This 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. |
Archive 15 | ← | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | → | Archive 25 |
I'm pretty well done with this article; if you look it over and fill out the Jutland section whenever you get a chance, I'd be grateful. I do need a source on the electrical generating capacity of these ships; the one I have isn't reliable. If you don't have anything that covers it I'll just delete it entirely. Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 18:17, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
I think you might be eligible for WP:FOUR with Amagi class battlecruiser ... something to investigate and self-nom. - MBK 004 01:07, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Could you take a look at the edits of 218.102.169.224 ( talk · contribs)? Some appear to be sneaky vandalism [1], others censor information [2], and others are helpful [3]. I am totally confused here. — Kralizec! ( talk) 15:26, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Hello, the correct term for a propeller is "Propeller" the term "Screw" is for a type or design of the forementioned item.
Wikipedia is a source of information for anyone to study and using a term like "screw" in the article will not explain clearly to them what it is actually discribing.
I would welcome a reply on this subject.
Regards
msa1701 ( talk) 10:19, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
FYI, I am about to start an image restoration of the Moltke after a chat with the ed17. This is the image I'll be restoring. Staxringold talk contribs 02:01, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
File:SMS Moltke.JPG is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:SMS Moltke.JPG. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:SMS Moltke.JPG]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. -- Erwin85Bot ( talk) 11:13, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
on having the FAC for Derfflinger archived purely for a lack of reviews [4] [5] - MBK 004 00:39, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
<=Congratulations! The article is FA. Binksternet ( talk) 04:09, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Four Award | ||
Congratulations! You have been awarded the Four Award for your work all through on Amagi class battlecruiser. |
Well done, and congratulations on your latest FA. Bencherlite Talk 08:56, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
This seemed to go on forever. Nice article! Auntieruth55 ( talk) 15:00, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Hiya there Parsec. Would you still have access to Garzke and Dulin's Battleships: United States Battleships, 1935-1992? I need to verify a couple of pages that I apparently once saw on Google Books, but it won't allow me to see them again. USS Hawaii (CB-3) is the article. Also, would you check a couple dates for me with it? G&D in U.S. Battleships in World War II give differing dates than the official Nacy sources, including a 11 March 1945 launching date (rather than 3 November 1945), a suspension of construction date of 16 April 1947 (rather than 17 February 1947), and a reclassifying from CBC-1 to CB-3 on 9 September 1954 (rather than 9 October 1954). — Ed (talk • contribs) 21:51, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Hey! I've just joined the military history project and I'm planning on joining the classical history task force (where I see you are one the people in charge). I'm a new wikipedian, and I hope that working on this interesting area of study will be a way to improve my article-writing skills. How does the task force function? How do we organize construction and updating of pages within our 'scope'? Cheers! Reubzz ( talk) 02:04, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
-- Reubzz ( talk) 17:59, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
As a past WP:FOUR awardee you may wish to comment at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Four Award.-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTM) 19:27, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
As a member of the Military history WikiProject or World War I task force, you may be interested in competing in the Henry Allingham International Contest! The contest aims to improve article quality and member participation within the World War I task force. It will also be a step in preparing for Operation Great War Centennial, the project's commemorative effort for the World War I centenary.
If you would like to participate, please sign up by 11 November 2009, 00:00, when the first round is scheduled to begin! You can sign up
here, read up on the rules
here, and discuss the contest
here!
This has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk) 20:11, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
The
October 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) 20:11, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi mate. I have just completed a GA review of Habsburg class battleship, but am placing it on hold pending a few, rather minor, issues outlined on the talk page. As I said, they are only minor, so it should not take too much to fix. :) I have also come here to try and convince you to join the World War I Contest, but I see that Eurocopter has beaten me to it! Cheers, Abraham, B.S. ( talk) 06:33, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Auntieruth55 ( talk) 16:26, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Things are messed up and I hope you can help. I created the article "Hamidiye", after removing a pointer that erronously poined at "Hamidieh (wrong spelling) Soldier". I did not realize you had already created "Hamidiye (cruiser)". I noticed that, I guess becasue of conflict, the article did not show. I was going ask four your help to re-name it from "Hamidiye" to "Hamidiye(cruiser)", and now the whole article is gone. Someone has tried to help and created now blank "Hamidiye(war ship)" and replaced the pointer to the "Hamidiyeh Soldier". Meanwhile my original article under Hamidiye is now nowhere to be seen. I do not feel like wrting the whole thing over again. Help please! -- Murat ( talk) 01:59, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I was able to locate the original text with some help. My question is, what should be the proper article title: "Ottoman Cruiser Hamidiye", or "Hamidiye (cruiser)", or "Hamidiye (warship)"? Of course, there is also "TCG Hamidiye". There is also a conflict now since in this article Hamidiye points to "Ottoman Cruiser Hamidiye" and there is also a disambiguation page for Hamidiye that points at "Hamidiye (warship)". Both blank now. Any suggestions? Thanks.-- Murat ( talk) 15:00, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
:O ! — Ed (talk • majestic titan) 03:44, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
You have mail — Ed (talk • majestic titan) 02:23, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Parsecboy:
I have just complied with your request for a B-class assessment for Greek battleship Salamis. Generally, I thought it met the B criteria pretty well. If you check my changes, you will find that I added the "abbr=on" switch to the {{convert}} template in places where it was left out; I did this for the sake of internal consistency only, and if you had some reason to leave it out in places, feel free to revert.
My remaining complaints are two: First (and of lesser importance, to my mind) is the inconsistent ordering of SI and customary US units; sometimes you will have dimensions expressed in meters followed by the conversion to inches, and sometimes the other way around. That is not a deal-breaker, but I would prefer to have it all one way or the other. The other complaint concerns a pair of numbers: in the section on the ship's armament, you write about the range "12,000 yd (13,120 m)." At least one of these numbers has to be incorrect. I have no way of knowing how to correct it or them, so I have to leave it to you. Make this change, and you have my permission to sign off the last B-criterion (I think it's B-4) in my name, without waiting for me to get around to it.
Cheers, PKKloeppel ( talk) 04:41, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Hey Parsec. I'm looking over the Scharnhorst article for its GA review. It looks great - detailed, NPOV, all that jazz. My only point of query is whether the chase between the Scharnorst and the British ships leading upto Falklands Island is detailed enough. I read Keegan's Intelligence in War recently, and he devotes an entire chapter to the Scharnhorst and how Von Spee ran the British in circles until they could track him down. As Keegan isn't in the biography, I was wondering if you'd read it? If not, I think looking the chapter in it over might be a good idea - Keegan goes into some detail. Of course, I've not written any ship articles before, and I've no idea whether those kinds of details should go in the ship article, the article on Von Spee, or even the battle's article. Let me know what you think of these slightly rambling ideas. Cheers, Skinny87 ( talk) 15:28, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
The
November 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) 19:28, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
On December 23, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Greek battleship Salamis, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
On December 27, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article SMS Scharnhorst, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Thank you, and I have a OMT comment for you there. - MBK 004 08:56, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
— Ed (talk • majestic titan) 08:33, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
The
December 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) 04:13, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Hello Parsecboy. User:Tomcha is back editing disruptively again. I decided to go through and start referencing the Ford/Mazda link on some of the articles where Tomcha sprayed a bunch of fact tags, and he's been reverting my edits (calling them "vandalism") and placing his usual atrocious grammar on various pages, while at the same time adding other references that have no relevance to the statements he puts them on. Mazda B platform and Mazda D platform are the two he's been messing with at the moment, but I've edited a couple others recently and they're sure to get hit as well. I understand if you'd rather not get involved with this user again, but I don't like to deal with petulant fanboys alone. -- Sable232 ( talk) 21:48, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
This video on YouTube is hilarious. It is already being discussed at the appropriate place: Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates#Video_spoof. Just be sure you have the captions turned-on. - MBK 004 11:04, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
The WikiProject Barnstar | ||
For your extensive contributions to the Military history WikiProject, as evidenced by your nomination in the 2009 "Military Historian of the Year" awards, I am delighted to present you with this WikiProject Barnstar. TomStar81 ( Talk) 11:17, 8 January 2010 (UTC) |
[8] I'm disappointed. :P — Ed (talk • majestic titan) 04:49, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
You should be aware that a major change to the ship article guidelines has been proposed that would apply to all ship articles on wikipedia. - MBK 004 08:47, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Almost two years ago, you participated in the deletion discussion of the Otis AFB F-94C Disappearance page here. I've finally gotten around to fixing it to something worth while, so I was wondering if you would be willing to take a look at it here before I upload it to the main space. Thanks. Kevin Rutherford ( talk) 19:48, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
User:Parsecboy has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, Peace, 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, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
The Military history A-Class medal with oak leaves | ||
For prolific work on SMS Nassau, Florida class battleship and List of battlecruisers of Germany; promoted to A-Class between October 2009 and January 2010, by order of the coordinators of the Military history WikiProject, you are hereby awarded the A-Class medal with Oak Leaves. - MBK 004 08:39, 27 January 2010 (UTC) |
Congrats are in order for "finishing" the German battleships with today's promotion of Goeben to GA. With that promotion, the Moltke class is now ready to be nominated for FT, congrats on your second FT! - MBK 004 00:27, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
On January 31, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article List of battlecruisers of Germany, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
I reverted your edit on the How You Sell Soul to a Soulless People Who Sold Their Soul?, per Template:Album ratings. It shows that u can simplify the review site's url title to just "Review: title". Dan56 ( talk) 02:29, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
The
January 2010 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) 04:26, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Hello. You supported the 45th Infantry Division's A-class review last fall, but the ACR was closed with no consensus due to a sourcing issue. I have since addressed that issue and have opened a new one. Please do come back to give your input. Thank you! — Ed! (talk) 15:49, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Hello Parsecboy ! I a user from german wikipedia de:Portal:Waffen. I might need your help in a case of international article vandalism. During quality service checks i came to de:Thompson (Maschinenpistole) there was a strange addition for .30 carbine caliber. I tried to proof this without effort. I patrolled the english article versions and found the same. The article Thompson Carbine was created by User:Yadayadayaday. The edits of Yadayadayaday and user WatcherREME appear very identically to me. When i got the idea of hoax i had a closer look to the accounts of WatcherREME and TheWatcherREME. By this i found your comments on this old case of suspected sockpuppetry. Obviously this account has been sleeping from that time until 02. Feb. 2010. Please keep an eye on this user - i will try to revert nonsense edits in the german wikipedia and possibly ask for blocks. Regards -- Gruß Tom ( talk) 23:39, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Hello, I am contacting you because you are a warship & ordnance history contributor. I propose to add an additional note to the "manual of style", warning not to use literal conversions for gun names, where the calibre, gun weight or projectile weight used in the gun name is just a convenient approximation rather than an exact measurement. This applies to cases such British "4.7 inch" guns, British "18 inch torpedoes", "6 pounder guns" etc... in such cases, using the {{convert}} template produces incorrect results and should not be used. In such cases we need to hardcode "4.7-inch (120-mm)", "18-inch (450-mm)". Currently well-meaning folks keep going through these articles and adding {{convert}} everywhere without understanding the subject matter, producing rubbish like "18 inch (460 mm) torpedo" and 12 pounder (5.4 kg).. We also ne3ed, in my opinion, to agree to what degree we abbreviate calibres in conversion e.g. 12-inch = 305 mm, 4-inch = 102 mm, 6-inch = 152-mm, etc.. What is your opinion on this ? regards, Rod. Rcbutcher ( talk) 10:34, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Please stop reverting the word "Propeller" to "Screws".
The "Screw Propeller" was invented by Francis Pettit Smith from England - British terminolgy applies to ALL articles where a ships propeller is mentioned.
I left a response to your disagreeing with the wording back in 2009 on your talk page but you never left a reply.
The words "Screw propeller" and "Propeller" are correct for the article but simply putting the word "Screw" is a shortened word or an abreviation and is therefore incorrect.
Regards
msa1701 ( talk) 08:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Screw is British terminology. See William H White's Manual of Naval Architecture, 1882 edition, page 543.-- Toddy1 ( talk) 23:49, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed that your last reversion of the figures has been again reverted. Is that source (Krivosek) verifiable? Cheers, DPdH ( talk) 01:02, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
hi, i saw that zalogas numbers for armorlosses are krivosheevs numbers , thats why i put his ref behind because zaloga then is only citing krivo. regarding the overall casualties, when krivo says 7xxxxxxx casualties and zaloga says 1xxxxxxx than we have a big problem. i can provide the p. of "grif....." , high likly zaloga is only giving numbers for one front or hes doing something similar, dont know. maybe a different timeframe, but then is losses for german are strange. is this your edit can u check your source and confirm that zaloga means this are the casualties for the entire operation bagration. Blablaaa ( talk) 15:50, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
ok i understand, i will let the numbers. Blablaaa ( talk) 16:07, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
are u an admin? Blablaaa ( talk) 16:18, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
i need an admin, a neutral one would be perfect. battle of kursk dicussion. Blablaaa ( talk) 16:29, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
On February 17, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article SMS Helgoland, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
What articles would you want here? Ideally it would be one pre-dreadnought (because we don't have many highly-rated pre-dreads) and one dreadnought/battlecruiser, but I leave that to you. :) — Ed (talk • majestic titan) 03:20, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
The
Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up
here by 23:59 (UTC) on 8 March 2010! More information on coordinatorship may be found on the
coordinator academy course and in the
responsibilities section on the coordinator page.
This has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk) 22:10, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
The
February 2010 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, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Hey, there. I was wondering whether you have considered nominating SMS Moltke (1910) at WP:TFAR for April 7, the 100th anniversary of the ship's launch? I believe the article would get 7 points; 6 for being a centennial and another 1 for being promoted over a year ago. Pyrrhus 16 11:14, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Just a reminder that the time has come to nominate Moltke at WP:TFAR. - MBK 004 17:53, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
I won't template you, but you have come up against 3RR on Scharnhorst class armored cruiser. I don't have to tell you what will happen if I see another revert there, do I? - MBK 004 18:15, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Hello,
You were listed on admins willing to grant rollback permissions, so I thought I might ask for this. I have considered applying for adminship myself, but I'm not really around enough to justify it at this time. However, many of my edits are correcting vandalism or making minor cleanups of editing errors on an article. The rollback feature seems like it would assist me in doing this. Would you grant me this permission? Lumbergh ( talk) 12:41, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm a bit confused by this edit. I'm not sure why any article would top out at GA, and why that would be ok. Are you referring to something in specific? bahamut0013 words deeds 02:32, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Hey Parsec, are you going to run for coordinator again? — Ed (talk • majestic titan) 21:51, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Sorry to hear about your grandfather, Parsecboy. If you need some time away for personal reasons feel free to take it, we will be here when you get back. TomStar81 ( Talk) 04:03, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry I was unable to respond while the discussion was still open. They closed it too quick
Official U.S. policy is simply to note that Chinese (Taiwanese are ignored because they were powerless when the policy was made) on both sides of the Taiwan Strait say there is one China and that Taiwan is part of it, and to say that we're not in the mood to argue with either one of them.
The poster who claimed that the U.S. considers Taiwan part of China (to whom someone replied "Zam") was wrong, The U.S. does not take an position on whether Taiwan is part of China. Readin ( talk) 23:57, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Good, you saw the problem. It's near impossible to cure a case of the warship flu. — Ed (talk • majestic titan) 15:05, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Voting for the
Military history WikiProject coordinator elections has opened; all users are encouraged to participate in the elections. Voting will conclude 23:59 (UTC) on 28 March 2010.
This has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk) 22:12, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
You never did nominate SMS Moltke (1910) at WP:TFAR for 7 April. Since Raul has scheduled up to 2 April already now would be the time to do so. Would you like to, or should I go ahead? Unless we have decided to wait and forgo the centennial of the launch in favor of commissioning next year. - MBK 004 02:16, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
On March 19, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article SMS Wörth, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Perhaps a bit more personal than you might be comfortable answering online, which I would understand. But you mentioned that you go (or at least can access) Ohio State, and I plan to study there once my enlistment is up. I'm guessing that perhaps you also have a goal of a history major? Any insight you can provide would be helpful to me. bahamut0013 words deeds 17:07, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
On March 20, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article SMS Hela, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
As far as I'm aware the criterion when points are tied is which article is later, not how many supports there are. In that case, you should have removed Morotai Mutiny rather than William Garrow. Ironholds ( talk) 17:17, 20 March 2010 (UTC)