User talk:MBK004/Archive 5

User Page	Talk Page	About Me	Userboxes	Battleships	Sandbox	Userspace	Contributions

re: Milhist awards

Good thoughts :) I've just nominated Bryce for the chevrons (long overdue as you say). It would be great to revive the Content Review Medal but I gave up doing it because it was a big job (took all day) trawling through the Peer review/A-class review articles picking up all the reviewers and entering the data into a aspreadsheet every couple of months. I tried to get it institutionalised so that others shared the work but there were no takers. Thoughts? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 12:56, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the informal nom for the Chevrons with Oak Leaves, MBK! It just makes one's spirits soar when they are nominated for such an esteemed honour! Thanks, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 13:22, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

(od) Ping! --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 20:37, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Ping again! --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 22:34, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Ship launch page reorganization attempt

Take a look at User:Bellhalla/List of ship launches reorg and see what you think of that as a potential method of presenting ship launch information. Each ship entry is in a template.

Some things I like about it:

• It gives the ship name more prominence without having to make it bold
• It gives more room for things like notes or really long shipbuilding company names without squeezing down the other columns
• The template approach ought to make it easier to add entries, or modify the format or presentation at some point in the future.

Some things I dislike about it:

• The word customer. I'm (obviously) trying to convey for whom the ship was built, but I'm not sure that customer is the right word.
• The potentially repeated flag when the ensign and national flag are the same, as with the US. I'm torn about including a flag for the builder's location, but it seems important to have some sort of flag in cases like Caronia in the example (important for those who might no know Cunard is a British entity).

— Bellhalla (talk) 21:09, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

You'd mentioned some additional thoughts. Did I miss them somewhere? — Bellhalla (talk) 15:06, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

FAs

Saw you message on the Eds takl page concerning FAs. If you want to take ont he challenge, you are welcome to bring the article United States naval gunfire Support debate up to FA status. TomStar810 (Talk) 23:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

HMS Dreadnought

I see you added a "too short" tag to this article. What do you feel needs adding to it? :) Ryan4314 (talk) 00:27, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

My apologies, I thought the tag was indicating that the article was "too short", the template names can be a little misleading sometimes lol, sorry to disturb ur editing. Ryan4314 (talk) 00:32, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your help on the Cunard article

(GRUBBXDN (talk) 22:43, 23 January 2009 (UTC))

Alaska class Large Cruiser

There isn't any removal of sources, plus this looks to be a reliable source (http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Heavy-cruiser). GoldDragon (talk) 00:33, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Could you please address the rest of my comments on the Talk page ? GoldDragon (talk) 00:43, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Ping!

You may have missed this. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 22:25, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Pnig. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 22:35, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually it can be done very easily because I went into the PR archive, and every PR commenter gets their own section and all you have to do is to cut and paste the TOC including the entries in the last three months and paste it into excel, which gives...

1.1 Abraham, B.S. 1.2 Nudve 1.3 Ian Rose 10.1 Jim Sweeney 11.1 the_ed17 11.2 Saberwyn 11.3 Ryan4314 12.1 YellowMonkey 13.1 Nudve 13.2 Nigel Ish 14.1 Skinny87 15.1 Abraham, B.S. 15.2 Cam 16.1 Cam 17.1 JonCatalán 17.2 Benea 17.3 David Fuchs 18.1 YellowMonkey 19.1 Dhatfield 19.2 JonCatalán 19.3 Maralia 2.1 Hawkeye7 2.2 YellowMonkey 2.3 Nick-D 20.1 Nick Dowling 20.2 Dziban303 21.1 Woody 22.1 Kirill Lokshin 22.2 Jim Sweeney 23.1 Bedford 23.2 TomStar81 23.3 Roger Davies (1) 23.4 jackyd101 23.5 Roger Davies (2) 23.6 YellowMonkey 25.1 JonCatalán 26.1 Dhatfield 26.2 Jim Sweeney 27.1 Cam 27.2 Roger Davies 28.1 Kresock 28.2 Guyinblack25 28.3 David Fuchs 29.1 JonCatalán 29.2 Hawkeye7 3.1 Narson 3.2 Skinny87 3.3 Hawkeye7 3.4 PalestineRemembered 31.1 Woody 32.1 Nick Dowling 32.2 Borg_Sphere 33.1 Woody 34.1 Shimgray 35.1 Cam 35.2 Nick Dowling 35.3 Hawkeye7 35.4 Roger Davies 36.1 Woody 37.1 Roger Davies 37.2 Pohick2 4.1 Skinny87 5.1 Skinny87 5.2 Redmarkviolinist 5.3 Abraham, B.S. 5.4 Nick-D 6.1 LordAmeth 6.2 Cla68 6.3 djwilms 7.1 Kirill Lokshin 7.2 YellowMonkey 7.3 jackyd101 8.1 Parsecboy 8.2 YellowMonkey 9.1 the_ed17 Left the raw numbers in there (from the TOC numbering) for convenience YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 07:50, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Iowa class FT push

USS Iowa just passed her FAC. We know have the minimum core articles neede for the FT push. Our focus now needs to be addressing any surviving FAC issues. We also need to ensure that the articles are thoroughly copyeditted and that all externally cited links are operation before the FT push. I think that if we push hard the nom may be ready to go in a week or two. What are your thoughts on the matter? TomStar81 (Talk) 19:51, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

That looks to cover about 1/2 the radar material for the battleships, which I am ecstatic about since my attempts to find this information have thus far met with little to no success. If we can get a page going on ship based ECM systems then the page I had intended to write will not be needed. I would love to look at it more, but I registered for morning classes this semester and as such need to be getting to bed so I can get up in the morning. I should note for the record that I did not want morning classes (my idea of morning is any time at or past noon), but at this point, with me being a senior and all, its not so much me choosing the classes as it is the classes choosing me :-/ TomStar81 (Talk) 05:38, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

...for this. I forgot :P EyeSerene^talk 08:24, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Ship Gun Fire Control Systems‎

Thanks for looking the article over. What's up with references, it's mostly carried over from the Iowa article. Is the <reference/> style obsolete or something? What would need to be changed for B status? Bachcell (talk) 00:43, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

International Space Station

Hi! You might be interested in the discussion at Talk:International Space Station#The Failed FAC. Thank you. Colds7ream (talk) 22:34, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

The Content Review Medal of Merit

Thank you very much --Jim Sweeney (talk) 10:22, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Why are you deleting my information that I am posting about the USS Compass Island

Why are you deleting my information that I am posting about the USS Compass Island AG-153. I am trying to include everything but one can get lost in trying to figure out how to put things in here.

I own and operate the http://www.69elks.com[1] website. I have on there a http://www.69elks.com/Compass%20Island.html[2] about the Compass Island. Needless to say, I have more experience than you about the Compass Island for I have served on her. My ship mates are sending me photos every day for my site. Since this is an encyclopedia that is supposed to have the correct information about a subject. I felt it only proper to give correct information about the Compass Island. The lack of information about the Compass Island, 1 paragraph led me to post more information about the ship. I have documents, photos and a lot of other information about the CI. You removed my own personal scan of the ships patch, You removed the Award ribbons that the CI had.

Why did this happen? Also, How can this site page be updated. There are over several hundred people who come to this page to check up on how the page is being upgraded.

Frank Cox. User:Ffnbbs —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ffnbbs (talk • contribs) 19:53, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Apologies...

I'm sorry about not communicating with you earlier... I thought I sent you an email, but when I never received an answer, I should have tried getting to you another way... Look, I'm sorry about the ship pages... maybe we can figure out a comprimise... instead of me just blindly editting the whole article, maybe I could just check for stylistic and link errors... any content changes I can discuss with the project community... if you feel like that isn't good enough, I understand... please accept my sincere apologies for being an annoying, stubborn ass... Magus732 (talk) 19:16, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

So, we should always include a "nbsp" rather than just hitting the spacebar between things? I mean, I've seen them used to separate units of measurement from their values, numerical day markers away from months in dates, and so on... is that the normal thing to do? Magus732 (talk) 04:18, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I see your point about separating conversations. Thanks for your help. If I make another blunder like this, feel free to shoot me. :) Magus732 (talk) 04:26, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I almost forgot... what should be done when someone adds more than one space at the beginning of a sentence? Magus732 (talk) 04:29, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

When you said "trout", I thought of the "fish dance" Monty Python sketch... for instance, on that battleship article you mention, "Texas". Every few lines or so, there's an extra space at the beginning of the sentence. I've seen it a lot recently, and I think it's people just hitting the spacebar one too many times. So you can readily find what I mean, I'll take you to line 2 of the main body text, the sentence starting with "The ship"... Magus732 (talk) 04:36, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I see... that seems logical... thank you very much... Magus732 (talk) 04:47, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

B-29

I am not self promoting.., just think the info on the 330th bg site.., really explains the remote control fire system.

The current link goes to worthless information. The site I have www.330th.org is a site (non-profit) that i put up to honor b-29 veterans. I am not promoting it., just assisting in making the public aware of the CFC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 330th (talk • contribs) 22:32, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Big P and JFK

Yo, he wasn't the only one warring there, so I'm sort of curious why you didn't protect the page or block the other participants. Just curious, that's all. Kwsn (Ni!) 01:18, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Belated thanks

Thanks for the invitation to joing WikiProject Ships. I'm signing up and will strive to make worthwhile contributions. Orpy15 (talk) 21:58, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

FT nom

Thanks for the wiegh in. I'll post to Ed and Cam's talk pages and see what they think, then get back to Cla with an answer. TomStar81 (Talk)

Staw poll on my talk page for your suggestion. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:34, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Got it. Me thinks cla may not answer until tomorrow though. Also, I left a note of Kirill's talk page with the new 6-star golden inignia and informed him that you had corresponding userbox for him if he was interested. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:24, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

There is really only one acceptable image for the topic: the iconic overhead image of Iowa firing a full broadside, File:Uss iowa bb-61 pr.jpg. Its even a featured picture to boot :) TomStar81 (Talk) 04:38, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Check it out

File:Milhist coordinator emeritus.svg

What do you think? TomStar81 (Talk) 03:30, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

See this: {{WPMILHIST Emeritus}} -MBK₀₀₄ 03:44, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Operation: Trailblazer

After a straw poll on the matter I have initiated the FT nom for the Iowa-class battleships. Since your name appears on the list of major contributors I am leaving this message here to inform you of the nom's opening and to offer you a chance to chip on the matter. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:30, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

You're up late burning the midnight oil. Something wrong with nom name? TomStar81 (Talk) 08:21, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Lucky. I've got morning classes all week. I hate morning. And to boot I made the mistake of napping this afternoon, so I am now wired. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:25, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, you got me beat for the commute: It only take me 15 minutes to get to campus :) On the other hand, like you, I do spend a lot of time on campus. Solitary confinement so to speak, I know from a lot a year and a lot of bad grades that I can not go home to do my work because I inevitably put it off in favor of games or books or TV or something that requires less work. As a result, I don't usually leave campus until everything gets done, but that can take until after midnight sometimes, as I am sure you can relate :) TomStar81 (Talk) 08:32, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

To each his own, I guess. At any rate, good luck with your classes, and I will see you tomorrow (I hope). TomStar81 (Talk) 08:40, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Having reread this post I think I may have unintentially offended you, if so, then I apologize, as that was not my intention. TomStar81 (Talk) 16:30, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. We are just starting class, but i will get to this as soon as class ends. TomStar810 (Talk) 20:43, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for handling the nom. I just got out of class, so I have the rest of the day to do my work (including Wikiwork). Also, we seem to have unanimous support going for us over at the Iowa FT nom. It was a good call on your part to just go now, as I figured we would encounter more resistance than we have at FTC. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:59, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

		The Teamwork Barnstar
		For your oustanding efforts during Operation Trailblazer, culminating in the 2009 Featured Topic nomination for the Iowa-class battleships, the passage of which resulted in the first ever Wikipedia Featured Topic concerning ships exclusively, I herby present you with The Teamwork Barnstar. Thanks for all of your help, this is as much your Featured Topic as it is mine. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:20, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

RE: Disbelief

It's the DYK bit that eludes me. I mostly tend to touch up already substantial articles to FA-Status, and didn't actually know the DYK Process bit until a few months ago. I could have done it with Operation Tractable, which went from 3,000 to 31,000 bytes in two days, but I didn't know how the process worked. I'm completely rewriting the articles on the Kongo class battlecruiser, most of which are quite thin, and will give me an opportunity to get some potential DYKs out there. Cam ^(Chat) 00:50, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

thanks for adding the template. Cam ^(Chat) 04:44, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

and Haruna is now a DYK. Cam ^(Chat) 19:27, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXV (January 2009)

The January 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 04:37, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh...yeah

...I guess I forgot about the fact that all the other pages linked to the other page and needed redirecting. Good catch :) TomStar81 (Talk) 16:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

re: Triple Crown jewels

Thanks for that mate; the noms for the Imperial Napoleonic are tedious! Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 05:51, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks...

...for following me round Milhist fixing my omissions (and for adding the AH to those articles - I was intending to do it later, but it's not my favourite task!). Your help is much appreciated. I've added an update count reminder to the ACR closure instructions :P EyeSerene^talk 14:49, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

CIA

I removed the paragraph about rapes committed by a CIA officer. It has nothing to do with the rest of the section as it does not concern tactics, and we cannot include every crime by individuals. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 16:34, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Any info?

So I think that I am going to write an article on the never-built Dutch Design 1047 battlecruiser...would any books in your library have any additional info than this? (Otherwise, I will probably have to wait until I buy Conway's 1922–1946 so I can see the history ('background') of the Royal Netherlands Navy up to WWII on page 386 (argh Google Books...)) Thanks for the help, —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 01:59, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, MBK004. You have new messages at GW Simulations's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

GW… 10:14, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Academy stuff

You attention is invited here: Talk:List_of_United_States_Naval_Academy_alumni#Other_stuff — Rlevse • Talk • 12:41, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Graduates_of_the_United_States_Air_Force_Academy#Move rename proposal there too. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:08, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I noticed the USNA refs often end around 2005, they have a few errors too that I sent to the webmaster. Can you work on the NASA ref additions? We need the refs to be as good as possible. I'd say leave in both USNA and NASA if you want. After that are you interested in working other parts of this article or start the astronaut section if the Air Force list? — Rlevse • Talk • 12:46, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: New Page implementation

That's unfortunate, but there's no way to fix it; we were using shortcuts on the main page rather than on the actual awards page, and they won't work now that the latter is no longer transcluded into the former. Kirill ^[pf] 23:23, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Eventually updated, yes; but any help would be appreciated! Kirill ^[pf] 23:27, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Re:Triple Corwn

Assuming that Imperial Napoleon starts at 5, then I need 2 more DYK's as well. Shouldn't be too hard to do, just time consuming :) TomStar81 (Talk) 04:59, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Good for ed, I glad to see other nations battleships finally getting on the board. I was planning to move to the Yamato class after Iowa FT nom, but as those battleships are currently in good hands I think I may take a stab at the Bismarcks. Alternatively, if you are up to it, we can work on getting the New York-class articles up to FA and creating an FT for those ships. I'm creating an operation page for the US battleships to see about getting all those up to FA status, so I hope in time to track such developments there. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:13, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Though I'd poke my head in...Tom, if you do start working on the Bismarks, I've got a couple of books that have some information, especially stuff that would be most useful for the class article. Let me know if you want some help. Parsecboy (talk) 05:17, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Always nice to have company. The Bismarks are unique since they were lost in combat, one as a result of Brittish battleship damage (leading to scuttling, or so I am told), the other to an air raid of epic proportions. Alternatively, I could take a rather radical turn and start working on aircraft carriers since the states aren't on that board yet. For the time being, I think I am going to put my all into school and let any hardcore Wiki-related work wait until at least spring break, more probably summer vacation. As far as the NYs are concerned, I could get the two missing GAs from bringing them up, but thats going to have wait. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:26, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Concur. We will need pages for each carrier, the class, and probably on the planes used and the weapons equipped. Still, it would be a challenge, and I like to be challenged :) For now though, the Bismarks are of interest because the are for Europe what the Iowas and Yamatos were for North America and Asia, respectively. I'd welcome your help with the Bismark too, if you would like to join when time permits. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:34, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

"Also, ed finally did something non-US warship related: Brazilian battleship Minas Gerais"? Hahahahah thanks pal :)

Ping me for help if you need it, as always :) —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 05:39, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

@MBK: Good point. I just don't want to you to feel like you're being cut out, though as a student I can sympathize with not having enough hours in a day to do everything you need to.

@Ed: You are welcome to help as well, although I should warn you that I like to work on articles in my sandbox and then move them out to the project space rather than add the construction template to the article space and work there. In light of this it would be best of you to keep an eye on my sand box, when I start pouring edits into my sandbox it usually means I'm up to something. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:47, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

K. Watchlisting now ;) —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 05:55, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I dunno what's needed, I just went to MILHIST talk and went to your sandbox but I submit most of my articles to DYK, so most of the military ones are in there, I just wrote down non-military ones on the submission form. As for GA, 1962 South Vietnamese Independence Palace bombing, Phan Dinh Phung, Pham Ngoc Thao were GAs before becoming FAs, which is permissible, and Military career of Keith Miller and Nguyen Van Nhung are current. What's this group drive for? YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 02:51, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

You are correct, that those articles qualify, but from looking at your award at WP:CROWN, they are not listed for the GA and DYK which will be required (you need a supplemental nomination to qualify, but that requires qualifying for the next level up from your current crown). As for what this is for, it is to get the WikiProject Triple Crown for MILHIST, which you should be fully aware of since you helped earn one for WikiProject Australia. -MBK₀₀₄ 21:51, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, we should be eligible for a group Imperial crown or something then...I should have read the labelling. The Australia crown, somebody else nominated everyone for them...YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 01:48, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, MBK004. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Timeline of spaceflight.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I have moved the discussion there in order to bring it to the attention of other users who may be interested. GW… 16:53, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

John Phillips

I seen the box you added to the page for John L. Phillips. I added more to the opening paragraph. I don't want to remove the box until I know that it meets the standards and is acceptable. Please let me know what you think.--Navy blue84 (talk) 17:41, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I am still learning the whole editing thing. I have added more to the lead paragraph. I hope it conforms to WP:LEAD.--Navy blue84 (talk) 01:35, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

List of United States Naval Academy alumni

This is sort of long, and there are dozens more that could be added, so I’m not sure what to do with this. It still needs work with things like formatting; first only linked, consistency in dates 1999-2000 vs (1999-2000), verbiage, etc. West Point would be even worse, Air Force, CG, and Merchant Marine not so bad. I hope to get to FL, maybe even a featured topic. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:46, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Respond here: User_talk:Rlevse#Re:_List_of_United_States_Naval_Academy_alumni please. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:01, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

See new a2 option of the mem template, it's sortable now, Sample in astro section of article. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:29, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Listed the CNO page at FLC. Still work to do on the main list though. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:10, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

USS Texas

Hello

In USS Texas (BB-35) there is information the first to receive a commercial radar in the U.S. Navy. What exactly means commercial in that sentence ? Nonexperimental ? Can you write me somthing about this ?

There is also She is also noteworthy for being one of only two remaining ships to have served in both World War I and World War II. - Drazki and Aurora also was in both wars, and now are museum ships. And also Giorgios Averoff.

I am asking because i get that article on pl.wiki to GA. PMG (talk) 09:50, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Found some additional info on the radar system, apparently this is meant to mean the first non-prototype, non-experimental version of the radar systems adopted for use by the USN. As it happens, we have a page on the system in question, so a further link has been added and a note inserted for clarity. On the other matter, I am looking into the WWI survivor problem, but alas I am unable to handle both problems in one day, so the issue of who fought and survived WWI will have to wait. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:38, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello. Information what was added to USS Texas are not compatible with CXAM radar. In that article there is information that on Texas was installed CXZ radar, not CXAM radar. And that CXZ was not a prototype to next generation (CXAM). So something is not correct. PMG (talk) 23:33, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll check my references. Tom should know more per above. -MBK₀₀₄ 01:16, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

About that "6 warships from I and II ww" HMS_Caroline_(1914)#Records - unsourced but has some another ships (that svedish monitor for example). PMG (talk) 23:33, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Userbox for GA reviews

The userbox {{User Good Articles reviewed}} has been updated so that it can now link to a page in your user subspace where you keep track of all your GA reviews, if you have such a page. This can be done by adding a | and then the name of your user subpage (or subsection of your regular user page) wherever you have the template called. For example, on my user page I am using

{{User Good Articles reviewed|6|User:Rjanag/GA reviews}}

which displays as

There is more information on how to do this at Template:User Good Articles reviewed.

Note: If you are not interested in doing this, you don't have to do anything; the template will still work for you exactly as it does now.

Best, rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 17:50, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Misterbee1966

Yes I would, how do I do that then? Dapi89 (talk) 20:32, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

French battleship Danton (1909)

Ed and Parsecboy are talking about beefing up the French battleship Danton (1909) article since its currently linked from the main page. I chipped in by rewriting the lead, and wnated to let you know about the beef up in case you wanted to help out. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:12, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Re:FT

Thanks for the Barnstar. I was slow to pick up on that since you replied to Danton, and would have missed the FT nom closure if it hadn't been for the watchlist. Fitting time too, what with the GWF returning in a few days and the air and land war for Desert Sheild cranking up :) TomStar81 (Talk) 21:59, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey MBK. Can you update the TFA page from it's talk page a second time? Just wanted to emphasize the date connection. Thanks! —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 00:13, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

3RR Discussion

In regards to your warning on my page [3], I had no intention of edit warring. I reverted the changes twice of a blocked user who was edit warring against a merge consensus through an IP, as discussed here [4] and confirmed by his edit here [5]. Just wanted to let you know, I'm well aware of policy and was just trying to help out Faithless in his attempts to keep the consensus against a blocked user. Thanks! Dayewalker (talk) 02:54, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry MBK - I should have talked more. First, the IP was in the wrong, not Dayewalker - the IP's version was terrible. I reverted back to an early December version after removing some of the tags because I believe that Gibbs is notable enough to have his own article, and articles that are clearly notable shouldn't be redirected just becuase they are bad articles...the nature of a wiki will improve the article (though only in due time). —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 03:04, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Iowa-class battleships

Stupid me... I didn't even look... sorry about that... :( Magus732 (talk) 04:59, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Question

Hey MBK004. :) Just so that you do not miss it, I've left a question for you there. Best wishes, — Aitias // discussion 23:42, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay then. Thanks for the reply. — Aitias // discussion 23:46, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Multi-Purpose Logistics Module Logo.png

Hi MBK004. Do you dislike the Ninja Turtles Mission insignia or do you think that it's too silly with toys in a serious article regarding non-fiction space hardware? I didn't upload the image; I just inserted it as a proof of the Ninja Turtles' similar names. You could have legalised the image your-self in shorter time than it took you to write to me, the image page, Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images/2009 February 23 and the Multi-Purpose Logistics Module article. You see this ping pong game with you inserting a whole string of new templates is boring. If you believe that the article would be better off without the ninja turtle image - fine with me! Just be frank - I've no connections to Mattel and am no Ninja Turtles fan, I'm just a NASA fan ;-) --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 01:27, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Apollo

Good move, icing that page for awhile. Now, what are the odds that Ghost of starman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is 24.63.155.93 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) when he's not logged on? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:44, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Day before month in US military articles

Thanks for pointing out the changed guideline "the customary format may differ from the usual national one: for example, articles on the modern U.S. military often use day before month, in accordance with usage in that field" that was added in September 2008, apparently without much fanfare. I have been cleaning up dates for years, and this is news to me. However, there seems to be a gray area between that statement and the earlier statement "For example, with respect to British date formats as opposed to American it would be acceptable to change from American format to British if the article concerned a British subject". The converse would then also be true. I do not generally change all the dates in a US military article to use month before day just to "Americanize" them, but when an article has dates in non-Wikipedia format (usually with mixed US-style and British-style dates), I usually favor US-style dates when making them consistent (excluding any within quotations, of course).

The next candidate article I was eyeing for cleanup when your message arrived was Donaldson Air Force Base. It's not an extreme example, but fairly representative of an article that needs a little cleaning up. It has a mix of date formats: 18 Aug 1942; [[17 October]] [[1942]]; January 25, 1964; 7 September 1930. Some dates are linked, for no apparent reason, some months are abbreviated while others are spelled out in full, both day-month and month-day are used. The date that the base was offered to the City of Greenville is, appropriately, in US style. The date that John Donaldson crashed is in British style, which is rather awkward for a US civilian pilot participating in a US civilian airshow. The date format needs to be consistent, so what should give way? I favor a style that American civilians can read and be comfortable with. I think US military personnel can easily understand September 7, 1930, since they used that format for many years until they entered military service. The Air Force Historical Research Agency is a repository for military records, but Wikipedia is not a military encyclopedia. Of the American users of Wikipedia, I would guess most are civilians, not active military. It makes little sense to me that the format be tailored to the needs or the liking of a few when it could be made accessible to the many.

I had already spotted the misspelling of 'perperation' before beginning the date cleanup, so that would have been fixed, too. Reverting my changes would reintroduce many errors I have corrected to spelling, grammar and punctuation, besides restoring a hodgepodge of date styles, so I decline your invitation to do so. For now, I am putting the brakes on date cleanup in US military articles, giving you a chance to reflect on this. Chris the speller (talk) 02:16, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Chris, part of the reason that there can be a mix of date styles is because of the formerly preferred system of linking dates to attempt conformance to user preferences. (Because that only accomplished its goal for registered users that had known to or bothered to set their date preferences, date linking for auto-formatting purposes is no longer encouraged.) Anyway, as I understand it, changing the date styles in an article is the tantamount to changing the referencing style or the national flavor/flavour of English in an article. While I agree that the date format in an article needs to be consistent, it should reflect (and respect) the choice of the initial editor. As to your "American civilians" vs. "active military" distinction: I, myself, am in the former group and have never been a part of the latter, yet am perfectly capable of understanding a day-month-year format. Given that we don't go around and translate dates in the "wrong" format (as is done with metric/customary/imperial units), I trust that many more "American civilians" than you give credit for are perfectly capable of understanding them. — Bellhalla (talk) 06:29, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

MZMcBride

Good afternoon. You said in WP:AN that "MZMcBride has clearly violated the ArbCom admonisment he was given in the wheel war case to not ignore existing consensus and use the sysop tools out-of-process" and that you would go to ArbCom in a few hours. I thank you for that and must urge you to go ahead quickly, insofar as your time and willingness permit. By being aware of the secret page mess and the wheel war ArbCom case, plus eloquent enough to and willing to start an ArbCom case, you are the very likely the best man for the job. It is an urgent job, too, since dozens of editors are affected I can't disagree with your interpretation.

To lift your spirits in this gloomy affair, here is a levitating dog.

For onlookers, the admonishment here noted that MzMcBride "is instructed to refrain from any further incidents of wheel-warring, taking administrator actions in disregard of on-wiki consensus, or deliberately disobeying decisions of the Arbitration Committee. MZMcBride is warned that any further such incidents are likely to lead to the suspension or revocation of his administrator privileges." --Kizor 10:29, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Kizor. I think you can probably put together a case best based on your eloquence displayed in the AN thread. Regards SoWhy 10:48, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree as well. If I can be of help just let me know. Best wishes, — Aitias // discussion 13:44, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Alright, you've convinced me to open the case. But, right now I'm about to go to class so it will be some time (about two and a half hours) before I am able to compose the request. I had a request all composed and ready to go last evening but my computer suffered a BSOD. Each of you are more than welcome to begin the request and I can just comment or you can wait and let me open it. -MBK₀₀₄ 16:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Late to the party, but I agree as well. I won't be much help becuase I'm as clueless as a goldfish when it comes to arbcom, but I'll do what I can especially seeing as I was the one who opened the original complaint against MZM. —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 16:46, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, unfortunately I am not familiar with the RFAR process at all. Thus, I'll leave opening the case to you — as Kizor pointed out above, you are most probably the best man for that job. :) Best wishes, — Aitias // discussion 16:58, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd do it myself but I fear that my English is not good enough to write a case. I think, seeing how long ArbCom takes usually, waiting until you are ready to do it should not be a problem. Good luck with it :-) SoWhy 18:35, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Your English is nothing but great, SoWhy! :) — Aitias // discussion 18:50, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

For those who are watching here and not at RFAR, I have filed the case: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#MZMcBride -MBK₀₀₄ 19:57, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Looks alright, MBK. Should I be added as an involved party, considering that I opened that thread to begin with? :/ —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 20:06, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

You are welcome to add a comment in your own section, but I don't think you need to be listed as a party. Then again, I could be wrong since I don't closely follow ArbCom and that is my first RFAR that I've ever filed. -MBK₀₀₄ 20:32, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) I have fixed a few links ([6], [7]) and hope that's okay. :) — Aitias // discussion 20:25, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a bunch for that! -MBK₀₀₄ 20:32, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Commented. Those things balloon fast, don't they? :/ —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 20:44, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for doing this MBK. Encouraged by Aitias praise for my horrible English, I decided to add a lengthy statement (that was then shot down for being too long^^). Too bad Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/SemBubenny is not closed already. Several of it's proposals fit this case pretty tightly ([8] [9] [10] and especially [11]) and I hope ArbCome decides that the same principles apply here as well. Let's just not hope that this turns into a drama mill... Thanks again, it is much appreciated that you started this. Regards SoWhy 21:18, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Yep, thank you very much for taking the time to do that, MBK004. :) — Aitias // discussion 21:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MZMcBride/Recall is a helpful link. Alio The Fool 17:59, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Another look

Could you have another look at this revert you did? I'm not convinced it was really vandalism - although I'm not convinced that it isn't either. Other edits by the IP seem okay - kinda.  Doulos Christos ♥ talk  20:52, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I mis tagged his talk page. Removal of referenced information and replacement with unreferenced information. -MBK₀₀₄ 20:54, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I can see that. Thanks for taking a peek!  :)  Doulos Christos ♥ talk  21:06, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

A modest proposal

Does this sound OK to you? Durova^Charge! 22:35, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that a RfC can achieve more than a strong admonishment by the ArbCom. — Aitias // discussion 22:40, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Part of what propels this forward is that while the community is uncertain where the boundaries are, he's kept pushing them. If he agrees to stop the pushing then people can settle down and focus on the proper scope of user space deletions. Which is a useful thing to work out. I've seen cases where the community consensus is unclear, where ArbCom ends up booting that side back to the community because determination of policy is outside its mandate. And by that reasoning, there's a chance they wouldn't take action against the admin while the policy remains unclear. Durova^Charge! 22:45, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

←Durova, while I believe that a RFC/U could be productive, MZM's pattern of behavior does not instill the confidence that (even with his statements that he will participate) he will take heed of the total situation. I have lost the confidence of his possession of the sysop bit and believe that he should face some consequence because of his pattern of behavior (be it an extremely strong (i.e. stronger than the one received already) admonishment from ArbCom with notice that another incident will lead to a quick motion for desysop, temporary removal of sysop, or permanent desysop). I agree completely with Rlevse's acceptance of the RFAR dated 01:32 on 25 February 2009. I am completely aware of the remit that ArbCom has, but since there have been prior dealings and the pattern of behavior, RFAR seems to be a logical evolution. If the request does result in an RFC, I will participate but I expect that in lieu of major changes by MZM about his behavior that this matter will be back at ArbCom before June 2009. Also, I am not so sure about just keeping MZM from using the tools in a controversial way. I would much prefer if he would not use the tools at all until there was a resolution. Also, his unapproved admin bot is still concerning in and of itself (especially since he has refused to get it approved on multiple occasions). Also, apologies for not responding so quickly, you posted this just as I was going to take an exam on the history of the roman criminal justice system. -MBK₀₀₄ 05:13, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I can see how you'd get that perspective. And by all means, take care of your education first. :) What you've got right now is a high drama RFAR. It's controversial; established Wikipedians are coming down on both sides. And high drama RFARs like this one can lead to messy exhausting arbitrations that don't necessarily go quickly. You may have a finger on the pulse of this better than I, yet have a look at the arbitrators' comments. If RFC doesn't work out then the situation would be much more clear cut. Since arbitration cases can last three months sometimes, if your hunch is right then a resolution may happen in about the same time frame with a lot less intrusion on your studies. It's also good to remain open to the possibility that RFC may work. Pleasant surprises have been known to happen at DR. Durova^Charge! 17:48, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

MILHIST Awards

Thanks for the heads up - re votes for awards at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Awards Its not clear on the talk page that only coordinators can vote --Jim Sweeney (talk) 23:14, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Luther Hull

Since you were the one who blocked User:Luther Hull, would you mind taking a look at User:Big Luth? I think they are the same user. Besides the fact that they basically have the same name, Big Luth registered 2 days after Luther Hull was blocked, Big Luth moved WrestleMania XXV to "The 25th Anniversary of WrestleMania" (just like Luther Hall did, and even used the exact same edit summary). What do you think? TJ Spyke 17:27, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Happy MBK004/Archive 5's Day!

User:MBK004/Archive 5 has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, and therefore, I've officially declared today as MBK004/Archive 5's day! For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian, enjoy being the Star of the day, dear MBK004/Archive 5! Peace, Rlevse ~ A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:02, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh my gosh, congratulations MBK! —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 00:47, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations, MBK004! :) — Aitias // discussion 00:50, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Congrats, MBK! How did you celebrate: with the traditional MBK004-day tree, or did you keep it low key? :) — Bellhalla (talk) 12:25, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Extremely low key, recovering from a two-exam week. -MBK₀₀₄ 19:10, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Coordinator for MILHIST?

ok Got you sir--Suyog^{talk to me!} 07:12, 28 February 2009 (UTC) (PS how can I make a User Talk page protected?)

Dunbar-Sega marriage

Hello! You questioned the existence of the (dissolved) marriage of astronauts Bonnie Dunbar and Ron Sega. There is plenty of information about this on the internet, put "Dunbar married Sega" in google (or vice versa), two examples are http://www.spacefacts.de/family/astronauts/english/dunbar_bonnie.htm and http://www.friends-partners.org/oldfriends/jgreen/dunbar.html (obviously from an old NASA biography). The question is (and will always remain), what requires a reference in Wikipedia and which sources can we trust. Personally (and outside the Wiki world) I'd for the sake of verifiability reject any paper which relies on internet sources rather than 'printed matter', but again where do you draw the line between necessity and desirability. Cyan22 (talk) 18:52, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MZMcBride

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MZMcBride/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MZMcBride/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Tiptoety ^talk 02:15, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I wish to comment on your Arbcom statement. You stated that MZMcBride deletes Old IP talk pages, so it was difficult for you to find his other deletions. Well, he actually keeps a voluntary log of these deletions here, thanks. --DFS454 (talk) 19:14, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Cheers

Wow, foolish me! Thanks for doing this, I forgot we are in March already! Cheers, --Eurocopter (talk) 20:51, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Dunkirk

There has recently been some conjecture as to how to describe the victory by the German forces. Can you or other members of the project group please assist in the discussion on the talk page. I intend to call for a consensus decision in order to establish the infobox statement regarding the outcome of the battle. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:53, 2 March 2009 (UTC).

February Contest

I know you like gnoming so I was wondering if you have some spare time to finish off the scoring? The Ed_17 got as far as Ian Rose's contributions. There's a few there that need tagging and asessing too? It's the February Contest. If it's a problem, can you let me know please? – Roger Davies ^talk 05:39, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

On it. -MBK₀₀₄ 05:41, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVI (February 2009)

The February 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:03, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Too complicated

To MBK004:

First, it's far too complicated to commicate with you (and others of your editorial ilk) and I'd not be inclined to do it again. What's wrong with a simple e-mail address? __________________

You're correct in pointing out my contribution re USS Constitution seems non-objective, but that is not the case. Please understand I live in a town that sheltered Constitution from the British in 1814 and in 1997. The bond between this ship and our town is special. Captain William Kelly, a Marbleheader, piloted Constitution into harbor in '97, she was piloted here by a Marbleheader (Preeble?) in 1814 and the British deigned the channel too dangerous to follow. Marblehead lays no official claim to this ship, but has a special pride in its relationship to it. The town does lay claim to providing the first combatant ships of the Revolution and to being the birthplace of Marine aviation. Marbleheaders ferried Washington to Trenton across the Delaware, across the East River to save them in the battles around New York and Washington acknowledged the special character of Marbleheaders by (and we take pride in this) cursing us out for being too independent. (We love Washington, have a stret named for him and a Masonic lodge with his picture prominently displayed.) The War of 1812 was more an affront to Marbleheaders than most of those who fought in the Revolution, since it threatened the freedom and lives of men merely making a living at sea, not active combatants. I have a few things to say privately if you write: PALAKE@comcast.net —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spikethedog (talk • contribs) 20:46, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

International Space Station

Just to let you know that the article is now up for FAC at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/International Space Station - thanks for the all the help so far, and please feel free to comment at the FAC page! :-) Colds7ream (talk) 08:25, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

AF astronauts

I decided to work this next. Care to help with the list of astronauts there? I'll do USMA after this is done. Also see the merge proposal on the talk page, you've already supported the rename. USNA astros is now FL, two more are at FLC and soon I'll file the main USNA alum list for FLC. Thanks for all the help. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:12, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Astro and CNO are both FLs now. Legislators is still at FLC. As you see, the main list is now at FLC. If you see anything to fix or improave at the main USNA list, feel free and thanks! — Rlevse • Talk • 23:34, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Apollo 13

Thanks for rolling Apollo 13 back- it was too complicated for me to untangle. YosefK (talk) 15:40, 6 March 2009 (UTC) (aka. the IP which asked for it)

Semi-protect SS Edmund Fitzgerald

I noticed this article is subject to frequent vandalism. Do you have the clearance to semi-protect the article? Thank you in advance if you are able to do this. --Wpwatchdog (talk) 23:43, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

OK. Thank you for checking. --Wpwatchdog (talk) 01:29, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

User:AngelaSchmidt

Many thanks for blocking this user! It was a pain fixing their re-directs. CarpetCrawler (talk) 05:19, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Kralizec! made the block, I just placed the notice since I figured that he was busy cleaning-up the damage. -MBK₀₀₄ 05:20, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Whoops! Egg on my face there... But anyway, there really should be a way to make it so that established users can re-direct articles, but that of course would probably cause problems! CarpetCrawler (talk) 05:23, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of the block notice for me! That was #2 on my list after "clean up mess." --Kralizec! (talk) 05:28, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, you might want to double-check that I moved everything back to the right spots. As my wife always points out, I am a notoriously bad speller, so I may not have been the best admin to fix all her moves. --Kralizec! (talk) 05:37, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Cats

You need to take Category:United States Naval Academy out of them because you don't include the parent AND child cat, but making the cat more specific was the right move. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:37, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

tks. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:53, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

USS Midway

I think you removed my addition to the article for being unreferenced. I got the information from a flyer dating from July 1974, that a friend (who was active in the antiwar movement) gave me. Can those kinds of things be reference? It seems like an interesting chapter in the ship's life, so would seem valuable to include... JensWilkinson (talk) 09:18, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

From what you describe, that doesn't sound like a reliable source to me or something that can meet the verifiability guidelines. -MBK₀₀₄ 20:34, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Oh, Thanks. So I just need to put what articles I am going to be working on, and the coordinators will put my points on the scoreboard? Lord R. T. Oliver ^{The Olive Branch} 21:11, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks So Much and Have a Great Day! Lord R. T. Oliver ^{The Olive Branch} 21:15, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

MILHIST Crown

Hi, MBK. I just remembered that we were in the process of getting MILHIST's triple crown, but I don't recall what ever happened with that. I know you have the eligibility status of MILHIST members in your sandbox; do you know what's going on with it? Parsecboy (talk) 21:59, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

See User:MBK004/Sandbox/MILHIST. We are fully qualified and Durova is aware, but we have yet to come up with an appropriate image for her to use to create the MILHIST-specific award. It is in a state of limbo so if you think of something, be sure to give her a poke. -MBK₀₀₄ 22:01, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, yeah. I seem to think that was discussed on the MILHIST talk page, but nothing was ever decided. Parsecboy (talk) 22:05, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

USNA Legislators template

I didn't know you could do this. Thanks for the help. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:29, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Very nice. Two ideas:

1. Put the Academy logo to the left of "United"
2. Maybe put the main list on the line with the other three as it's not obvious where it is since you have it split with USNA in the title line. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:37, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

What I've done is the limit of my knowledge with these things. You might want to find your template wizard to do more. I think the alumni should be in the title, so if you want, you can add it to the main list as well. -MBK₀₀₄ 00:40, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

You don't need to use talkback on my page, I have a watch on yours. See my tweaks to the template; I'm asking User:Gadget850 about the image. I don't like the image with its white background. Other than that I'm okay with it now, how about you? — Rlevse • Talk • 00:48, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Understood. Everything looks good except for that white background on the image. -MBK₀₀₄ 00:50, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I've asked Gadget about that too. He's pretty good at this stuff. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:51, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

See comments on Gadget's talk page and the template itself. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:17, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Temporary injunction

No I was not aware of it. You could have simply told me rather than threatening to block me. RainbowOfLight ^Talk 02:20, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Two minds - edit conflict

I think my latest action and yours must have coincided to the second (almost). I note your adjustment to my decision. I hope that didn't/doesn't present any difficulties?--VS ^talk 03:50, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

No difficulties on my end. I was going to block for 3 months, but then decided to be lenient. I have no objections to your duration. -MBK₀₀₄ 03:51, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Cheers.--VS ^talk 03:52, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

GA answer

Outstanding answer, MBK004! I agree with everything you said, but I would like to point out that you missed one other important point in favor of keeping GA class: Durova's triple crown award requires GA class articles, so abolishing the system means we forfeit a project triple crown and alien those who wish to obtain triples by forcing them to look elsewhere for a chance to bring an article up to GA-class. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:11, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

True, but I was thinking more along the lines of the individual users who haven't already gotten a triple crown. Removing GA class in milhist deprives them of a chance to get a milhist based GA. At any rate, as you noted, we do have the an image to decide on for the triple crown. I haven;t got an idea for that. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:48, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Happy userday too! Not sure how I managed to miss that, but its an outstanding accomplishment to be today's wikipedian, and you are definitely deserving of the award :) TomStar81 (Talk) 05:53, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

USS Texas

Hello, please review the edits at USS Texas (BB-35). I noticed that some of the formatting templates were removed and a few MOS issues introduced. Thanks, Postoak (talk) 20:57, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Editing

Okay, let me make sure I understand you correctly... you want me to start a discussion page with the community for every single vessel, for every single change. Is that what you're telling me? Honestly, as much as I enjoy editing, I'd rather leave than clog up the discussion pages like that... you're telling me what I'm doing is ridiculous, and I can accept that it might be, but it seems more ridiculous to open a forum for everything that goes on around here... if you don't want me to edit any ship pages, at all, ever, just say that... Magus732 (talk) 21:16, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, what exactly does "consensus" mean? I've read that a consensus of editors should be reached in order to do major edits, but nothing in the rules supports that, at least nothing I could find... it's frustrating when I can't figure whether I'm doing something correctly or not... Magus732 (talk) 21:24, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I see... well, now that I think about it, it does make sense... it's just... well, sometimes I get focused on something, and doing it becomes almost subconcious... I stop thinking about it... obviously, I need to work on that... Magus732 (talk) 21:35, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Here's another thing I have a problem with: why does the rulebook insist you needn't capitolize every major word in a heading (ie the title of a section), even though that's the way stardard English dictates it's written? Magus732 (talk) 02:41, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

You're kidding with the Ilyushin Il-86 page, right? This is the only page you have a problem with? What part of the MOS says that it's supposed to look the way it did before I changed it? The changes I made only comply with the other pages, almost all of them being that way before I touched them... I'm starting to think you're following me... Magus732 (talk) 04:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I've been going over my revisions, and I've noticed something that may interest you... you only started reverting me after my edit to USS Texas (BB-35)... but, every battleship edit I made prior to that, you left alone, and in the case of USS New York (BB-34), you reverted it back to my version... care to explain? Magus732 (talk) 06:14, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

And what about USS Arizona (BB-39)? Does it need fixed now too? Magus732 (talk) 06:25, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Good Luck

Good Luck on the Election for Coordinator! I Hope you Make It! Lord R. T. Oliver ^{The Olive Branch} 00:38, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

It's always good to see some Texas folk as Coordinators. Keep up the Good Work. Have A Great Day! Lord R. T. Oliver ^{The Olive Branch} 18:04, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

No edit war

I have been discussing this page for more than a month and after multiple users agreeing with me, they lost interest and the subject and her army have stepped back in to continually add poorly sourced info and revert good faith edits. Read the article from beginning to end AND all of its supporting sources and you will see that almost all sources point back to quotes which the subject gave in interviews. This sourcing (as well as the subject's own edits) are not reliable and fall under the "immediate removal" rule under wiki bios. I left all material that can be verified by reliable third party sources. Submitted in good faith. Jrbot22 (talk) 19:38, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Help

• Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history#List_of_United_States_Naval_Academy_alumni_FLC_help — Rlevse • Talk • 02:03, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Yikes, that is getting ugly. Unfortunately images are not my cup of tea to begin with and the fact that we all know that they are PD is so frustrating. Hopefully someone can help you out because I'd be up a creek without a paddle trying to help. -MBK₀₀₄ 02:11, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

C-Class

I was wondering since you haven't yet voted on it (at least not that I know of), What is your Opinion on Having a C-Class for the WikiProject? Have A Great Day Lord R. T. Oliver ^{The Olive Branch} 02:17, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Your Opinion is greatly appreciated, it is great to see such diversity in the Military History WikiProject. It looks as if you put a great amount of thought into your answer, which is very respectable. Keep up the good Work! :) And it is for some of the reasons which your actions have displayed that I voted for you for Coordinator and also those reasons prove that you will make a Great Coordinator, Great Job! Have A Great Day! Lord R. T. Oliver ^{The Olive Branch} 02:28, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Spacewalk edits

Nice edits on the spacewalk list. I appreciate the detail look over the lists. On one point I went back and looked at the reference again, regarding the repaired thermal blankets. My thinking now is that the reference is a bit unclear. I'm going to try to find an alternate reference to make sure exactly what was repaired. WVhybrid (talk) 18:34, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thanks for the revert [12]! --Kralizec! (talk) 18:35, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: errors

Wow. This must be what happens when reliable sources fail. Its diner time, but I'll be back on when I'm back, and we can plan our next move. I leave a message here for you. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:34, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

The other possibility is that it's just fringe history. I'll take a look over the few resources relating to Texas that I have and see whether that is the case? Cam ^(Chat) 23:39, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, people,how about we do this: We have unconfirmed reports that the article Texas has a total of 42 errors, but we also have an article that has passed different standards of higher assessment. I say we give two weeks for Ironship to produce evidence that he can site the information he provided with reliable sources. If this does not happen, then we mark the section as historical and move it into the archives. If we encounter further problems with the editor in question we request a checker and move into a formal dispute process, either rfc or god-forbid arbitration. How does that sound? TomStar81 (Talk) 01:01, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Seems like a good plan to me. I've put in a question with BB35 Restorer (talk · contribs) about the veracity of these errors. If anyone we have access to should, he is our man. -MBK₀₀₄ 01:39, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

With Thanks

		The WikiProject Barnstar
		For your leadership of The Military History WikiProject from September 2008–March 2009, please accept this WikiProject Barnstar. Cam (Chat) 00:46, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Coordinator

It seems we have our eight official candidate with 20 or 20+ endorsements, congratulations! Have A Great Day! Lord R. T. Oliver ^{The Olive Branch} 01:06, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: Help

Check your mail!

Best Regards BB35 Restorer (talk) 03:24, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you have one from me too. Guess who forgot to click "send" after finishing his reply earlier... :( —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 03:29, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

USS Downes (DD-45)

Hello

I have problems in writing in english so i can`t fix error: in USS Downes (DD-45) there is information On two occasions her efficiency won commendations from the British Admiralty, once for her protection of the torpedoed Manley (DD-74) but in USS Manley (DD-74) there is information On the morning of 19 March 1918, while Manley escorted a convoy, a violent explosion, caused by the accidental detonation of her depth charges practically destroyed her stern, killing her executive officer, Lt. Comdr. Richard M. Elliot, Jr., and 33 enlisted men. The same information is on Destroyer History Foundation so probably it will depp charges explosion.

Can you fix this ? PMG (talk) 14:23, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Texas being built

LOC photo can be found here. :) —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 20:01, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

More! [13] and [14]. —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 20:05, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Oooo, are those on Commons? If they aren't can you pester someone to upload them properly, I'm not an image expert and wouldn't want to bother Durova with this. -MBK₀₀₄ 21:58, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I can upload them when I get to it; it just involves downloading them, converting them to .png or .gif using GIMP or a similar image program, and uploading them to Commons with {{LOC-image|id=npcc.<number>}}. —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 22:23, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Coordinators

There are currently 12 members with 20 or 20+, and it has been less than a week so far, that means there is two spots left. The turnout has been great. Have A Great Day! Lord R. T. Oliver ^{The Olive Branch} 21:26, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject and Hyuga-class vessels

Hi there! This message has nothing to do with spaceflight, but I've noted and appreciated your work on spaceflight-related articles, and I'm hoping you can help in another context. Recent messages on my talk page have brought my attention back to the article on Japanese Hyūga class vessels. These vessels are controversial in and of themselves, so it is reasonable that the Wikipedia article covering them is also controversial. I'm appealing to you for help in your role as a coordinator of the Military history WikiProject. That WikiProject has been represented in the controversy largely by User:Nick-D, who is also a coordinator of the Military history WikiProject. I have for some time been advocating getting "more eyeballs" on this topic to help build a consensus view on how Wikipedia should present the material that belongs there. (And also reach more consensus on what material does not belong in the article at all.) Would you be willing to take a look and comment? Your personal perspective, or your contributions while wearing the "coordinator" hat would be equally appreciated! My talk page would be an ok place for feedback, but so too would Talk:Hyūga class helicopter destroyer. Best regards! (sdsds - talk) 00:20, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I have also watchlisted it. Thanks for the heads-up! Cheers, —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 23:34, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

West Point Astros

I know there are 18, but only know 6 names so far. See List_of_United_States_Military_Academy_alumni#Astronauts, would you like to help work the WP astronauts, pick the 5 for the main list and make the full sublist? You can nom the sublist for FLC if you like. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:21, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah so, yes, the WP alumn list is a total mess, that's why I saved it for last. Your Astro work is fine. I'll delete my section. Would you like to make it it's own list? Use the USNA list for a sample of course. 4 of my 5 USNA lists are FL now, only the MOH one is left. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:25, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

The USAFA list is almost ready for FLC. USCGA and USMMA are too short/hard to find info on, so I just fixed up their alum sections in their academy articles for now. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:29, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Add 2-3 astros of your choice back to the main list. The reasons are: I really like both the pics you left but they push the border down past the end of the list, leaving a big gap to the next section. The other option is to delete one of the pics. Having that gap will get a hit at FLC. If you want to make it separate, feel free. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:43, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

The USMA astro list is ready for FLC. Honor is all yours. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:15, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

See my talk page and the articles. I found a rock solid one and uploaded. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:12, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

USS Tennessee (BB-43)

Hello

As far as i am on en.wiki I have problem with USS Tennessee (BB-43). He is splited to some creazy subarticles. Can you merge them ? PMG (talk) 20:19, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I have also problem with USS Burges. I am thinking that its impossible that two diffrent ships are renamed to the same name and number. (name - yes, name+number - no). Its very strange - can you look at this ? PMG (talk) 20:33, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

PD review

See commons:Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard#PD_review. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:38, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Astronauts

Just to say that I'm sure the list will pass in due course. The list is in good shape and has no fundamental or fatal problems. Underneath the drama, what's being discussed is basically the difference between "good" and "the finest that WP has to offer the reader". My FLs always come out of the FLC process better than they started with other views being expressed, even if at the time I sometimes have felt annoyed that "nobody understands how it should be" (not that I would ever say that during a nom, of course...) Hang on in there, it's still early days for the nomination. If you need more time because of school pressures, that's no big deal - there is no deadline and people understand (even those of us past school age). Good luck, and happy editing. Bencherlite^Talk 02:25, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Dollar sign ($)

I find your revert of my edits extremely hasty. First of all, the single theory stated there is not backed by any reliable source. Second there is no discussion on the origin of the sign on the discussion page, so I did not think it was a controversial one. Finally, the theory I added is corroborated by the "main article" (that is "Dollar/Peso Sign"), where it is amply referenced and only a click away. (It also happens to be the only theory that the U.S. Treasury mentions on its site.) Apart from that I only added Wikilinks to the relevant topics, that is, the peso was uniform in Spanish America, so it's not only a "Mexican" peso, and that what researchers are looking at when they find the $ used in Spanish documents is scribal abbreviations. Well, happy editing.TriniMuñoz (talk) 13:44, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

USS Oriskany

You removed my write up on the USS Oriskany on the Oriskany, NY page. Why was that? If you were concerned with the "proudly and historically" portion why not just remove that? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JDM4371 (talk • contribs) 19:41, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Well it has been long enough without a response...... JDM4371 (talk) 18:38, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: Texas

Sorry, I checked messages the other day briefly and got yours, but was too tired at tthe time to do anything about it, and it slipped my mind until just now. I left a comment, but I am of the opinion that nothing has changed: no sources are provided and no evidence given to compel the change of any of the info. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:24, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

World War II FAC

Nice work with this. I didn't realise that drive-by FACs could simply be closed or I would have done it. Nick-D (talk) 04:01, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Whoops, I just noticed that User:Maralia was responsible for closing the FAC. Nick-D (talk) 04:09, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Congrats!

Coordinator of the
Military history Project
March 2009 — October 2009

Congrats on your re-election as a Coordinator of the Military history Wikiproject! In keeping with the tradition of the project and in honor of your achievement, I present you with these stars. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:50, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I am honored that I was elected to my new position of assistant coordinator, and look forward to working with you for the next six months. Lord Oliver ^{The Olive Branch} 01:29, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thank you very much for your support for me in the Military History coordinator elections. I am honored that I was elected to my new position of assistant coordinator, and look forward to working with you for the next six months. – Joe N 01:16, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

		Milhist Coordinator elections
		I wish to thank you for your gracious support during my bid for a position as Coordinator of the Military history Wikiproject in the recent March 2009 elections. I was initially apprehensive to stand for election as I was unsure on how well I would be received, but I am pleasantly surprised and delighted to have been deemed worthy to represent my peers within the project. I assure and promise you, I will strive to do my upmost to justify your trust in myself with this esteemed position. Thank you, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:21, 29 March 2009 (UTC) Soldiers of the 4th Australian Division crossing a duckboard track through Chateau Wood, Ypres on 29 October 1917.

169.231.59.88

I guess great mind really do think alike, cause I was in the process of doing just that when you beat me to it :) Keep up the good work. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:23, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

	I seem to have drawn a crowd of support!
	I'm honored to have been elected as a coordinator of the WikiProject Military history and most sincerely thank you for your vote of support. I will endeavor to fulfill the obligations in a manner worthy of your trust. Many thanks. — Bellhalla (talk) 14:22, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
	A World War I U-boat draws a crowd after grounding on the Falmouth coast in 1921.

Please look

See User_talk:The_Rambling_Man#Hello_TRM — Rlevse • Talk • 22:13, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Ping!

Hash resent. Hopefully, we will not need it, but better safe than sorry. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:16, 31 March 2009 (UTC)