Archives

Archive 1: 2006–April 25, 2008 Archive 2: April 25, 2008–Jan. 3, 2009 Archive 3: Jan. 4, 2008–Feb. 24, 2010 Archive 4: Feb. 25, 2010–May. 4, 2010

• I will respond to your comments on my talk page unless you request otherwise.

A quick thank you for your review of Ernest Hemingway. When one spends too much time on a single article of such large scope, it's easy to lose perspective, particularly of the prose. "Tighten" and "redundant" (though perhaps obvious to you) were helpful remarks. Thanks. The article is better because of your review. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:32, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this one Victuallers (talk) 00:04, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article James Whitcomb Riley you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:James Whitcomb Riley for eventual comments about the article. Well done!. (Sorry about the delay, I had connection problems over the weekend.) AdamBMorgan (talk) 20:13, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Charles Edward,

Thanks you for reviewing the featured article candidate. Following your suggestion I have made some changes. I would be please if you could give an indication of much copy editing still remains to be done to get the prose right. If you think a considerable amount still need still be done, I will happily leave it and request some help and resubmit later. If you think, it just needs it just needs some little more tweaking, I would be equally happy do it now. Mootros (talk) 16:58, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Karanacs made me do it!

Seriously though, I think the article is generally excellent, but it's let down by the weaker opening few sections, until Minton's political career really gets underway. I'd guess that you inherited much of that, and I know from experience how difficult it can be to properly integrate the stuff you find in place when you decide to start work on an article to get it to FAC. Let me know when you're happy with the prose in the first half of the article and I'll take a look at it again, and hopefully be able to support. Malleus Fatuorum 21:50, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Haha! Well I certainly appreciate your review. :) I love nit picky comments, to be honest. I perform poorest at copyedittign and best at researching.. I am going over the article now. I will message you when I'm done. I might be able pare back the first section a bit too. You are right, I did "inherit" a bit of that. Thanks —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 22:01, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You seemed to me to be right on the button with the FAC immediately above this section; that's where I remembered your name from. Malleus Fatuorum 22:48, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lol! Well I've known of you for quite a long while. :) You fight the good fight. My compliments. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 22:52, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's a shame. Presuming to read Karanacs' mind for a moment, I don't think she archived the article because there were too many unresolved issues, but simply because even with all/most of them dealt with, it hadn't attracted enough reviewers/support and would be unlikely to do so in the usual time frame of these things. Still, if you renominate in a couple of weeks I think it should sail through. I'll keep an eye out for its reappearance. (I've got another question too, which I'll dump on the article's talk page later.) All the best, Steve ^T • C 07:38, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are right, it didn't get a thorough review until the last week. Same problem I had with it last time! It's not the most interesting of topics I think is the problem. Thanks for your efforts! —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 12:05, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The DYK project (nominate) 18:03, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

The DYK project (nominate) 12:03, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

We are half way through round 3, with a little under a month to go. The current overall leader is Sasata (submissions), who has 570 points. He leads pool C. Pools A, B and D are led by Hunter Kahn (submissions), Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) and White Shadows (submissions) respectively. Anything you worry may not receive the necessary attention before the end of the round (such as outstanding GA or FA nominations) is welcome at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews, and please remember to continue offering reviews yourself where possible. As always, the judges are available to contact via email, IRC or their talk pages, and general discussion about the Cup is welcome on the WikiCup talk page.

Two of last year's final 8, Theleftorium (submissions) and Scorpion0422 (submissions), have dropped out of the competition, saying they would rather their place went to someone who will have more time on their hands than them next round. On a related note, a special thank you goes to White Shadows (submissions) for his help behind the scenes once again. There is currently a problem with the poster, perhaps caused by the new skin- take a look at this discussion and see if you can help. The competition has continued to tick over well with minimal need for judge intervention, so thank you to everyone making that possible. Good luck to all! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox and The ed17 20:46, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I got Tomasak's fairly new Biography of Colonel R. Bruce Ricketts and as a result have added about 5 kB to the Ganoga Lake article - diff. I am asking the FAC and PR reviewers to please take a second look at the Ganoga Lake article and make sure it still reads smoothly and clearly. If you find problems, please raise them on the article's talk page. Thanks in advance, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 17:39, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I translated Eli Lilly's article to Spanish and I want to ask you a doubt. What do you mean when you say his family was prohibitionist? Do you mean they supported the prohibition? or maybe belonged to the temperance movement? Can you help me? Eli Lilly in spanish version currently is a candidate for featured article. If you can answer here I would appreciate. Thanks in advance. Regards.--Rosymonterrey (talk) 17:15, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Lilly's family were in the Temperance Movement and supported prohibition. Prohibition of course was not implemented nationally during his lifetime, although many communities in the region did ban liqour. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 20:20, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Charles, at this moment Eli Lilly in spanish is a featured article.--Rosymonterrey (talk) 20:36, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We're half way through 2010, and the end of the WikiCup is in sight! Round 3 is over, and we're down to our final 16. Our pool winners were Ian Rose (submissions) (A), Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) (B, and the round's overall leader), ThinkBlue (submissions) (C) Casliber (submissions) and TonyTheTiger (submissions) (D, joint), but, with the scores reset, everything is to play for in our last pooled round. The pools will be up before midnight tonight, and have been selected randomly by J Milburn. This will be the toughest round yet, and so, as ever, anything you worry may not receive the necessary attention before the end of the round (such as outstanding GA or FA nominations) is welcome at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews, and please remember to continue offering reviews yourself where possible. As always, the judges are available to contact via email, IRC or their talk pages, and general discussion about the Cup is welcome on the WikiCup talk page.

Though unaffiliated with the WikiCup, July sees the third Great Wikipedia Dramaout- a project with not dissimilar goals to the WikiCup. Everyone is welcome to take part and do their bit to contribute to the encyclopedia itself.

If you're interested in the scores for the last round of the Cup, please take a look at Wikipedia:WikiCup/History/2010/Round 3 and Wikipedia:WikiCup/History/2010/Full/Round 3. Our thanks go to Stone (submissions) for compiling these. As was predicted, Group C ended up the "Group of Death", with 670 points required for second place, and, therefore, automatic promotion. This round will probably be even tougher- again, the top two from each of the two groups will make it through, while the twelve remaining participants will compete for four wildcard places- good luck everyone! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox and The ed17

Hi Charles, would you like to help out at Parity of zero once more? I have yet to address all of your comments from Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Parity of zero/archive1, but I've addressed enough of them that I think you could provide useful feedback on the article's progress. I set up Talk:Parity of zero#Leftover FAC line items to help close out the remaining issues.

Thanks, Melchoir (talk) 19:52, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We are half-way through our penultimate round, and nothing is yet certain. Pool A, currently led by Sasata (submissions) has ended up the more competitive, with three contestants ( Sasata (submissions), Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) and TonyTheTiger (submissions)) scoring over 500 points already. Pool B is led by Casliber (submissions), who has also scored well over 500. The top two from each pool, as well as the next four highest scorers regardless of pool, will make it through to our final eight. As ever, anything you worry may not receive the necessary attention before the end of the round (such as outstanding GA or FA nominations) is welcome at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews, and please remember to continue offering reviews yourself where possible. As always, the judges are available to contact via email, IRC or their talk pages, and general discussion about the Cup is welcome on the WikiCup talk page.

Planning has begun for the 2011 WikiCup, with open discussions concerning scoring and flags for next year's competition. Contributions to those discussions would be appreciated, especially concerning the flags, as next year's signups cannot begin until the flag issue has been resolved. Signups will hopefully open at some point in this round, with discussion about possible changing in the scoring/process opening some time afterwards.

Earlier this round, we said goodbye to Hunter Kahn (submissions), who has bowed out to spend more time on the book he is authoring with his wife. We wish him all the best. In other news, the start of this round also saw some WikiCup awards sent out by Suomi Finland 2009 (submissions). We appreciate his enthusiasm, and contestants are of course welcome to award each other prizes as they see fit, but rest assured that we will be sending out "official" awards at the end of the competition. If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox and The ed17 22:32, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Edward, I hope it isn't too forward of me to open a New Section regarding Jacob Hawkins & Amory Kinney, a subject to which you responded in the History of Slavery in Indiana discussion section. I appreciate your suggestion to put Jake Hawkins in the Polly Vs Lasselle article, but would rather see an article devoted to Hawkins himself rather than subordinate his story to Polly, who after all suffers from an unknown history both before and after her famed Supreme Court case. Hawkins' history is well-documented from the time he arrived in Indiana as a teenager through his death in 1864. His tomb still stands atop the hill in the Hawkins Cemetery he founded for black folks.

My hunch re Hawkins is that he's been forgotten partly because Northern Hoosiers tend to downplay the fact that small-town Southern Indiana has historically been a more progressive zone race-history-wise than Indianapolis or Northern Indiana. According to this thought-line, Polly is important because the benevolent Indiana Supreme Court made her so. The southern scene that Kinney, Osborn, & Hawkins succeeded in (at the same time Abe Lincoln was approaching adulthood) thus has gotten short shrift.

So what I'd like to see us Hoosiers do is add Amory Kinney as a section to the History of Slavery in Indiana. His section would rightly encompass the Polly case as well that of Jake Hawkins, plus address the milieu Kinney and his brother-in-law Osborn found themselves in when they arrived in Vincennes (& eventually scrambled about for a safe county in which to remain).

Your thoughts as to whether/how we might proceed? Thanks!Keith Ellis (talk) 20:40, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We have our final eight! The best of luck to those who remain. A bumper newsletter this week as we start our home straight.

• Pool A's winner was Sturmvogel_66 (submissions). Awarded the top score overall this round, Sturmvogel_66 writes primarily on military history, favouring Naval warfare.
• Pool B's winner was Casliber (submissions). Awarded the top score for featured articles this round, Casliber writes primarily on natural sciences, especially botany and ornithology.
• Pool A's close second was Sasata (submissions). Awarded the top score for featured pictures this round, Sasata writes primarily on natural sciences, favouring mycology.
• Pool B's close second was ThinkBlue (submissions). Awarded the top score for good articles and topics this round, ThinkBlue primarily writes content related to television and film, including 30 Rock.
• The first wildcard was TonyTheTiger (submissions). Awarded the top score for did you knows and valued pictures this round, TonyTheTiger writes on a number of topics, including baseball, American football and Chicago.
• The second wildcard was White Shadows (submissions). Someone who has helped the Cup behind the scenes all year, White Shadows said "I'm still in shock that I made it this far" and writes primarily on Naval warfare, especially U-boats.
• The third wildcard was Staxringold (submissions). Awarded the top score for featured lists and topics this round, Staxringold primarily writes on sport and television, including baseball and 30 Rock.
• The fourth wildcard was William S. Saturn (submissions). Entering the final eight only on the final day of the round, William S. Saturn writes on a number of topics, mostly related to Texas.

We say goodbye to the six who fell at the final hurdle. Geschichte (submissions) only just missed out on a place in the final eight. Resolute (submissions) was not far behind. Candlewicke (submissions) was awarded top points for in the news this round. Gary King (submissions) contributed a variety of did you know articles. Suomi Finland 2009 (submissions) said "I'm surprised to have survived so far into the competition", but was extactic to see Finland in the semi-finals. Arsenikk (submissions) did not score this round, but has scored highly in previous rounds. We also say goodbye to Ian Rose (submissions), who withdrew earlier this month after spending six weeks overseas. Anyone interested in this round's results can see them here and here. Thank you to Stone (submissions) for these.

Signups for next year's competition are now open. Planning is ongoing, with a key discussion about judges for next year open. Discussion about how next year's scoring will work is ongoing, and thoughts are more than welcome at Wikipedia talk:WikiCup/Scoring. Also, TonyTheTiger is compiling some information and statistics on the finalists here- the final eight are encouraged to add themselves to the list.

Our final eight will play it out for two months, after which we will know 2010's WikiCup winner, and a variety of prizes will be awarded. As ever, anything you worry may not receive the necessary attention before the end of the round (such as outstanding GA or FA nominations) is welcome at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews, and please remember to continue offering reviews yourself where possible. As always, the judges are available to contact via email, IRC or their talk pages, and general discussion about the Cup is welcome on the WikiCup talk page.If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox and The ed17 23:07, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When I sent the Lieutenant Governor's office a message asking why Becky Skillman's state biography listed her as the 50th Lt. Gov. while this page (and our article) called her the 47th, they researched and responded that she is actually the 49th, which is what her IN.gov bio now says, which reflects this list. It seems that our article has two discrepancies from that. First, Ratliff Boon is actually both the second and third Lt. Gov., being Lt, then Gov, and then Lt again. Second, Robert S. Robertson is listed in the latter link but not the former; according to these sources, he was rightfully elected but never accepted by the Senate. Therefore, I think that the Wikipedia articles should reflect that latter list, which also has the dates. I am happy to make all the necessary edits, but because this affects the numbering of every Lt. Gov, I wanted to check with you first. Thanks, Reywas92^Talk 23:05, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think thats fair. In regards to Ratliff Boon, that is definitely true. I guess is just depends on how we count, so we could just duplicate him, and add him in there twice. Robertson would be my point of contention. Check out Black Day of the Indiana General Assembly, and article I wrote concerning that incident. From what I gather, he was legally elected, the Supreme Court confirmed he was legally Lt. Gov, but the Senate refused to seat him so he never took the oath of office or performed any duties. Maybe we should mention him in the list, but just without a number, but put a dash like we did on the acting Lt. Governors. What do you think? —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 12:29, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But then we're inconsistent with the state list. He was technically and legally Lt Gov, despite not being allowed to do anything. I think this is on the same line as becoming president at noon on January 20, even if he hasn't said the oath yet. Reywas92^Talk 23:18, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is already a footnote about Robertson where his term should have been. So that would probably be enough. The event and him definitly deserve inclusion in the article in some way- the footnote does the job. Thanks for researching this out! Btw, I recently emailed the Indiana Historical Society to see if they would be interested in providing us with access to their online database, making a donation of images to the commons, or having subject experts review some of our articles. I think any of those would be great. I got a response a couple days ago that their Executive Vice President was actually considering the proposal! Thats pretty exiting. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 12:14, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:30, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We are half-way through our final round, entering the home straight. TonyTheTiger (submissions) leads at the time of writing with 1180 points, immediately followed by Sasata (submissions) with 1175 points. Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) closely follows in third place with 1100 points. For those who are interested, data about the finalists has been compiled at Wikipedia:WikiCup/History/2010/finalists, while a list of content submitted by all WikiCup contestants prior to this round has been compiled at Wikipedia:WikiCup/History/2010/Submissions. As ever, anything contestants worry may not receive the necessary attention before the end of the round (such as outstanding GA or FA nominations) is welcome at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews, and please remember to continue offering reviews yourself where possible. As always, the judges are available to contact via email, IRC or their talk pages, and general discussion about the Cup is welcome on the WikiCup talk page.

Despite controversy, the WikiCup remains open. Signups for next year's competition are more than welcome, and suggestions for how next year's competition will work are appreciated at Wikipedia talk:WikiCup/Scoring. More general comments and discussions should be directed at the WikiCup talk page. One month remains in the 2010 WikiCup, after which we will know our champion. Good luck everyone! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox and The ed17 23:02, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits have made me very happy. As you know I can't do much due to COI, so. I appreciate it! ...That is all :) HstryQT (talk) 16:00, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]