User talk:Brad101/Archive 1

Welcome
Welcome! Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:
 * Please respect others' copyrights; do not copy and paste the contents from webpages directly.
 * Please use a neutral point of view when editing articles; this is possibly the most important Wikipedia policy.
 * If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.


 * Do not add unreasonable contents into any articles, such as: copyrighted text, advertisement messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject. Adding such unreasonable information or otherwise editing articles maliciously is considered vandalism, and will result in your account being blocked.

The Wikipedia Tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: &#126;&#126;&#126;. Four tildes (&#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;) produces your name and the current date. Again, welcome! --Hugh Charles Parker (talk - contribs) 14:25, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Translation into English/Bulgarian
Hi Brad,

Can you tell me why you deleted all the recently translated articles on the Bulgarian to English translation project? Thanks, --Vanka5 07:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I proofread all the articles and removed them since they were finished? --Brad101 13:22, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks. I wasn't sure. I thought it would be better to leave them there for awhile to show people there's some progress. At some point there was a big momentum going on. If you think once proof-read we can remove them that's fine with me. --Vanka5 04:26, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

The Electrifying Mojo
Hey Brad, Love your work so far on the Mojo page... Do you live in the Detroit area and what would I have to do to talk you into hooking me up with copies of any of his shows that you've got around? 1 or 100, I don't care... I've moved so many times in the last 20+ years that all I have left are a handful from '97 when he was on 105.9 and 1, maybe two from WMXD. Let's make a deal, thanks. dj detroit butcher 18:37, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Oops ^that was me above^ ... edited my preferences today and was distracted by other things going on - didn't mean to change my nick at all. Damn people and their cats!smokeverbs 18:41, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm still in the area but I do not have any shows recorded. I guess I never thought of it. Would be nice to have some of the early ones, prior to WJLB. In 2002 I discovered quite by accident WDTR 90.9 and their playlist was an excellent reminder of all the tunes that Mojo made so popular. Having to commute 2 hours a day at that time I was able to listen quite a bit. I was a faithful listener until they changed the format in late 2004. --Brad101 15:03, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar

 * Thanks :) Ummm, check out Military history of Denmark and Waxy corn for yet more fun I've had recently. I'm wondering when I'm going to burn out. --Brad101 02:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Use of is no longer recommended
Hello,

Thank you for your stub submission. You may wish to note that it is preferable to use a stub template from WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub types instead of using simply, if you can.

Thanks! -- Where 02:34, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Timbaktu
Thank you so much for the reminder about this article. I don't know how I managed to miss it. I always preview articles before saving. Ydam 08:16, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Why on earth?
Why on earth did you propose merging The Liberties and Georgian Dublin? The articles are about two different locations, miles apart, developed centuries apart, that have nothing to do with each other. One is a mediaeval section of Dublin, the other 5 squares developed in the Georgian period hundreds of years later, miles away. I've removed the ridiculous merge tags. Please be more careful to propose merging things that are the same, not things that aren't. It was about as inaccurate as proposing to merge Canada and the US, or articles on mediaeval history and georgian history, or Spain and Portugal. FearÉIREANN \(caint)|undefined 22:31, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * In other circumstances I would be happy to explain but since you could have removed the tag and wikified the article without causing all this drama, I'll just say thanks for fixing the article instead. :) --Brad101 22:51, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

TRUMPF
Hello,

I can't find any evidence of TRUMPF being a copyvio (neither google or the site you linked to seem to have anything currently). If you could link to where the content is from, it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! -- Where 17:07, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It's a bit difficult to link towards because of the way the page is set up. From the main page if you look into the corporate history you'll see the same text from the website copied into the article. You might try: http://www.trumpf.com/3.history_1923.html and there are copyright notices on every page you see from there. --Brad101 20:52, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar

 * Thank you. This gives me hope that one day it might all be caught up.. lol --Brad101 10:28, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * That's ok - we can only dream ;) -Ladybirdintheuk 12:44, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Your edit to Social interaction design
Your recent edit to Social interaction design (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // AntiVandalBot 23:55, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The edit was part of a merge operation. I'm placing a redirect on it now without blanking the article. --Brad101 23:58, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Speedy A7 does not equal WP:BIO
"No claim of notability" (as in the speedy deletion A7 criterion) means absolutely NONE, not that the notability claimed doesn't meet our guidelines like WP:BIO. Maria C. Tan for instance pretty clearly claims notability as a researcher. Probably not enough for keeping in the end, but not a speedy. This is a common misconception people have these days. I'm going to mark the article with a WP:PROD tag, and hopefully it will go quietly. Mango juice talk 19:50, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you
I've never had a barnstar before *feels important*. We'll get there eventualy I hope! -Ladybirdintheuk 11:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

February 5, 2003
The article has a tag, but it looks fine to me as far as wiki format is concerned... GregorB 11:29, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I removed the tag. Not sure why I even put it on there to begin with but thanks for pointing it out. --Brad101 16:55, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Note about copyrights
I saw a note you left on the Jackson Sanitorium talk page and just wanted to clarify something. Websites, pamphlets, books and other media do not require any type of copyright notice - they are automatically covered under copyright laws. So yes, the act of "copying" even when there's no notice is the same as a copyright violation. Wikipedia can only use material where copyright is specifically waved or the material is released under a free license like the GFDL. Shell babelfish 18:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, that is simple enough but it still leaves a question about .gov or .mil sites as I see many references say those are in the public domain. There is a lot of confusion as to what is or isn't a copyvio. --Brad101 23:19, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Refund theft
hi, i have removed the unref template on the Refund theft article. please add a note in the discussion explaining what the article needs a referece if so. THanks--Cacuija (my talk) 08:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

WP Wikify
Hi there Brad101' I saw your part of the wikification drive (on your user page) and have wikified a few articles. I thought you might be interested in WikiProject Wikify which is a formal WikiProject based on the wikification drive. The idea is to promote the project more than we have previously, set out guidelines to follow when wikifying and provide help and support for contributors. At the moment we are still developing the project page and policies and would value your input and ideas. If you want to join just go to the project page and sign up, then let us know any ideas you have!

Hope to see you there, --Errant Tmorton166(Talk)(Review me) 11:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you!
Another Barnstar from you - people will be starting rumours about us soon ;) Thanks very much, what a nice surprise to find when I got to work this morning! -Ladybirdintheuk 07:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I believe in credit where credit is due. Although others jumped in and helped launch the project, you were the one who brought the idea around. I think barnstars are a bit of a morale booster since we do this work gratis. --Brad101 10:46, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

William Durden
Hello! I see that you've edited William Durden in the past few weeks. I was wondering if you might put it on your watchlist for a few days. I'm having a bit of a dispute with User talk:Frankie1969 (talk) regarding the inclusion/exclusion of copied material in the article. Thanks! -Medtopic 04:07, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I put it on my watchlist but if he does it again I/you should put the copyvio notice on the article and follow the procedure so the copyright people know something is going on. --Brad101 06:20, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks again! -Medtopic 16:12, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Reasons for moving User:nickname to Full Name
Hello, I just noticed that you unmoved my user page. I had originally moved it from User:sibaz to Simon Bazley because I intended to create some articles about Wycombe, following on from my election to Wycombe District Council. I saw today an article about the by-election which noted that election Wycombe_local_elections, but I don't want to link to my user page. My persona as an editor of wikipedia has nothing to do with that as a politician, and I wanted to have kept them separate. Should I create a new 'User:Simon Bazley' which I use when editing things of a political nature and leave the geeky stuff to User:sibaz.

Here, by the way is a page for one of my colleagues on Wycombe District Council, Darren_Hayday. I'm also not enamoured by you claiming that its vanity in the comments, hence I'd rather like you to move it back if you wouldn't mine. Cheers --Simon Bazley 22:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Hello. You'll have to forgive me but I've edited hundreds of articles as part of the wikification drive so I don't recall exactly the reasons I moved the page. WP:BIO and WP:VANITY are two guidelines that are used to determine an article's worthyness for wikipedia. Writing an article about yourself is usually frowned upon in the community even if it meets the above guidelines. There are a lot of articles either purposely or mistakenly entered when they really should be user pages. Userfy is another edit action that happens often here. You're certainly welcome to recreate the article Simon Bazley by a copy/paste of the text, though it's possible another editor in the future may do the same as I did. Hope that helps. --Brad101 03:29, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

re-adding wikify tag
Hi Brad

I spotted someone who had removed lots of wikify tags without having made any significant changes to the article I went through and added the tag back onto any which I thought could do with more work. (They had done good work on some other articles too, new user, and so they seemed to get better at is as they went along!) I went through very quickly, as it was quite a long list, so it's entirely possible I've added it back somewhere where the article is fine, so feel to take it back off again if I've made a bo-bo! -Ladybirdintheuk 10:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Cheers Brad. I'm working through lots of lists/tables today.  I'm at work, and theyr'e quite easy to plod through in between other things.  And yep, it seems I am in trouble with the royal family.  I hope they don't come and get me ;) -Ladybirdintheuk


 * Hi Brad, you removed a load of wikify tags from articles that hadn't been wikified. There was a school on and a book one - check you contributions I cant remember their names - that I had to complete and the was a few more as well. Take Master status, you didn't do any wiki-linking or anything on it!! Im going to doit now but if you remove the tags without doing the work no-one benefits :D --Errant Tmorton166(Talk)(Review me) 12:41, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I didn't see anything in Master status or the other articles that would have improved them by adding interwiki links. Some of them were rather sparse in content and context where linking to other articles to explain things like America or dog (for example} would have made any difference. --Brad101 13:54, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * That doesnt matter! Wiki linking to Dog is pretty pointless but in Master Status there are a few things - such as the list of features etc. (spirituality). The whole point of linking is to co-joinas many articles as possible to make things complete and to make the articles look better / become more useful :D Oh and as to the secondary school you detagged with a few minor tweaks? There were no end of links to do and secton headers to put in (don forget that is a job for wikifiers too!), take a look at what i did to it. --Errant Tmorton166(Talk)(Review me) 14:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I guess we have different standards as to what an article needs or doesn't need. With over 7000 articles to wikify and few people to work on them I'm not really sure why we're having this conversation to begin with. Anyway, no offense and not whining but this has rather turned my stomach as someone who has hundreds of wikified articles behind him. Oh, and you're welcome for the barnstar. --Brad101 10:37, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Hey sorry I wasn't taking a dig at you! I was just comenting on the odd one or 2. Personally I do more work on an article but that doesn't make me right.. by the way did I not thank you for the Barnstar - I did mean too but I must have forgotten - so count yourself formally thanked; Thaks for the barnstar! --Errant Tmorton166(Talk)(Review me) 13:22, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Michael Vaughan/info
Hi. You nominated this page for speedy deletion under the criterion that it was empty. While this was superficially true, you blanked the (admittedly invisible) content that did exist. Please be more careful in future when nominating pages for deletion. Sam Korn (smoddy) 16:47, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, so what is the point here? Apparently you decided not to delete the page even though it has a non functioning table in the contents. People who want to experiment with boxes should do so in a sandbox. It looks blank to a person going through the new pages. Why you decided it should remain is beyond me. --Brad101 10:27, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

List of Yamhill County Post Offices
I am currently working on this article. Will categorize it now, will complete it tonight. -Zinc2005 04:57, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * No worries. I just tag articles for what they need and when someone gets around to it all is ok. Actually, that article is nice and informative compared to the others I find. --Brad101 10:30, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Roger Scott
Hi. You put a Wikify tag on the article about Roger Scott. I'm working on the article, but was puzzled what eactly needed to be wikified. Could you provide some insights about what you think needs to be changed. Just a thought, but some comments on the discussion page of articles you place this tag on might help.

Thanks RXUYDC 17:08, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I went and finished it up so you could look in the history and see what changes I made. Your article was quite minor in need; just added a few more wikilinks to round out the article. If you're aware of an article under another name for Boom Boom Braningan it would be good to see that linked in. Nice article in general and reminds me of The Electrifying Mojo. --Brad101 02:13, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Scotland the Late Middle Ages
Can you not see that I have just started this article? It will be fully referenced when I am finished. Rcpaterson 20:55, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * See my response to Zinc2005 above. Remember, If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it. --Brad101 01:55, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Mirror Fusion Test Facility
You tagged Mirror Fusion Test Facility, but did not offer any comment in the talk page. What do you think needs to be done to the article to improve its style? It appears to be very similar to all "small pages" on the wiki. Can you be specific?

Maury 21:41, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I see that the vast majority of the comments on this page are "complaints" about drive-by tagging. Please, if you add a tag that is not extremely specific, like a wikify tag, put comments in the discussion page! That's what it's for. Maury 21:43, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * My response is going to be about the same for the last two persons who wondered why I was tagging 'their' articles. Tagging articles for various problems is not vandalism or meant to be insulting the person who wrote the article. WP:WIKIFY can be found by following the link within the tag for all you need to know about wikifying an article. A wikify tag is a rather specific task on wikipedia and there are currently over 7000 articles tagged as such. Hope this helps. --Brad101 01:33, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Brad, I did follow the link in the tag, and it did not answer the questions. The article appears to be perfectly valid according to the style guide. Unless you have some specific objections or examples of things you'd like to see changed, I think I should just remove the tag. I'm not asking for anything other than a one-liner on the discussion page. Is that really too much to ask? Maury 15:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll reply here to the comments referenced above for Roger Scott, because it seems pertinent to this discussion. Brad, you mention that there are over 7,000 articles tagged with WP:WIKIFY, and I think that is the point.  There are so many, it is almost pontless, and adding articles that are clearly new, being written, and require relaively minor changes does nothing but increase the number.  Its not that the article is "my" article (it certainly is not), or even that I am offended by the tag (I am not), it just is puzzling when it is added to an article and the only improvement required is a couple of links.  If the tag was applied more selectively, to articles that clearly need style or other changes, the number of articles might be reduced to a more manageable size and the tag might actually mean something.  Certainly waiting for a while after the article is first created might save everyone some time.  For those articles requiring relatively minor changes, like Roger Scott, it might be more helpful to simply make the actual changes in the article as you did in response to my question, for which I thank you.  --RXUYDC 17:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I have put in a request at Template talk:Wikify-date to make things more clear to those articles with wikify tags. If there aren't any objections within a week, I will make the changes myself. --Brad101 12:43, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikify "Lord of Biscay". Why?
Dear tag inserter. Why did you put a Wikify tag in the article Lord of Biscay? I think it's perfectly Wikified. Where's the problem?

I think you should add a comment to make the creator or other users willing/able to make the proper changes how can be the article imporved to be correctly "wikified".

As I see that these kind of complaints are common and the tag is actually irrelevant, I'm deleting it.

Enjoy, --Sugaar 10:14, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

"Musical Theatre Guild" Neutrality disputed
Hi Brad...I see you inserted a dispute on this page I submitted. I'm new at all this so forgive my ignorance (in fact I hope I'm doing this right!). When I looked up what a neutrality dispute was, it said that when someone disputes a page, they need to insert why they are disputing it on the talk page. However, you inserted nothing that I can find. Unless I'm missing something, it seems like it does little good to dispute something without leaving some sort of comments as to why you're doing so. If I've missed the comments, perhaps you could point them out to me. The article was actually written by a group of people and read by even more before submission, all of whom have something to do with The Musical Theatre Guild. There was never any talk about it being impartial or lacking neutrality. So if you could help us out here with why you tagged the article, it would be greatly appreciated. Otherwise, please remove the dispute.

--MTGUILD 5:26, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
It was kind of you to leave such a nice message for Wikited :) Maralia (talk) 21:43, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Disambig/shipindex pages
Thanks for the cleanup work you are doing on our index pages! As you are cleaning up shipindex pages, or creating new ones, it would be helpful if you tried not to use piped links. It's generally unwise to pipe a ship's name on a disambig/shipindex page, since the main purpose is to show how the ships are disambiguated. You can use a template like USS, USNS, or HMS to easily italicize the ship's name without having to retype the whole article name..

We also have warship which accepts any ship prefix&mdash;however, currently this template does not output the disambiguating factor (hull/pennant number) at all. I had forgotten about this; I'll go pester Tom to bring it in line with the others. Thanks. Maralia (talk) 18:46, 16 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure I follow what you're saying. Is there a page you can link to so that I can see this in action? --Brad (talk) 19:14, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure. HMS Triton is 'wrong', in that the piped article links hide the dates/pennant numbers that differentiate the articles. USS Reid is 'right' because it shows the full name of each ship article. The latter uses USS to display the full article name with italics on the ship name&mdash;using that template (or one of the others) isn't necessary, but it's a convenient way to output the link in the 'right' format. Maralia (talk) 20:00, 16 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok, so noted. Just when I thought I had it all down correctly, too. See USS Cimarron for the first one I did. --Brad (talk) 20:37, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks great. Thanks! Maralia (talk) 20:51, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on USS Corpus Christi Bay (ARVH-1), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template   to the article and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Longhair\talk 05:42, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Someone less trigger happy has removed the tag after they spent all of 5 seconds to see what I was doing. --Brad (talk) 04:07, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

USS Anguilla Bay
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article USS Anguilla Bay, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add  to the top of USS Anguilla Bay. Happy New Year!  The Helpful One (Talk)(Contributions) 20:45, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I removed the prod. This is a disambiguation page that need not be completely filled in. --Brad (talk) 19:49, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

How did you manage?
How did you manage to put all those in all those pages? It must have taken a lot of cross-reference with DANFS and elsewhere... I'm impressed...

By the way, I use that whenever I have the opportunity, and like it. Also I'm using that DANFS|TEXT line whenever I come across it, and both recommendations are great and look professional.Wikited (talk) 16:18, 1 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I have been working off of List of United States Navy ships alphabetically from the top; looking at each written article to make sure it has the standard project tags. At the same time, in another browser tab, I have the DANFS listings open to the particular names I'm working on so I can check facts. List of United States Navy ships was based on entries from DANFS and the NVR. When I hit a shipindex page, I use the otherships tag for all the articles involved. As far as speed is concerned, I do keep an open notepad file (if you're a windows user) listing the various tags that WP:SHIPS is supposed to be using. So, it's only a matter of copy/paste to get the correct tag in place. Or in some cases, I know the tag well enough now that I can just type it out as needed. The whole thing is almost machine like in operation once you get used to it. --Brad (talk) 19:40, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

In appreciation
I'm so pleased with all the work you've been doing for WP:SHIPS. You've really jumped right in, and it's making a big difference. Thank you for all your hard work! Maralia (talk) 03:38, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks :) When the notice came that I had a new message, I was expecting to see another Twinkle boilerplate spam message. So it was nice to see this instead. --Brad (talk) 06:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

DANFS template update
Hey Brad, sorry about the long delay, but I've finally updated DANFS to support up to two links. You can now incorporate links to both the Navy's DANFS and Hazegray's when you update articles. TomTheHand (talk) 16:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Your message at WT:SHIPS
Just in case you haven't noticed, there is a reply to your most recent message there. Hopefully the explanation makes sense? -MBK004 07:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry for not giving you the answer you really asked for. I've left some suggestions now. -MBK004 18:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * If you're willing, I will list USS Constitution for a MILHIST peer review unless you don't want me to. Please let me know. -MBK004 23:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You can if you want.. I've just had other things taking my time away from that issue and I was hoping for more comments from others. I should probably do it myself just for the experience. Thanks for your help so far!--Brad (talk) 01:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Listing it will get you the comments from others you are looking for. I can either list it for you or you could yourself. Either way, you will get what you're looking for from this process. As for the distractions, I know what that is like, I start back at school on Wednesday, and I move in tomorrow. -MBK004 03:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

D ships
Hi. Searching for 'site:navsource.org [whatever]', I found Del Monte (T-AK-5049), Del Valle (T-AK-5050), and Deming (PCS-1392). Checking http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/sh-usn/usnsh-d.htm, Democracy is ID-2215, not an SP. —WWoods (talk) 15:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * When I look at DANFS, NVR, and MSC, I see none of those ships listed in any inventory. Since the NVR is still carrying BB-28 on its record, I tend to believe it is a more authoritative source than a private web site. This isn't to say that a private web site is any less accurate or that those ships never existed but if three sites tell me there was no ships of that name vs one site that does, it becomes a majority. I will put (ID-2215) back onto the Democracy though it isn't apparent unless one goes searching through the rest of the NHC site that the ship ever carried that ID number. --Brad (talk) 16:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Looking at their brief histories, I guess they were acquired too recently for DANFS, and were disposed of too long ago for the online NVR.
 * But http://www.navsource.org/archives/09/13/135049.htm and http://www.navsource.org/archives/09/13/135050.htm have pictures, credited to the "Defense Visual Information Center". Which has a website: http://www.dodmedia.osd.mil/ ; the photos are also there, with the ships' names in the captions. Taking off the "T-", I also found them on http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/academic/history/marshall/military/USN/ship.txt, "ALPHABETICAL LIST OF UNITED STATES NAVY SHIPS - 31 Mar 94". Checking the MARAD website, I found a mention of Del Valle, and also of Del Viento (T-AK-5026).


 * http://www.navsource.org/archives/12/071392.htm also has a picture, showing the designation though not the name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wwoods (talk • contribs) 18:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I've only been primarily using DANFS and NVR because if you look at List_of_United_States_Navy_ships%2C_D, only those two sources plus a homeport resource are listed; the other lists are referenced similarly. Maybe this would be a good time to gather all of the sources used for the alphabetical lists and make sure they're on each list section? Otherwise I'm not sure if odd ship names are vandalism or a joke. Del Monte had me thinking someone who likes pineapple wanted a ship name :) --Brad (talk) 20:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * That makes sense. DANFS and NVR were the sources I used a couple of years ago, when I expanded the old one-page list. They were the ones I knew about, and I figured that between them they'd suffice, but obviously some ships slipped through the cracks.
 * I've recently gone through these pages, filling in (almost all of) the missing links. I developed the habit of starting by opening tabs for the Coast Guard's list of ships, NVR, Navsource's list of IDs and SPs, and NHC's image library, as well as DANFS. And I still had to google a lot of names and designations. It didn't help that none of the sources are complete, or error-free. I didn't think to try MARAD or MSC.
 * —WWoods (talk) 22:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for February 4th, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:38, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Ship article assessments
Hi Brad, I've noticed you do quite a few article assessments for WP:SHIPS, but if I'm not mistaken that is the only template you put on ship article pages. Most of the other assessors I have seen put a bunch of other templates on the talk page at the same time, including a talkheader, assessment for WP:MILHIST, photo reqs if necessary and so on. You can do it in exactly the same time, just copy the lot and paste it to the page as normal. As an example of what I'm talking about, take a look at the Talk:USS Geneva (APA-86) page. Regards, Gatoclass (talk) 02:29, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Howdy, yes, the milhist assessment is something I have yet to begin laying down. I haven't taken the time to learn the tag with all of the options that go along with it. talkheader is one of the tags I'm aware of and have available, but rarely use it unless I find an article that has generated a lot of talk. Others that I use regularly on talk pages for ships are: DANFS talk, newinfobox, Ship infobox request, and I just looked on my list and found ships but apparently have to remember to use it when needed. Somewhere in my talk archives there were several people calling me a "serial tagger" so I try not to overload article pages too much. Talk:USS Geneva (APA-86) looks like its all dressed up for Christmas. --Brad (talk) 05:04, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I didn't put the Alabama box there, but the rest are mine I think :)


 * I guess it comes down to personal preference, I just wanted to be sure you at least knew these other templates are available - it sounds like you've made a personal decision to keep them to a minimum, and that's fine by me. Gatoclass (talk) 09:34, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for February 11th, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Kuang Hua VI class missile boat
You added a template to the talk page. It now says:
 * Maintenance 	This page has a deprecated, subst'ed or incorrect infobox and needs a new one.

Are you sure this is the right template for a talk page? The one the message links to shows those for the front page. Can you sort this out please as I have no idea what you were trying to do. John Smith&#39;s (talk) 11:54, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi; the talk page is where the template is supposed to be placed but I can see where the wording can be confusing. Kuang Hua VI class missile boat needs a new infobox on the front page. I've put in a request for a wording change to the template in the meantime. --Brad (talk) 18:48, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

USS Kimmel
Thanks for adding the reference box! I didn't know there was one. Nice addition.--Lepeu1999 (talk) 14:38, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * USS Kimmel ? --Brad (talk) 18:01, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * USS Charles J. Kimmel (DE-584) --Lepeu1999 (talk) 21:39, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I see, ok. I've gone through a lot of ship articles lately so I can't remember them all. If you were to replace the infobox on the front page and find one or two additional references, the article would be an easy B class. I'll put the infobox tag on the talk page of the article. --Brad (talk) 04:49, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for February 18th and 25th, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

USS Gypsy
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of USS Gypsy, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.multied.com/Navy/patrol/gypsy.html. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 08:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for March 3rd, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for good word
Trying to do better on each one. Appreciate the good word.Mtsmallwood (talk) 18:50, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * My pleasure. B is as high as an editor can rate an article without taking it to an article review. You ought to try and see how close you are to GA or higher by requesting a peer review. --Brad (talk) 22:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for March 13th and 17th, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 22:23, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for March 24th, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 06:49, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for April 7th, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 15:31, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for April 14th, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for April 21st, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 16:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Table of current ships
I was just leaving a note in the ships page but got edit conflict with your last comment, don't need to speak to all.

I think it is about 300 or so? Here's a further developed version of a table, expanded from Brad101's four ship version, with the 147 converted into table rows: Current United States Navy ships/Temp. The whole table would be about as big as the Temp page that is in. It could fit into one page. I think it is a lot fewer than in any one of the Liberty ship pages, so the sorting time wouldn't be as bad, but still might not be great.

I'm done though. Brad, please feel free to take over the Temp page, or copy chunks to somewhere else, divvy it up however u like. doncram (talk) 06:36, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks doncram! I've recently been finding too many things that need doing so this is certainly on my list of projects but may develop slower than expected. --Brad (talk) 02:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Came back to it, added some more, now up to 174 in the table draft. Sounds like developing this the rest of the way would not be wasted effort, so I may keep going and complete it out, would that be okay?  What i have in mind is that i would complete it out as it is going, then you could edit (and/or invite others' comments), for any editing most easily done while organized by ship type and class, and then also it can then evaluated if it should stay as one table or be split into a couple.  Then whole table or subtables can be rearranged into ship alphabetical order.  Please let me know if u start to or want to go another way, just put a note in the Current United States Navy ships/Temp temp list-article. Thanks! doncram (talk) 20:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok; I've moved the conversation to Talk:Current United States Navy ships/Temp. --Brad (talk) 22:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I was about to suggest moving the article out into mainspace, to i suppose List of current ships of the United States Navy, but doing so by creating that article and copying in what has been developed, to leave the edit history and Talk behind. I considered that like a sandbox where we were working.  Now I see you've announced it at WP:SHIPS.  That's okay, but I don't know if we want all that edit history and Talk out there for new people to have to wade through.  Would you mind if I did copy it over in this way, and leave a redirect from the Temp article? doncram (talk) 04:50, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I had thought the new design could just be edited to Current United States Navy ships and then renamed accordingly. Likewise, Current United States Navy ships/Temp could be moved along to the new page name to serve as some documentation of how things were put together or allow people to experiment with the tables before editing the main article. There are three articles being merged into one and I'm not sure how to handle the article histories that will be left behind. If you create List of current ships of the United States Navy as a new page there will then be four pages with histories. I think the idea is to somehow maintain article histories that allow others to follow that history.
 * I had realized yesterday that I had never posted the link to Current United States Navy ships/Temp on WT:SHIPS and did so in case anyone wanted to comment or help out but I don't think it's too likely that anyone will at this point since there was little input to begin with. At least they can't say they never knew about it. --Brad (talk) 20:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, yes, copying into Current United States Navy ships and renaming that would be better, as it would preserve its edit history. About the other two articles, they become redirects and the edit history of each of them stays there with the redirect page.  The one about homeports does not have any important history, i don't believe.  Note, i did not directly use the info in the homeports page, i used its source (which does seem to be flawed / not updated) directly.  In the Talk page of the new/article, we could/should acknowledge debt to the editors of the other pages that are then redirects only.  About our Temp page and its Talk page, I suppose we can move those along as subpages to the newly named one, perhaps named as something like List of current ships of the United States Navy/Development or whatever you would prefer, and mentioned in the talk page, so we could find it again.  I do agree there could be some usefulness for you and me, if we are discussing this one or developing other tables, to be able to point to the intermediate versions.  I just don't want everyone who comes to review the new page and to comment on the remaining open issues (how many tables to split it into or leave combined / keep the MV ships with it or not / how to show Commissioned ships / etc.) without having to wade through all of our trial and error in the talk page.  Hmm, another option would be to set up a Talk archive in the new page, with Archive 1 for anything in the Current ships Talk page now, with Archive 2 being our whole conversation from Talk of the temp page.  Then have a clean sheet to start off with a note giving some credit to prior editors, and then opening discussion on the open issues / editorial decisions.  You have my support if you would like to go ahead along any of these lines, and/or I could help set up the Talk archive say (have done that before elsewhere). doncram (talk) 22:44, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it's time to put the new tables in place and then rename the article page; I agree. Also, creating an archive of the /Temp page talk would also be well since it may cause confusion. The old list by homeport is an easy redirect but the old ships in commission list is connected to many pages and a template or two and will require some attention be paid to the redirect. If you don't mind, I will start this process later today since you've already done a lot of work on this project though my pace is a bit slower than yours. --Brad (talk) 19:13, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, great, whenever convenient for you. By the way, I notice that List of United States Navy ships in commission is the older article, created in 2005, relative to Current United States Navy ships created in 2007.  So I think it is more appropriate to move the former to the new location, and then copy in the new table to that.  And copy the talk page of the Current United States Navy ships into one archive, and our Temp talk page into another archive.  But if you prefer to move the Current United States Navy ships page to the new location instead, for some reason, that's okay by me. doncram (talk) 19:38, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmmm? List of United States Navy ships in commission was created November 2005 and Current United States Navy ships was created January 2005 making it the oldest one. But following the oldest first theory would be the best thing to do. --Brad (talk) 20:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * oops my mistake. doncram (talk) 23:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) Hi. I responded fairly lengthily to your last comment under Numbered ships topic in the Talk of the Temp article. (This is a little awkward, because I then archived that whole Talk, it is now located in this archive.) I had concluded with a thought that the question of where to have the discussion was unnecessarily frustrating for you and me both, so i went ahead and finished out implementing the move, the redirects from merged pages, and Talk archiving as I thought we were together understanding would be done. In doing so, I see that there was less Talk in each of the previous pages than I had perceived there was, so perhaps it wasn't all necessary. But anyhow, there's now a new Talk page with easy access to 4 Archives of previous Talk. I do appreciate your accomodating what i have been trying to contribute so far. I hope you understand this implementing out of the Talk archiving and moving of the Talk to the new page is meant to be helpful and to further, not stymy (sp?) discussion and further development. And like I say in the end of that Talk and in a new intro to the new Talk page, I do think we have accomplished something very good already. doncram (talk) 20:04, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Your assessment of Baltimore Steam Packet Company
I strongly disagree with your assessment of "Start"-class. On what basis do you find that the article is "weak in many areas, and may lack a key element" per the assessment scale? This is a comprehensive, fully-sourced article.  JGHowes talk  -  17:08, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Feel free to change the assessment if you don't agree. --Brad (talk) 19:41, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Huron Lightship reassessment
Dear Brad101: Thanks for getting to the reassessment that quickly. Within the framework of the rating system, I was also pleased to get this level of recognition for the article. 7&amp;6=thirteen (talk) 21:24, 4 May 2008 (UTC) Stan

Signpost updated for May 2nd and 9th, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 06:17, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

List of current ships in the United States Navy
Hi Brad -- I notice you are in process of major revisions to the List of current ships of the United States Navy article. Stopping by, i see you've named a section "Commissioned ships" and I wonder if that suggests you intend to split the main table into separate tables by Commissioned vs. other categories. I did raise a Talk page question about how that distinction should be treated, and I wonder if it would be productive to talk about such a change. There are advantages and disadvantages of presenting the information in different ways, I believe. I don't want to prejudge what you might be doing, but I raise this because there is a considerable amount of editing involved in implementing or undoing such a change, when mixed in with other changes. Sincerely, doncram (talk) 02:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm done for today but in the meantime please see some of the hidden comments I've left in front of several tables in the list. Will look at talk page tomorrow. --Brad (talk) 03:03, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for May 12th, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 09:21, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

CSS for Coast Survey Ships?
Thank you for moving these articles, but I hope that you can provide an explanation of what I'm missing. The sources that I have for officers commanding the several ships that I created articles for all give the prefix as "CSS". I included a link to the Google Books pages from a book published in 1898 which included the CSS prefix. Is it that the CSS prefix was unofficial? Was it only used for a short period of time? (Such as at the time the book was published, prior to name standardization?) Or is there something else going on that I don't see? Thanks for your help. I want to make sure I name these articles correctly in the future. JRP (talk) 02:07, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi - Please see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ships at WT:SHIPS. I've pasted your above message there. --Brad (talk) 02:21, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I've responded there with a number of links in the hope that someone can look them over with a bit more context than I have and can shed some light on this question.JRP (talk) 02:44, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

A step ahead
Thanks for adding a mention of the Montana FAC to SHIPS, it totally slipped my mind to notify them unitl just now and when I went to I saw you already had. Keep up the good work. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:45, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I only discovered the article was up for FA because I happened to have Belhalla's talk page on my watch list and saw your message there. After looking through the history of the article I saw it went up for A class which I wasn't aware of either. I don't normally participate in Milhist so when ship articles are discussed there I don't see them unless a note is left at Ships. I think the article went through A class far too quickly and a lot of major problems were missed that shouldn't have been presented to a FA review. --Brad (talk) 10:44, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thats why I was so suprised at FAC: I cleared GA with absolutely no compliants, then cleared A-class with a few concerns, and now I am up to my eyeballs in fixing this and fixing that so the article complies and passes. Admittedly, its gotten tougher since my last ship class FA, but still and all it should not have been this unexpected. I intend to complain about this to the coordinators when the FA finally ends. At any rate, thanks for help, I am waiting for more input from the previous editers to see if the compliants about sourcing have been properly adressed; if they have, then I'm off to fix the remaining problems. At any rate, thanks, and good luck with Constitution. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:38, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for May 19th and 26th, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:09, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 2, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Navsource
Your note about note #3 has been adressed, I think; if you could take another look and let me know if I got this right I would apreciate it. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:56, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 9, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 06:22, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

HMT Southland
It was a stub waiting for deletion when I tagged it, and just forgot to change rating when I had finished expanding it to what it is now, so thank you for doing that--mrg3105 (comms) ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ 14:40, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I hadn't noticed that the article was expanded greatly after tagging. My comment may have seemed a bit rough though I have lately been finding many articles that haven't been assessed correctly. --Brad (talk) 15:22, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Jackless
You did not like the jack I included in St. Louis class cruisers (1905) ... ? --Kralizec! (talk) 21:16, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I thought it was unusual since Navboxes don't normally have flags in them. What do you think? --Brad (talk) 22:00, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 23 and 26, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:56, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

HMAS Harman
Hi, on Talk:HMAS Harman you included it in the ships project, but HMAS Harman is a communications station far inland, and is not a ship. Are you sure you want this in the ship project. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:44, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I reverted my edit. It can be hard to tell sometimes what the content of the article is by using AWB on the talk pages. Thanks for letting me know. --Brad (talk) 22:49, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Welcome!
 Hi, and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.

A few features that you might find helpful:


 * Our navigation box points to most of the useful pages within the project.
 * The announcement and open task box is updated very frequently. You can [ watchlist it] if you're interested; or, you can add it directly to your user page by including WPMILHIST Announcements there.
 * Most important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you [ watchlist it].
 * The project has several departments, which handle article quality assessment, detailed article and content review, writing contests, article logistics, and other tasks.
 * We have a number of task forces that focus on specific topics, nations, periods, and conflicts.
 * We've developed a style guide that covers article structure and content, template use, categorization, and many other issues of interest.
 * If you're looking for something to work on, there are many articles that need attention.
 * The project has a stress hotline available for your use.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask one of the project coordinators, or any experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! Kirill (prof) 02:26, 1 July 2008 (UTC)