes I can get a bit to nationalistic, but you can also come off as rude sometimes. I would like to put our disagreements behind us, as I do not want to have an inimigos here on wikipedia. I hope you feel the same and that we can put this whole fiasco behind us.
Thank you,
Cristiano Tomás (talk) 00:51, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
The recent move request on João V won't pass. You won't get a consensus anymore. No administrator will revert the ed 17's decision to close the move request, since he is a widely respected editor. Thus, I want to propose a settlement: Cristiano Tomás will not rename the other remaining Portuguese Kings called João (I, II, III and IV). Since it seems you enjoy writing about the 14th-17th centuries period, you'll still be able to call your kings by their Anglicized names. We'll keep João V and João VI. You'll get 60% and we 40%. The other option is to try to see how far this will go. --Lecen (talk) 01:14, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I will not, lets just do this magnificent proposal. Do you not agree walrasiad? Cristiano Tomás (talk) 01:20, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Lecen, are you proposing that I sell out the integrity of Wikipedia, or else you'll give me a headache? Take possession of articles? Or else? In case you haven't noticed Lecen, I don't much appreciate your gangland tactics. So you now realize your bullying methods - manipulation, personal attacks, baseless accusations, attempted blocks, etc. - do not intimidate me. So now you want to detach the point of strongest resistance, bribe me off with a side-deal, so you can focus your fire on harassing and bullying the other editors? Just what kind of person do you take me for? To my shame, I have allowed my honor to be tattered in this affair, but I still have some left. Take your disgraceful, dirty deal and get out of my sight. Walrasiad (talk) 02:50, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
@ Cristiano Tomas: Never let other people speak in your name. Especially not manipulative thugs. You are young, your honor is still untainted. Guard it well, for life will be throwing lots of dirt at it and you'll miss it when it is gone. Walrasiad (talk) 02:58, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

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)

It's borderline, which means no administrator will block, because there's no clear delineation for when a block for civility is needed. Plus, unless he's threatening you or something, I'm rather involved by this point and can't block anyone. This whole affair is one big trainwreck. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 11:09, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm not asking you to block him. I know quite well what would happened if you did that. He would go again to the ANI and make complaints until no one else would care. I just wanted to show you how classy the discussion is. --Lecen (talk) 11:13, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
AKA: I get desysoped in about a day. ;-) I'm conversing with one of the editors above... perhaps something good will come out of it. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 11:43, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Answering your question: GoodDay and Wikid77 have been trying for a few days to get somekind of support from Jimbo Wales. See here, here and here. Last time I checked, this was called Canvassing and was not allowed. However, since they can do whatever they want with no consequences, it doesn't matter. --Lecen (talk) 11:47, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Eh, this is where technicalities come in – they can say that they are discussing the matter on a user talk page with an editor. Even if this editor is the (co-)founder of Wikipedia and has more talk page stalkers than most of the rest of the userbase combined. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 11:52, 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)

I don't think this was an attempt to get you blocked, given that he knew I was way to involved to do anything... Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:20, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
FWIW, Jimbo Wales has no more authority over content, then any other editor. Anyways, I left the discussion at his talkpage, due to the continued accusations of xenophobia & prejudice. It's also why I left the discussion over the RM I had started. GoodDay (talk) 02:58, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

These I take it: Personal attacks on User:GoodDay at User talk:Jimbo Wales talk page:

  • [1] "The problem is that GoodDay is an user who doesn't actually contribute writing articles (such as I do: I have nine FAs behind my back) but only on taking part on discussions over what he believes to be the end of the Anglo culture. Not the kind of editor who is truly useful to Wikipedia"
  • [2] "Could you at least pretend that you have no foreign culture prejudice? Please? This "Oh my God, they are writing all articles in another foreign language" is not helpful. Try to write Featured Articles like I did. Now that's helpful"
  • [3] selective quote and personal interpretation: "You could also say: "Get the hell out of my country, foreigners!" It will be just wonderful for Wikipedia's reputation once it's learned that there are editors with a clear xenophobic speech."

Walrasiad (talk) 03:01, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Yep, that's why I departed Jimbo's talkpage. I had gotten enough of the crap thrown at me arond hockey articles, over the years from other editors & so I've little tolerance for it, nowadays. GoodDay (talk) 03:10, 12 January 2012 (UTC)


Comment & Proposal

edit

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::

  • [4] hostile personal attack ("... I don't remember ever seeing you contributing to articles about Portugal or Brazil. What is your interest here? I hope not to imply that I am a liar by giving false results"") to another editor, user:Kauffner, whose sole comment to merit that hostility was to suggest the technical point that Lecen forgot to set the filter on his Googlebooks results to omit Portuguese-language books. Kauffner did not reply or participate further in that discussion.
  • [5] personal attack on User:SergeWoodzing ("Don't claim as a universal true what is clearly your personal xenophobia").

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:

  • [6], discussion between Alarbus and Lecen, strategizing and characterizing opposition as due merely to "foreigners", an "Anglo-Saxon" conspiracy motivated by "cultural hostility", while themselves characterizing Anglo-Saxon civilization as "declinist" and "failed", and characterizing this entire affair as a struggle between Brazilians vs. Anglo-Saxons, us versus them, "defend your culture". I think that helps clarify where the xenophobia and cultural hostility in this sorry affair really lies. Note also the opinion that people who don't contribute to Portuguese/Brazilian articles shouldn't have a say (this is a repeated theme in Lecen, e.g.
    • [7]"None of them have made any contribution to articles about João VI, nor his son Pedro I, nor his grandson Pedro II: they opposed the move because they saw it as an attack against Anglo culture"

User:Alarbus's dismissive vulgarities about other people's posts are also easy to collect:

  • [8] "does wikt:not in Kansas anymore help you with your depth perception? At least you're funny in a self-defecating sort of way"
  • [9] "Bat guano, it does. Mirrors everywhere."
  • [10] "This is all chimp shit flung about a cage in the zoo."
  • [11] "LART" (with link to page describing intenet slang for "Loser")

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):

  • [12] "Since I don't care to have my posts called "chimp shit" or "bat guano" by user:Alarbus, I will post some numbers here.", including a request that I not mention his name if I re-posted those figures on the talk page, indicative of the atmosphere they had created.

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)

"I deplore Lecen's tactics, which I believe are thuggish..." Those are nice words. Are you going to keep insulting me for much longer? --Lecen (talk) 23:28, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Lecen, please don't mar the continuity my message to Ed by inserting your edits within them. If you want to post replies, you can place your edits separately. This is not where I'm presenting the case against you. I have a lot more material. Rest assured, you'll be very busy with edits and explanations, then. Although hopefully, there will be no need. Please consider this proposition seriously. It would be the least unpleasant way to resolve this. Walrasiad (talk) 23:40, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Looked through the history and saw what was said. I didn't think Lecen's insertions were too distracting, but everyone has their own tastes and preferences. This is basically what I was proposing when I was continually pushing for an RfC on the matter. I think the three of you could participate, as you all have legitimate views, but I would delegate someone beforehand to remove any personalized comments, or this is going to go the same as the ANI discussions. The advantage of doing it as an RfC is that you will receive outside input, rather than the same old people rehashing the same arguments. Regards, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:11, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
With all due respect, given the record of excessive personal attacks, accusations of xenophobia and stunts, I think Lecen & Albarus's participation will be chilling and not conducive to open discussion and participation by other editors. Few editors are willing to be subjected to those sort of harangues and accusations, and are unlikely to participate in that atmosphere (as already seen above). If you feel it advisable that I pursue an ANI and conventionally request another admin to block Lecen & Alarbus for personal attacks, etc., then I am prepared to do so, although I had hoped to avoid that step. I had hoped a compromise could be reached here, by formal agreement between us, for a speedy and open resolution, for which I would be willing to place myself on the sacrificial block. Since you seem to know Lecen well, I was hoping you could approach him with this proposal and counsel him. Walrasiad (talk) 02:43, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
EDIT: A slight modification, which would maintain our participation, would have each of us three draft and submit a single comprehensive statement of our positions, and then make no further comment or remark to any other editor on the matter for the duration of the discussion. And that if any of us three are seen to be making any further comment, or influencing other editors, or trying to canvass, or any other shenanigan, for the duartion, then instant block. Walrasiad (talk) 02:53, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
That is one reason why I proposed having a neutral party search for and remove overly personal comments. The other is that the opposite side hasn't had too shiny of a record with personal remarks either. ANI isn't going to do anything, not when the attacks are borderline and there's an ongoing Arbitration case on civility. Your best chance is an RfC that allows outside views to be raised, along with someone to watch for personal comments, so that everything stays on a tangible subject. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:50, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Oh, I'm not relying on any one statement, but a pattern, an excess of them - volume more than content. As well as evidence of its effects. But as I said, I'd rather not do an ANI. I am not sure what constitutes a neutral party, or if such a neutral party is trustworthy, or, in an attempt to seem even-handed, lets things slide and loses a handle on participation. I'd rather a lockbox on the bullies. Excluding me, Lecen, and Alarbus (or restrict us to one statement only) needs to be a condition. Walrasiad (talk) 05:15, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Please start an RfC. Discussions like the one above are going to lead to a good number of blocks. (ed, I suggest perhaps archiving?) Prodego talk 05:03, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Prodego I sent you an e-mail a couple days back, but didn't get a reply. I wonder if you received it? As for starting an RfC, I'd rather hash the conditions out first here, and clearly set out the preliminary terms, or else I suspect it won't likely end up any better than the last RM. Walrasiad (talk) 05:26, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Sorry about that, replied now. Prodego talk 05:47, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Ed, I see no point on this anymore, but Walrasiad made some harsh and erroneously remarks about me above. I'll have to reply:
("... I don't remember ever seeing you contributing to articles about Portugal or Brazil. What is your interest here? I hope not to imply that I am a liar by giving false results"")
The sentence above was a reply to Kauffner's comments: "These "Joao VI" results are mostly non-English." He said I was trying to cheat by giving false results. I posted links and more links proving that he said something without foundation.
("Don't claim as a universal true what is clearly your personal xenophobia").
The sentence above was a reply to this: "Most readers of English are not interested in language lessons forced upon them by people of other language cultures, just like most readers of Portuguese are not interested in language lessons forced upon them by people of other language cultures." If this is not a xenophobic remark, I have no idea what it is, then.
"...while themselves characterizing Anglo-Saxon civilization as "declinist" and "failed", and characterizing this entire affair as a struggle between Brazilians vs. Anglo-Saxons, us versus them, "defend your culture".
I never said that Anglo-Saxon culture was declining or failing. Indeed Alarbus said something about it, but not on this tone. What he meant was that the USA was not alone anymore in the world. It has to understand that there are other powers rising. Anyway, I'm not Alarbus. So he shouldn't have said "...while themselves characterizing Anglo-Saxon civilization as 'declinist' and 'failed". I never said anything like that. It is a lie.
"None of them have made any contribution to articles about João VI, nor his son Pedro I, nor his grandson Pedro II: they opposed the move because they saw it as an attack against Anglo culture"
Indeed. According to their own words. See this link on section Walrasiad (subsection "A few diffs that will be helpful to understand the entire discussion").
"User:Alarbus's dismissive vulgarities about other people's posts are also easy to collect:"
Obviosulsy, I can't answer for Alarbus. He/she is a grown up. However, I'd like to remember that his comments were made to me on his talk page, not on João VI's talk page to everyone see.
This is my last comment here about this entire mess: the "massive" opposition to ed17's closure is limited only to Walrasiad, GoodDay and SergeWoodzing. That's telling. I have no idea why we need a RfC. I tried to talk to Prodego but he opted to ignore me. I don't know why. Since I'm actually the only editor who can be described as an specialist on the subject, my opinion should matter. But it's not for what I've seen. I tried to reach Walrasiad but you saw his reply. That's it. --Lecen (talk) 10:09, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
I am not going to comment on the comments above. It seems the RfC is going ahead, regretfully without the lockbox on three editors I proposed. For the sake of peace, I am not going to contest that, and I am going to withhold my ANI for the moment. But let me be clear here now that I will be watching it closely. And let me be clear ahead of time that, that in the interests of securing widespread participation and a non-hostile environment:
* on the first personal attack by Lecen or Alarbus on another editor, no matter how borderline
* on the first accusation of xenophobia
* on the first reference to another editor's nationality,
* on the first "claim of ownership" of an article,
* on the first suggestion that another editor's comments are in any way less valuable because of his past editing record
* on the first referral to a past post of another editor, with the purpose of invalidating his current comment,
* on the first instance of attempted intimidation of another editor by other means,
* on the first whisper of vulgarity,
I shall immediately submit an ANI to have Lecen & Alarbus blocked. Walrasiad (talk) 17:35, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

edit
  The Admin's Barnstar
For this much needed closure. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:15, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:20, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Talk:João VI of Portugal#Requested move

edit

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)

Maritime Commission type N3 Ships

edit

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)

Well, most renames are very uncontroversial, as I think this would be. I don't particularly care what you do with it; I only created it to stop a TfD back in 2010. If you think that's the best solution, please, go ahead. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:25, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Done. It should be completely non-controversial and probably nearly invisible. What I am thinking about with respect to the Enceladus class/Port Repair Ships may be less so since that would be deleting some of the individual ship pages that started as nothing but DANFS copies for ships that were Navy for a few days or even just a day. I think it would be logical to cover the four ships that had actual naval service in individual pages and consolidate the others under port repair where several got overseas, though others just vanished even there. Palmeira (talk) 23:47, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

John/Joao VI progress report

edit

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:

  • [24] uncivil tone to User:Prodego "See your talk page. It's all there. Ow, I'm sorry, you ignored it. My bad."
  • [25] - Lecen enters into Paulista01's opening
  • [26] - personal attack by Lecen on User:Wikid77, "At least try to pretend you know something about Portuguese/Brazilian history"

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)

Prodego is already discussing it with him, I believe. I'll keep an eye on it but will probably be offline until tonight or tomorrow. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:43, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

WP:SMS

edit
 
Hello. 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 remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

- Dank (push to talk) 23:43, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Q

edit

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)

From the comment on the Wikiproject MILHIST talk page, it looks like that person is leaving Wikipedia, so hopefully there won't be any further problems. Wild Wolf (talk) 13:53, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Jan Bugle

edit

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)

Interesting thought. I think we have to go with the December articles unless we want to delay publishing it until February. Should we note this somewhere on the page? I think Hc's review could be an op-ed, or at least that's what he was saying earlier. I need to draw up questions to interview Kirill with – I'm open to a few suggestions from you. ;-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:52, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Well I think our goal with skipping the "December" issue was so delivery month and issue month were in sync, i.e. "January" issue goes out in January, "February" goes out in February, etc. However we're still doing a retrospective on what actually happened the month before, e.g. we report the December writing contest results in the January issue (because of course January's context is still in progress in January), and therefore it's logical we report articles promoted to A/FA-Class in December in the January issue as well (because we don't yet know all the articles promoted in January). Same thing with Awards. As long as we get each issue out by around mid-month (i.e. around now!) then I think we'll look fine doing it this way; in fact I don't really see another way to do it... ;-) If Hchc's thingie is an op-ed, even better. If we only have one book review, that's fine. Interview questions for Kirill? Can you start off and ping me when you've got a few, and I can chime in? Gotta check on Awards from December now... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:51, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. I'll work on this either tomorrow night or Tuesday, when I don't have any classes. Thanks Ian! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 07:55, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
How's the interview going, mate? I think we'd better get this out ASAP otherwise we may as well wait for the Historian of the Year results -- but that would take us perilously close to February, which is what we were trying to avoid by renaming the issues. Do you want to leave the interview till next month? Since Hchc's completed his piece we can use that for the op-ed, and I'm happy to run off a from the editors spiel some time tonight, mentioning Historian of the Year voting plus the review awards, in which case we'd be ready to hit the presses... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:12, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Not good, I haven't had a chance to draw up any questions yet. >< I'd like to get it out before the voting ends so we can have a last reminder to vote, so I suppose we should put it off till next month, lol. I'm in class-ish right now (Model UN is technically a class, I suppose...), but I'll try to write up FTE now or directly after. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 14:45, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Ed, Ed, Ed, I said I was doing from the editors -- I didn't get what you meant by FTE, to me it's "full time effort"! Anyway, I've just drafted pretty well what you've done but find you've beaten me to saving it. Oh well, I guess we're about ready to go then, can you just move the Op-Ed in and kill the Review Essay in the header? I'm hitting the sack... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:57, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Oh damn, I thought I could get it in before you so I didn't make you do all the work. Sorry! Feel free to add whatever you like. I'm starting the interview and will have it done by tonight – hopefully Kirill will respond fast. If he doesn't, we can move it to next month. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 17:03, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Okay mate, aside from any movement on the interview front, I think I'm happy with everything in this issue -- well done. I think give Kirill 24 hours for the interview before we issue it regardless, yep? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:15, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Chilean battleship Capitán Prat

edit

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:05, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

FYI

edit

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)

Well, using the main member list was intentional because it was meant to hit the whole project (rather than Bugle subscribers), but I think I need to move the inactive people to a subpage... but hey, as you say, maybe we'll wake up some of the old contributors and get them to edit again. ;-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:11, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
A subpage would be fine, as long as you don't transclude it on the main page. That is, the bot looks at the (rough) equivalent of Special:WhatLinksHere, it doesn't actually look at the page text to determine its list. So transclusion will register as links on the page, while moving the content to a subpage and simply linking to that subpage will not. Or you could make multiple subpages and just use the /Active list as an input list. Depends on the group's needs. Delivering to inactive members is fine, I guess. I wouldn't have noticed, except the list of targets grew so considerably that I happened to look at how long the bot had been running and why. Its global brother at Meta-Wiki has had some hiccups today, so I've been paying far more attention than usual. --MZMcBride (talk) 01:51, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Hmm, actually the list is already in a subpage. Guess I'll just use that next time. Regardless of how you noticed, thanks for these notes -- I really do appreciate the help. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 07:55, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Military Historian of the Year

edit

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.

The Signpost: 16 January 2012

edit

Deletion Criteria

edit

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. Stubbleboy

Hubert von Rebeur-Paschwitz

edit

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)

Hey Paulista, thanks! I'm going to ping Parsecboy (talk · contribs) into this discussion, as he is our resident German warship editor (@Parsec, look at page 22 on). Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:02, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Those are the battleships SMS Kaiser and König Albert and the light cruiser Strassburg. The photos are pretty interesting, especially the one of Strassburg, though they're unfortunately fairly small and oddly cropped. It would be nice to be able to get the originals, but I'm sure they're lost in some archive in Brazil :) Parsecboy (talk) 23:08, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes, they are probably in the Ipiranga Museum or the SP state archive. I will keep my eyes open, if I find anything else I will let you know. If you need a translation from Portuguese, I can help. I found this interesting since Brazil joined the Allies in WWI and declared war on Germany a couple of years after this visit. Ed, I also saw an article about the Minas Gerais once, I am trying to remember where, if I find it I will send it to you. Regards, Paulista01 (talk) 01:30, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
You may be able to blow it up, hit print screen, get them on GIMP, and crop (if you really want the image!) :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:10, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
I've never used any image editing software - no idea how :) But on the question of images, what's the word on that NARA scan thing that was supposed to go down a couple of weeks ago? Are we going to see the uploads soon? Parsecboy (talk) 23:33, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
GIMP is free and basically Photoshop-light. Just in case you ever need an image editor, that's the best you can get for free, short of pirating. ;-) There may be a few here, but I'm waiting for Dominic to let me know when they're up. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:53, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

3 hours to going dark.

edit

See you on the other side. Call your congressman and Senator. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 02:43, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

That's what the Google cache is for. ResMar 03:29, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
Or Ask.com. Yippie! I still think we should have done a soft blackout, if anything, but oh well. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:43, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
Completely agree, but apparently the !votestacking is A-OK. Ah well! See ya on the other side. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:59, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
Seems we can crawl out now. ResMar 05:27, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, that was an exciting 24 hours. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:10, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Poke

edit

Poke. ResMar 03:29, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Abandon ship

edit

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)

Great song! I'll take a look. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:10, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Hey, thanks for your help! Drmies (talk) 21:41, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Anytime! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:49, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Thank you so much for your help, Ed--it did pretty good. Drmies (talk) 04:08, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Anytime, Drmies. Glad to see it did so good even in a non-lead slot! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:09, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

edit
 

<3

– GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:26, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

<3 Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:33, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

edit

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)

Thanks! I'm really impressed by the metaphors here, haha. Hope to see you around sometime. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:33, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

NARA update and blog mention

edit

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)

No worries, it's fine! And thanks! Although I really can only claim credit for maybe 40% – Sturmvogel 66 was the one who did everything from "Modernization" down when I ran out of time. Is there any way to edit the blog post to reflect his contributions? :-) Also, the article received 120,634/29,578/11,433 hits (which puts it on Wikipedia:Today's featured article/Most viewed) and the image 1618/1267/430 hits on the main page. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:46, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
I thought you'd probably have some factual corrections. That quote actually came from a personal e-mail I sent a while ago, without planning on it being published, so I didn't spend time researching or polishing it, and it was written the day of the featuring, before the stats were actually in. I can let Victoria know, but there won't be any changes over the weekend. Dominic·t 15:40, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
No worries, it was accurate for everything but that. And feel free to include those viewing statistics when you email her; hopefully she'll be impressed! :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 15:52, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Barnstar

edit
  The Original Barnstar
This barnstar is awarded to everyone who - whatever their opinion - contributed to the discussion about Wikipedia and SOPA. Thank you for being a part of the discussion. Presented by the Wikimedia Foundation.

Too many crumbs...

edit

... 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)

You're such a smart cookie. Last one to run out of metaphors will be the one caught with their hand in the cookie jar by Grandma wielding a wooden spoon? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:10, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
A rolling cookie gathers no crumbs... Geometry guy 02:34, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Bugle interview

edit

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)

I think that makes this issue a goer now, Ed... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:16, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Me too. Sending it out now. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:47, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Category:Operation Sandblast

edit

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: Issue LXX, January 2012

edit
 
Your Military History Newsletter

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)

Oops, guess it's too late to do anything about it now but we've got two mistakes here -- Nick-D x 2 and Kirill as Review Essay instead of Interview... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:25, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Well, shit. I saved the wrong version. I was previewing one on my talk page and fixed everything there, but apparently I forgot to fix it on the Edwardsbot page. Sorry Ian. :/ Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:28, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Heh, happens to all of us... One thing though, not because of this but just for general backup, you should probably let me know the exact steps you go through to actually dispatch the thing every month via Edwardsbot. I've never done it and as co-editor I guess I'd better know in case you're indisposed one month. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:16, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, that's definitely a good idea. The steps are at User:EdwardsBot/Instructions. Make sure your name is on the access list, follow this general format on the spam page (making sure to up the "key" by one), change the status page to start, and watch the magic begin! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 07:41, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Disappointing

edit

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)

A full-on attack? He's asserting that Bishonen is having her wikifriends turn out to support her, and I replied that it would be commonplace even in the circle's we're familiar with (WP:ships, battleships). While the wording is couched in hyperbolic language, the intent is clear. Yes, it wasn't the best way to respond, particularly with the emoticon, and yes, it wasn't the best way for an editor to talk about another editor, but I didn't take it as a direct attack. In any case, I've had a long discussion on all this with Bishonen via email where I've apologized, and (I think) we've sorted most or all of this out. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:56, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
While I'm glad you've sorted things with Bish, I'm still disappointed you entertained that kind of attack from Brad on your talk page, and that your response to him amounted to, well, cabalism-- that is enabling. He's out of control at FAR, and I don't blame Bish for walking away. What's going on at FAR is not good for articles or for editors, so please don't condone it just because he's another MilHist editor. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:01, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Bish jumped to the same conclusion too. I don't make any distinction between Milhist peeps and other editors. I didn't say anything about cabals. Most of us here run in certain social circles, and if one of the people in it gets into a difficult situation, it's only natural for one or two friends to respond. I don't condone what's going on at FAR because I haven't paid attention to it at all – commenting on one FAR does not automatically mean I am keeping an eye on the process as a whole. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:03, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
You are evading. You specifically defended Brad after he attacked Bish, Bish did no such thing, his attack was unwarranted, you did nothing to correct it, and when he came to your talk page with a direct (and sexist, I might add) attack, you condoned it, basically in the name of cabalism, saying you all would do the same. I'm sorry to know that's the way you think. And I'm sorry you allowed/enabled Brad to behave this way and didn't see fit to call him on it. Now this should be a classic case of the admin double standard wrt Malleus-- that someone can come to your page and call another adming the Wicked Witch of the West and you turn a blind eye, and then try to excuse it to me, by evading the point. Bah. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:38, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Diffs, rather than blind accusations, can be so revealing when you use them, Sandy. My second reply here, while very poorly worded (another item I discussed with Bishonen, as I wasn't intending that remark to refer to her, but rather a general level of incivility), was meant as politely telling him to stop. My reply to the WWofW comment, which I didn't take as sexist, was an attempt to explain why things weren't quite the way they seemed. I wasn't aware that I was trying to evade you; I was legitimately attempting to answer your query. If the answer isn't good enough, that's fine – just don't accuse me of something I'm not doing, especially when there's absolutely no reason to ABF. Also, please don't accuse me of cabalism when I specifically stated that it was not intended as such. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 15:26, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Timeline:
  1. 22:41, December 5, 2011 Brad responds to a FAR post with TLDR
  2. 13:04, January 1, 2012 Brad references "drones"
  3. 17:45, January 1, 2012 Bish queries "drones"
  4. 19:01, January 1, 2012 Nikkimaria warns (but note that Brad never struck)
  5. 19:31, January 1, 2012 The ed17-- an admin-- defends Brad
  6. 01:52, January 2, 2012 Bish mentions placating belligerant reviewer
  7. 07:11, January 2, 2012 Brad refers to Wicked Witch of the West and her Monkeys, The ed17 placates
  8. 08:56, 3 January 2012 Brad blames other editors for his outburst, refuses to strike (Are people really being told to "fuck off" at FAR, as well? This is getting worse and worse. Why is that Bishonen's problem?)
  9. 22:00, January 3, 2012 Brad refers to Bish as "Bitchonandon" and Nikkimaria "drinking the kool-aid"
  10. 23:52, January 3, 2012 Bish hibernates
  11. 01:00, January 4, 2012 Appallingly, but at this point not surprisingly, The Ed17 redacts and covers up the "bitch", with narry a warning, and then a statement that Brad shouldn't "stoop to that level", when Bish never went there. Love the deferential edit summary there.
  12. 20:27, January 4, 2012 Bish turns in bits, hasn't been back except one brief post

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)

Well then, thankfully I don't mind if you don't believe me, only if Bishonen does. I've already defended the majority of the points you bring up aside from the redaction, which was an attempt to keep the lid from being blown off the kettle. Please, bring me into the Arbcom case if you really think I've messed up so badly. If not, then we have nothing more to discuss, as I've already worked out the problems I created with Bishonen. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 16:17, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
  • The "interesting thing" is that I posted it to the persons involved (you and Brad), and Dana boomer, who seems to have missed the issue and my offer to help her at FAR. And then to Risker, for consideration relative to the Civility Enforcement arbcase, whose response you seem to have ignored. You are turning into a most interesting admin :) Perhaps instead of stirring the pot, the next time you encounter gender-based personal attacks, you will address them rather than cover them up ?? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:02, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Well, it's always fun to wander around the project watching your character get assassinated. I actually didn't see Risker's response because I don't watch the page. Glad to see I'm interesting, though. I still don't see 'Wicked Witch of the West' as a gender-based attack, unless it's simply because she's a woman? Obviously bitch is, but I changed it to avoid starting up more acrimony. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:11, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
I never much believed in that "gender bias" issue, but seeing your confusion about "Wicked Witch of the West", which is a decidedly gender-based attack, has made me rethink my position. I don't see the timeline as a "character assassination" at all, so I guess we each have our own perspectives. I see the whole thing as a matter of awareness of 1) gender attacks, and 2) uneven civility enforcement. That FAR seems to want any reviewers over quality reviewers is an issue I'm now addressing by getting more involved there, as I used to be-- it was very hard to see FAR fall so "far" while I was COI'd and muzzled. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:34, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, the only similarity I see is that they're both women. If there's something more, I'm missing the boat. Anyway. I didn't "defend" him, unless defending can be defined by putting reality into a hyperbolic comment. I wasn't "placating" as I took the comment as face value and explained why wikifriends of Bish's could have been expected to show up. And I didn't intentionally "cover up" 'bitch', I was trying to avoid blowing the lid off an already boiling kettle. Obviously it wasn't the smartest edit I've ever made here, but I did what I thought was best at the time. As for civility enforcement, I've seen a lot worse, and you and I both know how civility is a serious gray area when blocking comes into play. Plus, I would have been way too involved. Good luck at FAR, but let's remember that commenting on content tends to work a lot better than over-personalizing discussions and driving people away [that's not a direct reference @ Brad, but could include him; all I mean is that the style of interaction I've seen from you in the last few days is definitely not conducive to a collaborative atmosphere anywhere, let along FAR]. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:44, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm intrigued that you don't see calling someone a stereotypical witch character is gender-based. I'm trying to come up with a male analogy to help you understand, but not getting one. I'll be back when I find a way to explain :) Turning a blind eye is the same as defending if'n you ask me, at least relative to what Malleus has endured, and I think you "did" defend his disruption of the FAR. I'm not particularly concerned when people who are disruptive decide to go disrupt somewhere else for a while-- sometimes they come back wiser and more productive, sometimes they figure out they might go play somewhere else. WikiReview will always welcome them ~! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:50, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
We may be emphasizing different parts of the quote... I took the emphasis of the post to be on including 'winged monkeys' for the metaphor, while you and Risker may be viewing that as immaterial when compared to the witch. I actually fully support Malleus, though I do wish he'd think a bit more about what he posts. I don't see most of his FARs as disruptive. I looked at it more like doing a thankless job with little reward. As fun as the ideal of 'if you nominate it, you should work on it' sounds, it's not going to happen, and many of our FAs are sorely in need to a review, a rewrite, or delisting. I took a Giano article to FAR once and didn't exactly enjoy the experience, which is why I don't participate there much anymore. I don't post at WR, but did read the other day that they would welcome you if you joined. ;-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:04, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Well I'm sure we see different emphases, one of us female, the other male-- actually, the "cackling" was the most obnoxious part, I thought. Anyway, I left a response over at Risker's house. I should join so I can campaign-- maybe I can get a site-wide banner !! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:07, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
That's also a likely possibility. I'll migrate in that general direction. Good luck at WR ;-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:24, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
If I (we) win, I hope you'll come to the celebration party-- there are big plans afoot! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:27, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Hey, if someone else is buying the vodka, I'm all in. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:20, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 January 2012

edit

:3

edit

Thanks for the tweaks! – GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:57, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Anytime :-) Allanon [talk] [master] 08:56, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
I was really angry at whoever it was stealing your credit... Herp. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:21, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
That's why [master] is there. :P Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:22, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Congratulations

edit
   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)
Thanks Nick, both for the award above and for nominating me. It's much appreciated :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:43, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Borderline call

edit

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)

Everything looks good to me, esp. the GA review call. Nice job J. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:52, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=User:The_ed17/Archives/48&oldid=1259614457"