User talk:Bellhalla/Archive 3

Imperial triple crown jewels
Thank you for contributions to the project, Great work, especially on USS Siboney (ID-2999) - comprehensive, well-sourced, and great use of free-use images. May you wear the crowns well. Cirt (talk) 23:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Baltimore Steam Packet Company
Hi Bellhalla,

Thanks for reviewing this article for GA. I've attended to most of the fixes, checked at Talk:Baltimore Steam Packet Company.
 * Cheers,  JGHowes talk  -  02:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Image publication date verified as 1911 by the Director of Photographic Services & Licensing at the Mariners' Museum. I've noted this on the image talk page and GA review talk page. Thx for your patience and understanding.  JGHowes  talk  -  00:28, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Darwin Rebellion
Hi there, seeking your assistance please. Before I submit this article for GA consideration, I need an experienced editor to go over it and knock it into really good shape. If you have time, I would really appreciate your help? Thanks, Spy007au (talk) 00:14, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedback, I really appreciate your help and will start addressing your suggestions. Regards, Spy007au (talk) 05:40, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Compliments for a nice article!
I Simply have to give my compliments for SS Kroonland, an article you just created. It was a very nice looking and informative article, which i definitely enjoyed reading. Thanks for making my new page patrol such a pleasant one :). Excirial ( Talk, Contribs ) 14:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * After reading though your editing history a little more i simply cannot say that i just liked that single article. The articles you create are definitely all very nice to read, informative and well sourced. You certainly are an excellent writer, my compliments for that! Excirial ( Talk, Contribs ) 14:41, 15 May 2008 (UTC)



Ship infobox questions
Well, I'll have to thank Tom for the vote of confidence in me, but I have no clue. I can point you to the person who developed that particular infobox though: should be able to answer your question/possibly help in the problem with that extremely long infobox. -MBK004 04:18, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

New page for MILHIST copy-editors
The coordinators have decided to make it easier for copy-editors to watch the new requests by creating an own page for this purpose. On WikiProject Military history/Logistics/Copy-editing/Requests all new and old requests are listed. Please add this page to your watchlist. Wandalstouring (talk) 11:48, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

thanks!
thanks for the edit of the article BRP Rajah Humabon (PF-11)... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phichanad (talk • contribs) 02:15, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Bellhalla/Test
This page keeps showing up on the Candidates for Speedy Deletion page; there must be some iffy code there somewhere! -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  02:59, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

RMS Empress of India
Hi - RMS Empress of India (1908) is a new article and it claims to have been chartered to the USN. I checked several possible names in DANFS but had no luck. The ship operated under multiple names. Any ideas? --Brad (talk) 09:29, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * See DANFS here. The PFW was commissioned—not chartered—in March 1919 for returning troops from France, and decommissioned in November 1919. — Bellhalla (talk) 11:05, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I must need a wikibreak. I saw Prinz and was looking in DANFS under Prince! Duh. Anyway, thanks for fixing the article up. --Brad (talk) 12:50, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You probably just saw it listed as "Prince Fredrick Wilhelm" (or however it was spelled) in a couple of places in the article. — Bellhalla (talk) 12:52, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Re:Montana class battleship
Thanks for the copy edit. I will see about adressing your concerns as I am able to (right now the sourcing complaints are my biggest concern). I apreciate the rapid response to the request, it was just in the nick of time.
 * You've helped out with what you can when you can, and that has made all the difference :) Thanks for the info about navsource, I have always considered the site reliable, but the FAC-based precedents for reliability you cited is a huge help. Take care, and thanks for the assist. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:03, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

RE: GA Questions
Thanks for your response to the Review. In somewhat of a response.


 * I get what you're saying about the date formatting. You are correct in that there are several different methods for wikimarkuping dates (and apparently we use different ones that are both right).  As such, I'll cross that out on the page.
 * As for the citations, my take on it is "I'd rather overcite than seem unclear". If you can add citations to those two sentences, we should be good.

Thanks for your response! Cheers! Cam (Chat) 03:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVII (May 2008)
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:29, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Second Ray French
Because I can only see a second Ray French, and at no point do I see the need to disambiguate straight out of the main page. Were there to be another Ray French I could agree, however Ray French is a a dual-code international, and a bit of a commentating legend in league. Alexsanderson 83  05:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Harry Trott source
Hi Bellhalla and thanks for the advice on the cemetery source. I have been here 18 months and have never heard of the Reliable sources/Noticeboard but it looks like a useful place for discussion on these issues. I am listing the cemetery site there and will await their consensus. Cheers, Mattinbgn\talk 23:33, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

American Airlines Flight 77
Thanks for reviewing the article for Featured Article. I've addressed the points you made. Please let me know if there is anything I can do to improve. Thank you. -- VegitaU (talk) 18:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

USS General S. D. Sturgis
Bellhalla -- I have some questions about your edit of this article. Your responses may help guide me to re-think what I'm doing. I hope you construe these questions as reasonable and not in any sense burdensome. --Tenmei (talk) 22:06, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 1. You appear to have a preference for default as contrasted with what you identify as "hard-coded" image size. I wonder why?  From time to time, I've encountered others who would appear to hold similar views, but I've not been inclined to ask for an explanation.  In many cases -- as in this one -- it doesn't much matter to me one way or the other; however, in the context of images I've just uploaded to HMAS Canberra from the Naval Historical Center's photo archives, I did fiddle with the sizing.  I modified the captions several times in order to accommodate varying caption font sizes. I'd be loathe to discover that this might have created any unnecessary cause for dispute.
 * 2. You removed that one-line caption which offered that any image of the USS General S.D. Sturgis would enhance the info box. I wonder why?  There was a large-sized font announcement that a photo was needed; and for me, it was an unwelcome distraction, almost an annoyance. In this context, I did search diligently for any image of the Sturgis in the Naval Historical Center's digitized archive, but to no avail.
 * 3. If a photo is preceived as essential to the infobox, why not post a wave from Commons' Pacific Ocean images? It had been my intention to do just that -- but something else intervened, and I didn't get around to it before your edit.  So now, rather than following through, I'm inviting your collaborative feedback.
 * 4. Why did you decide to delete the call sign box?  I rather liked it, although I would have positioned it differently.  In fact, I was wondering if the introduction of a similarly configured semaphore signals box wouldn't be a helpful addition in most cases -- perhaps located somewhere near the bottom of the page?  This seems especially relevant in the context of those articles in which other illustrative images are either unavailable or as-yet undiscovered.

Draining and development of the Everglades at FAC
Hi there. I wanted to leave a note on your page, though I saw you had responded to another issue at the FAC. I included more cited information about the Everglades becoming an international priority (very last sentences of the article), and I left another message in the FAC about the issue of The Miami Herald. Please let me know what more you would like to see in order to support the article for FA. Thank you. --Moni3 (talk) 20:54, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

BATGIRL FAC
Thankyou for your help and support. The Bookkeeper  (of the Occult)  23:12, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Graphic change for
Hi Bellhalla, thanks for the feedback and for the tip. I should have noticed the Wikiproject tag at the top of the page. Sorry for the oversight. Regards, Accurizer (talk) 02:31, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Baltimore Steam Packet Company FAC
Hi, Thought I'd let you know that this article which you reviewed for GA is now up for FAC at Featured article candidates/Baltimore Steam Packet Company. Regards,  JGHowes talk  -  15:09, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Glad to hear it. I believe it's considered proper for anyone other than a major contributor to comment at FAC, but if in doubt SandyGeorgia there could advise definitively.  JGHowes talk  -  16:47, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/1982 Bijon Setu massacre
Hi, can you please complete this AfD. I am afraid the AfD has some problems. I cannot understand how to complete it.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 11:37, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, I finished it up for you. — Bellhalla (talk) 11:53, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Images
The whole situation with these Confederate unit images is beginning to fall under the category of WP:Dick. Sf46 (talk) 14:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The image(s) demonstrate the type of unit described on the page. We can not assume that every reader knows exactly what an artillery, cavalry, or infantry unit means.  While the reader can click on the link to each type, the image gives a quick graphic reference to the type discussed.  You keep using the word unencyclopedic which I think is merely a catch phrase that does not at all accurately describe what is depicted.  The Wikipedia article on the subject states "While it may offer a definition, it may leave the reader still lacking in understanding....To address those needs, an encyclopedia....also often includes many maps and illustrations." Sf46 (talk) 14:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Please assume good faith (as I am struggling to remain doing). I have no personal animosity towards you or Confederate images or articles you edit whatsoever.
 * In regards to the listing the images at WP:PUI, I have responded on the nomination page as to why I have listed them and do not need to waste both of our time by repeating and/or discussing them here.
 * In regards to your rationale for using the images, thank you for the quote from the encyclopedia article. I can understand how you feel that supports your position. I, however, take a differing view. The word and link to the type of unit are adequate, in my opinion. Also, if you look at the vast majority of military unit articles, beyond the scope of articles that you have worked on, there is a de facto consensus (if not an explicit one) to not include such images. If you feel that this is something that should be corrected, please comment at the topic I have started on at Template talk:Infobox Military Unit. — Bellhalla (talk) 15:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

American Palestine Line GA review
I have reviewed this article and placed it on hold for some (fairly minor) concerns to be addressed. Please contact me on my talk page when you are finished. Thanks. GaryColemanFan (talk) 20:54, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Specify level of copyediting
Hi Belhalla

Could you please specify your level of copyediting for the military history project here.

These are the levels:
 * 1) Copy-edit lite: basic proof-reading, spellchecking, punctuation.
 * 2) English variant conversion: for example, from American English to Commonwealth English, or vice versa.
 * 3) Naturalising: copy-edit for editors whose English is fluent but not perfect.
 * 4) FAC prose copy-edit: flow, structure, elegance.
 * 5) FAC technical copy-edit: MoS-compliance for dashes, hard spaces, numbers, measurement conversion.

Thanks a lot. Wandalstouring (talk) 12:16, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Mutiny of the Matoika
Hi - I noticed that you put in for an assessment of Mutiny of the Matoika but I'm a bit confused as to what you were looking for. Its clearly a B-class article but its also been put in for GA review. I would just wait for the GA status rather than bother with the B. --Brad (talk) 15:23, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That's fine. I had requested an assessment from WP:OLYMPICS (who assessed it as a B/Mid), but I didn't want to update the WP:SHIPS assessment myself. I personally don't like to assess articles I've worked on as B-class. In any case, leaving it for the GA is fine by me. Do you agree with the WP:SHIPS importance as being "Low"? — Bellhalla (talk) 15:30, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem and Low importance would fit an article of that nature: Something that took place on a ship rather than about a ship.
 * Also been meaning to ask how you access some of the major newspaper references you've placed in the various article you've written. I've been working on USS Constitution and have tried the NYT but often it wants me to sign up for an account which wouldn't help if I were to reference the article and only registered users could read the reference. --Brad (talk) 01:12, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Just wondering if you missed this or didn't have anything to contribute?. Thanks. --Brad (talk) 20:15, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * My apologies, I saw it and intended to reply, but then forgot… Through my university library, I have access to the ProQuest historic newspaper archive, which includes The New York Times, The Washington Post, Chicago Tribune, Christian Science Monitor, The Atlanta Constitution, and some others. I'll only have access to it until I finish my master's thesis, which should be by December (I hope!) — Bellhalla (talk) 22:15, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * What I'm really stuck on is references for the era: USS_Constitution, which was in 1997. Supposedly there was a big media circus surrounding the Sail 200 event but online sources aren't providing much. The current ref for that section isn't reflecting all of the information listed in the paragraph. I'd appreciate it if you could look for some newspaper articles when you have some spare minutes. --Brad (talk) 17:38, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Sure I'll take a look. It'll probably have to be tomorrow or later. I'm having some password problems at the moment. (Must be my unpaid parking ticket...) — Bellhalla (talk) 01:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/New York State Route 308
Hey there, thanks for the review. I think I fixed everything, so I would appreciate if you could take another look. Thanks in advance, Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  17:34, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

HMS Spartan
Colledge, on page 328, confirms the basic details, sunk in air attack on that date. this website and this one agree on the cause, Hs 293 Glider bomb, but both list 65 dead. Since the 46 number is unsourced, I would probably go with 65 as the casualty figure. Benea (talk) 04:53, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

JDS Hyūga
Thank you for your seemly contribution. --Tenmei (talk) 15:32, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

SS Imperator/RMS Berengaria
hi, I'll be glad to list the page number when I go the library and thumb through a copy as I don't have a copy at home. Maxtone-Graham says something on the order of "Berengaria(the Queen) saw little of her husband and never once set foot on the land she reigned(England)." All My Best Koplimek (talk) 13:31, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

After RESET
You wrote: Tenmei, whatever point you are trying to make is lost on me. Can you please restate it more succinctly? — Bellhalla (talk) 11:54, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * There are too many intertwined issues on the Hyūga talk page. Please consider allowing me to develop two independent threads here, focusing expressly on the difficult question you pose.


 * THREAD #1
 * For the purpose of context, perhaps four sentences will be sufficient as a substantive foundation for this thread. All come from July 21:


 * A. If this is not a pointlessly disruptive edit, what else might it be which informs my persistence? -- 14:56, 21 July 2008


 * B. The same pattern is repeated again -- and again, a curious  post hoc ergo propter hoc  fallacy was offered as a substitute for addressing the substance of citations which support the disputed sentence.
 * The JDS Hyūga is the first aircraft carrier to be specifically constructed for Japanese marine forces since the end of the Pacific War.<:ref>PBS/WNET, NYC: "Japan's About-Face: The military's shifting role in post-war society." July 8, 2008; Teslik, Lee Hudson. "Backgrounder; Japan and Its Military," Council on Foreign Relations. April 13, 2006; Hsiao, Russell. "China navy floats three-carrier plan," Asia Times (Hong Kong). January 8, 2008; "Meet Japan's New Destroyer - Updated," Information Dissemination (blog). August 23, 2007.


 * C. Perhaps it will be seen as helpful to forewarn that when the exclusive focus on one sentence in the second paragraph is resolved satisfactorily, I plan to turn my attention to one word in the first sentence.
 * The Hyūga-class helicopter destroyers are a type of helicopter carrier (though called helicopter destroyers (DDH) for political reasons) being built for the Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force (JMSDF).<:ref name="Globalsecurity">
 * It is noteworthy that this short sentence is only slightly different from other similar sentences in articles about other vessels in the JMSDF fleet ; and this minor distinction is neither  unjustified,  irrelevant  nor  inessential . --Tenmei (talk) 15:18, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I have linked the last three words for emphasis, but maybe that's precisely the wrong thing to do here? Maybe it would have been better simply to create emphasis with a BOLD font?  In any case, these words focus attention on a crucial element of an as-yet-unchallenged introductory sentence.  If you don't immediately grasp the significance of these three words as they succinctly distinguish the first sentence -- and I'm guessing maybe you don't, then I've probably miscalculated the scale of cognitive dissonance and confirmation bias in the talk page furour.


 * THREAD #2
 * I note that no critical analysis has questioned the "See also" section. Perhaps these links may present a common ground from which to build the broader consensus this article needs?
 * Constitution of Japan, Article 9, 1947
 * Classification terms, historic consequences:
 * Washington Naval Treaty, 1922
 * London Naval Treaty, 1930
 * Second London Naval Treaty, 1936


 * In this context, please tell me if the following excerpt from Talk:Hyūga class helicopter destroyer is not sufficiently succinct:
 * Bellhalla, I wonder if I'm correct in fussing about whether you and your colleagues were too ready to accept the flawed premise which Nick Dowling asserts with near-religious fervour. Dowling's seeming reliance on Jane's Fighting Ships as "the gold standard" against which all else must measured becomes too narrow, too cramped, too restrictive.   The premise itself bars nuance, which represents a problem to the extent that any Wikipedia article needs to differ from its corollary entry in Jane's.  Do you see my point?


 * It may be perceived as muddying the clarity of my argument, but the fact-of-the-matter is that this criticism of what I take to be Nick Dowling's point-of-view applies only to our consideration of this one ship class article (which effectively focuses on the as-yet-uncommissioned JDS Hyūga) and not to a review of Wikipedia articles about any other vessel in the JMSDF fleet.


 * Whether I point it out or not, the fact-of-the-matter is that some essential aspects of the ultimate Wikipedia article about JDS Hyūga cannot be devolved into issues of nautical terminology, maritime conventions, naval architecture, etc., which is not to say that I'm failing to recognize that Jane's describes "the depth and breadth of information cover[ing] construction and modernisation programmes, displacement and dimensions, main machinery, speed and range, weapons systems and sensors, etc.,"<:ref>"Hyūga class (CVHG) (Japan)," Jane's Fighting Ships, 2008.


 * STRATEGY OPTION
 * FYI -- I will need to give this matter some more thought before attempting to address the array of issues at Talk:Hyūga class helicopter destroyer, but a tentative strategy might involve inviting everyone to re-visit the version which pre-dates the current controversies -- before I added one sentence only.
 * Revision history of of Hyūga class helicopter destroyer
 * (cur) (last) 14:58, 11 July 2008 Tenmei (Talk | contribs) (5,491 bytes) (1st aircraft carrier built for Japanese marine forces since end of Pacific War)


 * These are three possible approaches to a beginning. I've construed this venue as something of a neutral corner.  If you view this as importunate, the intrusion can simply end here.  I regret the misimpression that this would not have been over-reaching.


 * In any event, please allow me to thank you again for your seemly contributions in a difficult context. --Tenmei (talk) 17:39, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: SS Huntington
Whoops, I'd entirely forgotten about that. I will review by this time tomorrow. &mdash; Rob (  talk  ) 19:30, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

RMS Berengaria: facts cites
hi Bellhalla, you wanted the page number of John Maxtone-Graham's quote. It's in his book "The Only Way to Cross" copyright 1972 on page 141 hardback edition quote is "Poor Queen Berengaria, wife of Richard the Lion-hearted, saw very little of her husband and nothing of the land over which she reigned." Thanxs —Preceding unsigned comment added by Koplimek (talk • contribs) 01:28, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Iowa class battleship FAR
Iowa class battleship has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:58, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Hyūga class helicopter destroyer
Please reconsider your withdrawal from this page: I've posted a note reminding User:Tenmei of WP:DISRUPT and TLDR. I think continued failure to discuss the problem within a reasonable length, succinctly, would merit warnings for disruptive behaviour. Hopefully it won't come to that. So, please return and let's continue efforts to get a productive outcome over the content disputes. Coldmachine Talk 18:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

American Palestine Line
Should we prompt an admin to close this and promote to A-Class? At this point I don't see anyone else likely to comment. --Brad (talk) 01:00, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I suppose so. I'd left a message for Maralia to see if she could be a third person to review it, but she doesn't seem to have been around the last two weeks or so. — Bellhalla (talk) 01:17, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Cold War
Hi Belhalla

Cold War, one of our core articles about a recent era, is in need of a copy-edit for flow, structure, elegance. I would be delighted if you could handle that. Thanks a lot Wandalstouring (talk) 18:14, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Tuff-E-Nuff
and. Cheers, Gatoclass (talk) 15:49, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Nice! — Bellhalla (talk) 16:08, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Request for mediation
The step-by-step instructions for filing a request for mediation did not explain that I needed to notify others; and if it were not for Nick Dowling's notice here, I would not have been aware of a problem.
 * Thank you for agreeing to participate in whatever way you see fit. --Tenmei (talk) 23:30, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Hyūga notification
"Disagree" -- that single word from BillCJ's doomed my request for mediation, but it need not be the last word.

I have re-submitted the request as the somewhat modified Requests for mediation/Hyūga class helicopter destroyer2 -- seeWikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Hyūga class helicopter destroyer2.

Changes include expressly incorporating Talk:Hyūga class helicopter destroyer along with Hyūga class helicopter destroyer. Also, the number of named parties is smaller. Another potentially helpful improvement -- first on the list of issues to be mediated is:
 * 1. As per WP:LEAD, the article's introduction needs to be brought in line with the article's text and reflect the paragraph which was included after being endorsed by a unanimous consensus on the article's talk page which describes the fact that different reliable sources call these ships aircraft carriers, helicopter carriers, helicopter destroyers and destroyers (Tenmai has stated that he chose to sit out this discussion, and instead restarted it after consensus was reached).
 * 1A. Issues of Framing -- identifying a problem and moving beyond it?

I'm much more concerned about getting this process started than I care about what or who comes first. I hope you join me in this concern.

I hope you will again assent to this request for mediation.

By sharing a copy of this notification with those who had not decided what to do about the first request for mediation, I am fulfilling my responsibilities as the filing party; and at the same time, I open a door to the possibility that one or more may yet decide to do more than watchlist this page. --Tenmei (talk) 18:09, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIX (July 2008)
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:20, 3 August 2008 (UTC)