This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Latest comment: 15 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
I have reviewed both these articles. Please check back their review pages soon before I go for SM UB-14. Just a few concerns. - DSachan (talk) 07:08, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the corrections. Both of them are now GA. I am off to SM UB-14 now, whose lead looks a bit shaky for the moment and not at par with other SM UBs leads. I think lead needs to be reworked before I go any further. - DSachan (talk) 11:50, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Oh yes, definitely on SM UB-14's lead. I must have pasted in the wrong version when I expanded it. I'll work on rewriting the lead right now, so if you're going to review it in the next hour or so, skip the lead for the moment. I'll post here when I've updated it. — Bellhalla (talk) 12:02, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
I am not gonna review it until tomorrow maybe. So, take it easy. - DSachan (talk) 12:06, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, I've updated it now, so it's should be all good to go. — Bellhalla (talk) 13:54, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
USS Yancey
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I have identified an issue that you should fix before the GA review occurs. See the talk page: Talk:USS Yancey (AKA-93) -MBK004 03:17, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for bringing it to my attention. It also got me to download and make some image adjustments on the phot at the same time, so win–win all around. :) — Bellhalla (talk) 14:16, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
SM UB-14, Amalfi cruiser and USS Yancey
Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
I have reviewed them. They are all very well written. I couldn't find anything big except few very minor points. Please check them back soon before I go for SS Batavier II and V. Thanks - DSachan (talk) 10:45, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
I think I've addressed all of your points. — Bellhalla (talk) 13:40, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, thanks. They all are now GAs. I am off to SS Batavier II and V now. - DSachan (talk) 13:44, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
SS Batavier II (1897) and V (1902)
Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hello, I have reviewed both the pages. They were relatively simpler. Please check back their review pages before I promote them and go further. Thanks - DSachan (talk) 22:01, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
I've made changes to both. As a note: I put a rounded number for the number of passengers for each ship in the lead so as not to bog down the lead with excessive details. Let me know if you think this is acceptable. — Bellhalla (talk) 23:33, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
I have put the exact figures in both the leads. I don't think it does anything bad for the article in terms of providing too much excessive details rather it gives clearer picture. Many a times, a reader may not go at all to read the main text. Although it was not bad and perfectly acceptable but still I think we should put the exact data in the lead as long as it is not too much. Anyhow, I have promoted both the articles. - DSachan (talk) 10:13, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Norddeutscher Lloyd
Latest comment: 15 years ago9 comments2 people in discussion
Hi, I see you found the template I created . I'm not sure I've got all the ships quite in the correct section but I'm sure that if there are any errors they'll get sorted eventually. What do you think of the general idea of creating templates for ships by a) builder and b) shipping line? Mjroots (talk) 15:20, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
I was just in the middle of posting a comment there, but I'll pose the question here: what about ordering the ships chronologically instead of alphabetically? I did take the liberty of removing the non-standard colors from the template. (Was this based on the Cunard template? I've never personally been thrilled with that template's color scheme, but aren't those Cunard's corporate colors?)
As far as a general idea, I really like the idea of templates for shipping companies/lines, since it's a logical grouping of ships that have a common defining characteristic. As far as builders go, I'm a much less enthusiastic on that. I can see it being useful in some cases, but having, for example, a Harland & Wolff template that linked RMS Titanic and HMS Belfast (C35) doesn't seem like a good idea to me. (Yes, they're built by the same company, but there's not a lot of commonalities beyond that.) I think I'd much prefer a category for a builder, which would still allow the ships to be connected. — Bellhalla (talk) 15:50, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I based it on the Cunard template. Feel free to change colours to something more appropriate. For an example of ships by builder see the Lithgows article. H&W could be a tricky one as they had yards all over the place - that could be a way to split them though. As for cats, well, the current Tyne, Wear, Liverpool, Belfast etc -built ships cats could split further by builder. Mjroots (talk) 15:59, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
The example at Lithgows is great; I can see how a builders template could be useful if the scope were spelled out completely. But the tendency is for people to add every ship to a template, which can make it pretty unmanageable. — Bellhalla (talk) 16:16, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Talking of which, have you seen the {{Empire ships}}} lately? Mjroots (talk) 16:24, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I have. How should we handle that? — Bellhalla (talk) 13:39, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, I've nearly finished the lists. Only got T and U to Y to do. May have to split T as there are 120 of them. U to Y will fit on one list. Once that is done (in a week or so), I suggest we split the templates alphabetically as mentioned on the template talk page. A link to the various lists can be added to each template and allow navigation that way. Mjroots (talk) 16:09, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
(back to original subject) I've redone the Norddeutscher Lloyd template to list ships by year built. Mjroots (talk) 14:14, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I saw that on my watchlist. Looking good! — Bellhalla (talk) 14:20, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Quadruple DYK
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I am a freshman researching on Wiki. Could you help me?
Latest comment: 15 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion
Dear Bellhalla
I am a student in Seoul National University in Korea doing a research project on Wikipedia. I am very impressed about your insight on military issues. Reading your page, I see you are truly concerned about a variety of events, and I appreciate your contributions. So I thought you could provide some opinions really worthwhile. So, would it be possible for you to take some time off and give an online interview via E-mail or online messenger? It would provide my project a lively voice of an actual editor, and this will be of a great meaning; your experience, concerns, opinions and ideas would add a lot to my project. Actually I'm in real need of something concrete; for my project is about the mechanism a biased version of explanation is settled, and as you will probably guess, understanding such things involves a lot more than just watching explicit process. Again, I would really, really appreciate your help. It will not take that long; in fact everything will depend completely upon your will. If you are willing to give some help, would you mind mailing me within April? Thanks a lot.
Comment from not-Bellhalla: for him to contact you, you would need to provide an email address. Also, on the left side of your screen, there should be a link that says "E-mail this user"—use that to email Bellhalla yourself without exposing your email address to the world. Cheers! —Ed 17(Talk / Contribs) 02:27, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Bongeun, Ed is correct. I need to have some way of contacting you. Please follow his advice and send me an e-mail. I'll be happy to respond. — Bellhalla (talk) 10:59, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Above all, I really appreciate for you to respond my deficient letter. My e-mail address is [redacted]
I have a question list to inquire you about Wiki. Could you interview with us via e-meil or instant messenger? Please note down your free time to interview and your brief opinion about a tendency on Wiki history.
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hey Bellhalla. Thanks for the review! I've addressed all of your suggestions save one; could you take a look? Cheers! —Ed 17(Talk / Contribs) 02:19, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Looks good, so I have passed it. I did respond to some your comments there. — Bellhalla (talk) 13:54, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
About the BOT
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thank you very much for informing me, i just tagged them because the was mentioned in the automation department as "all in scope, can be automated". Thank you again and don't hesitate to ask for automatic tagging Menasim( discuss ) 12:26, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Empire ships templates
Latest comment: 15 years ago8 comments2 people in discussion
I've added the {{Empire A ships}} to all relevant ship articles. I've made a start on the Empire B ships template in my sandbox, but when I try to add the padding if makes the template stretch across the page. Could you tweak it so that it's ready to go please? Mjroots (talk) 08:41, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Sure enough. It was easy to fix after I created a new template, {{I sup}} (short for italic superscript), which builds in the <span></span> tags and the <sup></sup> tags. (It's pretty straightforward to use: {{I sup|2}} generates 2.) One thing that helps future editing on templates like this is if the ships are each on their own line; it doesn't change the appearance of the navbox, but makes it easier to find the one that needs to be edited, etc.
One thing that jumped out at me, is the fact that {{Empire A ships}} and the sandbox version of {{Empire B ships}} have a different numbering system for the notes. It might be worth having the same superscripts across all of the templates, so that 2 is always a "refrigerated cargo ship" (or whatever it actually is). This might mean, in the case of "Empire A ships" and "cargo liners", there are some things listed in the key that don't have any ships. Something to think about before the job gets too far along. — Bellhalla (talk) 15:54, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm in favour of having a different numbering system for each template. Each type of ship to be numbered in order that it occurs. Otherwise the list a the bottom could grow quite long, and the numbers jump all over the place. Having studied the templace, I'm also in favour of each group being in alphabetical order too. Mjroots (talk) 08:04, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, since you're leading the Empire efforts, you know best about the types of the ships. Agree about alphabetical order, since the point of these templates is to break down the ships alphabetically. — Bellhalla (talk) 10:07, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Is there a limit to the number of groups in a template? Empire C needs 8, can only get it to work with 5. Mjroots (talk) 13:11, 23 April 2009 (UTC) Ignore that, I've fixed it! Mjroots (talk) 13:13, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Glad I could help! ;) — Bellhalla (talk) 14:27, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
{od)All templates created from A to S, thus the original template is now redundant.Mjroots (talk) 12:16, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
There were some ships which were sunk before their Empire name was allocated, so I'll use this template for those. Mjroots (talk) 09:26, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
USS Yorktown, USS Concord, USS Bennington and Yorktown class gunboat
Latest comment: 15 years ago10 comments2 people in discussion
Hello Bellhalla, I am going to review them all finishing latest by April 30. Thanks - DSachan (talk) 21:14, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Yorktown class gunboat reviewed. Please check back the talk page before I start USS Concord. - DSachan (talk) 14:09, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
I think I've addressed the concerns you had over the prose in Yorktown-class gunboat. Just as an FYI, the "Design and construction" sections for each of the individual ship articles are largely similar to the one in the class article (with the appropriate ship names and dates changed), and the summaries from the class article are adaptations of the leads of the ship articles. I've applied your suggestions from the class article to the appropriate sections of the ship articles, as well. — Bellhalla (talk) 16:07, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Ok, great. The article has been promoted. I am off to USS Concord now, which I will review on 28 April by 2300 UTC. - DSachan (talk) 22:38, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
I have reviewed USS Concord. Nothing much to say. Please check back the talk page. Next on my list is USS Bennington. Thanks - DSachan (talk) 09:15, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
This sentence 'After her June 1891 commissioning at New York, Bennington was attached the the Squadron of Evolution and for its cruise to South America' in Yorktown class gunboat still doesn't make sense. It is also there in the lead of USS Bennington. - DSachan (talk) 09:26, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
ok, sorry. It was only a problem of it not having a 'to'. I corrected both. - DSachan (talk) 09:30, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
I have also reviewed USS Bennington and HMT Royal Edward. I go for USS Yorktown now, which I will review tomorrow on April 29. - DSachan (talk) 10:37, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, all promoted. - DSachan (talk) 11:27, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
USS Yorktown was already a GA class. I passed it. - DSachan (talk) 09:29, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Well done!
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
For your excellent article contributions that led to your placing 1st in the April 2009 Milhist writing contest with a total of 103 points, you are hereby awarded the Military history WikiProject Chevrons! Well done! Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:19, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Swine flu
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Saw this and felt a little bad. :( Putting cats down sucks; the only reason why my family hasn't had to put down a cat in the last two years is because the last three have been run over by cars/"disappeared" (probably eaten)... —Ed 17(Talk / Contribs) 00:43, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. We'd had Bob for almost ten years. It was hard to let go… — Bellhalla (talk) 04:01, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
When I was 11, we had to put down Mokey, who was 16 years old, because he could barely move himself over to his water in the bowl-like rock we had in the backyard. If he got to the rock, he had to drink it laying down. He'd been around my entire life... —Ed 17(Talk / Contribs) 23:38, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
DYK for John Henry Turpin
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
On May 2, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article John Henry Turpin, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Once again, this month, we have a bumper crop of featured and A-class content, and our heartfelt thanks go to editors who have worked so hard to write these. But with our growth in quality content comes increased demand for reviewers. Which is where you can help.
Reviewing is easy and rewarding. You don't need any prior experience and you don't need to write a full review. Any input is helpful so you initially can just comment on what you're comfortable with. Most reviewers start off by focusing one or two things – say, the historical context, or the text, or the references, or the layout, or the images – and as they gain experience, they broaden the scope of the review. You can easily keep up to date with which articles need review, by copying this text – {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} – to your userpage or talkpage. Thanks in anticipation, Roger Davies
JonCatalán has been awarded the WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves in recognition of his distinguished service as a coordinator of this project, his thorough article reviews, and his exemplary contributions to 14 featured articles, one featured topic, and many A-Class and good articles.
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:22, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Userfied article
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
This User:Renaissancee/Sailing and Fighting Instructions article was userfied in the course of an AfD discussion. I thought it might be something you'd have interest in or could point out to those who do. Seemed worth having in the encyclopedia to me. Cheerios. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:36, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Bad Axe
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
I made some fixes per your review of Bad Axe massacre. I made a few comments and posted some questions, your input would help. Hopefully I didn't screw up the formatting of the review too much, I found it neverendingly frustrating. :-) I am still in the process of setting up from after my move so my only current internet access is at work. Thanks for the review btw.--IvoShandor (talk) 20:17, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
A really great review, and I'm glad my work was up to snuff. The comments you made were very helpful, I was so intimately involved with this topic, and its sister articles, that it's easy to lose perspective. Your other comments will be helpful as I progress these articles, and definitely give me some things to watch out for. And I am almost unpacked . . . thanks for the well wishes, hopefully we shall meet again.--IvoShandor (talk) 01:51, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Dutch, a.m. & p.m.
Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
a.m. is voor middag or rather voormiddag and p.m. is na(ar) middag or rather namiddag. In as much as left my birth country when I was 14, I don't recall any official abbreviations. But I suspect that these expressions are not used because of the use of the 24 hour clock, especially in time tables. But I'll ask my brother who returned to the "old sod" and now lives in Wassenaar. Peter Horn 15:25, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Some clean-up. Peter Horn 15:34, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Latest comment: 14 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion
Hello, I saw your newly created Template:Flag blank. Is there a special reason you coded it that way instead of using the existing Template:Noflag? For example, your template adds alt attribute text to the blank image. Is that needed? Thanks — Andrwsc (talk·contribs) 06:56, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
I created {{Flag blank}} for use in ship infoboxes to avoid repeating the same flag. (Example: USS West Bridge (ID-2888) had five different US ports of registry before its final Soviet regsitry; it would look ridiculous to have five American flags when only one is needed to convey the nationality.) I was not aware that {{Noflag}} existed, so would be fine with having {{Flag blank}} become a redirect to it. — Bellhalla (talk) 10:45, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
I've redirected. Thanks for bringing the other template to my attention. — Bellhalla (talk) 14:41, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Ok, thanks! But I don't think a straight redirect will work, as {{noflag}} outputs the input parameter. Better to replace it, I think. — Andrwsc (talk·contribs) 15:54, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Wow. Deletion seems a bit hasty. First, it's not an 'improbable' redirect, and secondly it's utterly disingenuous to say that Template:Flag blank "is already orphaned" when you, yourself, were the one who made the change to orphan it. — Bellhalla (talk) 16:36, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Sorry if you took offense; none was intended. I was merely trying to clean up template space. In my mind, many templates are like an extension of wiki markup—a programming language, if you will—and having multiple names for an individual language construct (i.e. a redirect in template namespace) is not good engineering design, so I try to clean that up where I can. If you feel strongly about this, let me know and I'll simply restore the redirect. Regards — Andrwsc (talk·contribs) 17:05, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
DYK
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
You left a question a few moments ago regrading a DYK nomination for List of PWG World Champions. I replied, just thought to contact you, to get a faster response.--WillC 16:25, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I talked to the Bossier City public relations officer. He said he would get the mayor's date of birth, but he never called back.Billy Hathorn (talk) 03:13, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
First off, Billy, it's helpful when you're posting a message on a new subject on a talk page to include a heading. Easiest way: Click on the "+" or "new section" tab (both do the same thing) and it will give you a place for a heading. (I added the one above)
Second: it helps to give a little more context to your message. You know exactly what you're posting about, but please don't assume that others will automatically know what you're talking about.
Third: Including links makes it easier for the person to see what you're talking about.
From what I can tell, your comment is about the DYK nomination for Lo Walker. So, after figuring out what is being discussed and finding the relevant links, I can finally respond to your comment:
Here's the problem with what you said: a phone call is not a reliable source for Wikipedia purposes because it is not verifiable. I have no reason to disbelieve you, Billy, nor do I think that the mayor himself or his staff would necessarily intentionally give you the wrong information in your phone call. But Wikipedia is the Missouri (the "Show me" state, right?) of the Internet world. If an editor adds something to an article, Wikipedia policies say "Show me" where it came from. But, the "Show me" aspect is not the only part: the information has to come from a reliable source and be verifiable. The way I think of verifiability is this: could any editor with access to the same book, magazine, journal, internet site, etc. reasonably be expected to find the information I have added, independently of me? If the answer is yes, then it's almost certainly verifiable. Lo Walker and/or his office are certainly are a source for his birthdate and/or age, but a phone call you make is not verifiable to anyone else. Even if you record your phone calls and post them on the Internet, no one could reasonably verify the information independently from you. That's why phone calls and e-mails and personal interviews by editors are not generally accepted in support of information on Wikipedia.
The other point is when dealing with living people, like Lo Walker and Shirley E. Flynn, is that everything is held to a much higher standard than for the deceased, or a building, or an organization, or almost everything else. I think I recall that you have an academic background (but if I'm wrong, please bear with me), so let me try to compare the policies for living people (BLP) to something related to the world of academics. One can easily see the difference between a 8th-grader's paper on George Washington and the doctoral dissertation on the same subject. The 8th grader may have spent a few weeks (but probably just the night or two before, knowing most kids) working on his paper, the graduate student spends a lot more time—months or years—carefully researching, finding all the right sources, getting all the Is dotted and the Ts crossed to have the paper accepted. When it comes to living people—who can be harmed by misinformation or too much information—the BLP policy wants editors to have a more careful approach, like that of the graduate student, rather than the perhaps careless approach of an 8th-grader. — Bellhalla (talk) 12:44, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Smart Gilas
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi I wanted to kindly ask for your assesment on the article Smart Gilas in DYK? Thanks. --Maverx (talk) 10:26, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hey Bellhalla. I would just to apologise for and explain the disruption you may have noticed on WP:Good articles/recent. Following a bot request, it became apparent that it would be handy to have a bot pipe new additions to WP:GA onto the /recent subpage. Now, I admit that the bot's been having a few problems (it's still officially in trial), but I hope these have now been worked out. It should mean that every 5 minutes the newest additions are added automatically, so all users like you have to do is add the newly listed GA to WP:GA and let the bot do the work. Of course, you're allowed to do it yourself, but you don't have to. That's the plan, anyhow, so it might be an idea to add the article to WP:GA, then wait ten minutes. If the bot hasn't added it yet, add it manually and come straight to me so I can fix the bot. Essentially though, you can either carry on as normal or take advantage of the bot, as you wish. Thanks for your patience and sorry for any disruption caused. - Jarry1250(t, c) 15:29, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
My apologies for not getting back to the article sooner. I didn't have a block of uninterrupted time until this morning. All of the changes were great (except one, which I made a change on) so I have passed the article for GA, and changed to support for the A-Class review. — Bellhalla (talk) 13:11, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for that, Bellhalla. Yes, I wasn't fussed with the wording on that one either. ;-) Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 22:49, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Ships category
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thanks for fixing that one. I've asked for a speedy deletion of the cat created in error. Mjroots (talk) 17:39, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Chevrons!
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
For your working on what I believe to be the first class of destroyers to reach A-class on Wikipedia I hereby award you the WikiChevrons! Keep up the good work! TomStar81 (Talk) 23:15, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
GA Reviews
Latest comment: 14 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion
Hello Bellhalla, most probably I won't be able to review those 6 articles until late next week (until 16th maybe). If you want them to be reviewed earlier, I can take my name down, somebody else might come and review them. Otherwise, I will do it after I am done with my busy schedule which is gonna be finished on 15th. I might try to review 1 or 2 this Sunday, but it seems very tough to me because of time. Thanks - DSachan (talk) 14:23, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
No hurries. Just get to them when you can… :) — Bellhalla (talk) 18:55, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
USS Tucker and Jacob Jones done. I will do the rest 5 tomorrow including SS American. - DSachan (talk) 14:31, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
All Tucker class destroyers' reviews done. SS American to follow shortly. Thanks for writing them so brilliantly. - DSachan (talk) 15:54, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
All done. - DSachan (talk) 16:25, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
I have promoted the last, Wainwright. Everything seemed perfect. Thanks for these articles. Your work is much appreciated. - DSachan (talk) 13:32, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your careful reviews and the kind words. — Bellhalla (talk) 14:08, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
So....
Latest comment: 14 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Fair enough, I will stop changing those links for the cities, state combinations.--Kumioko (talk) 15:07, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, since that is an edit that AWB tags automatically as a general edit to cleanup up citations and reference formatting I recommend letting the developers know if you do not approve. I also noticed that you reverted some of my edits because you didn't agree with removing spaces from sections or cleaning up the formatting of distances and measures so I will limit those changes while editing the ship pages since I don't desire to get into an edit war over it. Plenty of other things to change. But I would like to note that in the past when I have submitted pages for reviews to be good or featured articles that formatting was required to be changed before they would pass it. So presumabely whether I do it as an AWB edit while I am already on the page or someone else does it later it will still need to be done. Since you have far more articles in those statuses than I do and you seem to edit primarily ships and I do biographies I will stay in my own swim lane but I wanted to mention it anyway. Cheers and no hard feelings. Happy editing.--Kumioko (talk) 18:47, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
DYK for SS American (1900)
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
On May 22, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article SS American (1900), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
. I'm not sure I've got all the ships quite in the correct section but I'm sure that if there are any errors they'll get sorted eventually. What do you think of the general idea of creating templates for ships by a) builder and b) shipping line? Mjroots (talk) 15:20, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
.png)