User talk:Buggie111/May 2010-July 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 3 May 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 14:23, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

DYK for French battleship République (1902)
The DYK project (nominate) 16:03, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

DYK for French battleship Patrie (1903)
The DYK project (nominate) 16:03, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : L (April 2010)
The April 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) 19:06, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

DYK for French battleship Masséna
Materialscientist (talk) 00:02, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

My Secret Page
Nice! Most people don't get it on the first try. :)

Hi878 (talk) 17:39, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

DYK for SM UB-50
The DYK project (nominate) 00:03, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

A-class
Since you nominated Franz Fedinand for an A-class review. How about nominateing the three Habsburg class artcles for a A-class review for me? You can get co-nom credit for Babenberg and the other ones if you fix any issues and I give you permission to "forge" my signature on the review as I'll not be editing that much for a few days. Thanks!-- White Shadows you're breaking up 10:33, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Sure, I've nomed SM UB-50 for a GAN, also. Buggie111 (talk) 16:59, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Russian battleship Oslyabya
The DYK project (nominate) 16:03, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

German destroyers and DYK
Given the comments about how most of the pages describe the class, perhaps you could simply combine the pages into a single one for the class as a whole, with sections for each ship, and submit that? The Z35/Z36 sinking would be decidedly intriguing (and much better sounding than "Z44 escorted a battleship", since that's what destroyers do. :) ) -The Bushranger Return fire Flank speed 21:37, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the idea. So, de-redirect the class redirect, and add facts from each destroyer. Brilliant. Buggie111 (talk) 23:00, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The German WW2 destroyers need a lot of love. Each class should have its own page with summaries of the individual ship histories plus the usual individual ship pages. There's plenty of material out there in English, you just have to have the right couple of books.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:03, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Proposal
would you like to help me start an article on the German Type IXA submarines? We can get Xeno to history merge a sandbox article located at User:White Shadows/German Type IXA submarine into the now redirected article once we're done. So how about it?-- White Shadows you're breaking up 02:39, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure. I've got a lot of stuff going (RL,DYK probs,HAbsburggs), but I'll try. I'll create ship history. Buggie111 (talk) 02:46, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll copy one of the design paragraphs in as well.-- White Shadows you're breaking up 02:49, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey, can you do me a favor? Will you please copy the lead paragraph (and any refs in them) from U-39 to U-44 into the respective sections in my sandbox article? I'll then re-word it and add any more citations or aditional info required. Thanks!-- White Shadows you're breaking up 17:33, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I was "going" to do so, but procrastinated. I'm going to do so now, along with the a-class for habsburg and the others. Buggie111 (talk) 17:34, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Now I'll soon get 3 A-class articles, one DYK and that may turn into a GA soon which will in turn lead to another GT! You really are a very productive editor. And I heard that you want to apply for adminship one day. Well here's some tips: Never get blocked, never edit war, never lash out, and try to work in admin related areas. If you follow that, I'll happily nominate you in Say late this year like October-December. Thanks again!-- White Shadows you're breaking up 17:40, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * K. I'm leaving soon, but I'll get the A's done right now. I'm mostly active at CSD, but I only have ~70 deleted contribs. Thanks! Buggie111 (talk) 17:42, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks and I"ll give you co-nom credit for Babenberg and the others since you put in alot of hard work. And since A-class is so close to FA that there really is no diffrence, I since a FAC for the three comeing up soon...-- White Shadows you're breaking up 17:50, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Before you two go whole hog on the Type IXA thing I'd recommend that you get a consensus that people would like an article on every variant of a Uboat type, because I certainly don't. I don't have a problem with a list to organize a GT around, but an article for a sub-class is not appropriate, IMO. And y'all might remember that the standards for completeness are much higher at ACR or FAC than they are at GA, so y'all are going to need more data on peacetime activities, IMO.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:08, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * But that's the thing. Austro-Hungarian battleships did litteraly NOTHING in peace time and rotted away in port. Not much to write about. And I would'nt really like articles for every sub class but take a look at my sandbox. Are you trying to say that all of that work was for nothing. Sorry but I'm not letting all of those hours go to waste. I can tweak it a bit but We need an article for Type IXA submarines in order to get them to a GT. You're the one who told me that in the first place.-- White Shadows you're breaking up 18:22, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No, read it again; I said either an article or a list would do for a GT and I'd oppose an article on any sub-class. But that's just me and you're ignoring my recommendation to discuss the issue at WP:SHIPS. I've already had one article fail FAC for lack of completeness myself so don't spin me a tale of woe and wasted hours; some articles will never make FA or even A-class if the sources aren't good enough. And sources for lots of ships are damn scanty, to include many, many pre-dreadnoughts as well as dreadnoughts of minor nations, unless you read their native language. You really believe that the Austro-Hungarian Navy never once conducted tactical maneuvers during peacetime?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:58, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * We know of 1 set of training maneuvers that the fell conducted just a few years prior to WWI. It's already been mentioned in all three of the articles. And I'm not ignoreing you, I'll bring it up on WP:SHIPS. Hoever, if a list is required, what am I going to do with this? And the only thing that I can bring a list up to is FL status. I doubt that that sub-class could make it to that.-- White Shadows you're breaking up 19:05, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, let's look at it a different way. Why can't most of that content be folded into German Type IX submarine? — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  19:28, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, and we'll have all those tpye articles to work on. Not bad, just should take some time. And I'm fine with anything. Buggie111 (talk) 19:30, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Because I need either an article or a list of Type IXa submarines to get to GA or FL class in order to get a GTC for all 8 of the U-boats in that class. If we merge it into that article, I'll need to bring the whole thing up to GA status. (Which I'm not about to attempt)-- White Shadows you're breaking up 19:34, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I see your point, and I think the sub-class would be better, as the listswould be a bit hard to format, think writing somthing like List of Habsburg class battleships. The IX page already partially listifies the class, so I'm a bit puzzled. And why is my WP:ER template at the top of the page not working! Cmon, eight non-me edits within the past two hours, and no reviews. I'd be very happy if this was fixed. Buggie111 (talk) 19:40, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * But what I'm saying is, I do not want to try to promote the entire set of Type IX submarines when I'm only working on 8 U-boats from one sub-class. In other words, It's a waste of time to do that.-- White Shadows you're breaking up 20:10, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Multiple ongoing article reviews
Buggie, I have to ask you to withdraw two of your three open ACRs. We have an unwritten rule on allowing one open review at a time like FAC. We relax that rule occasionally for those editors who have massive amounts of experience in writing quality articles, but this is rare. The reasons for this rule is so that the reviewers are not exhausted by reviewing three similar to identical articles at the same time as well as reducing the strain on the entire system (which admittedly is not a problem currently due to the low amount of reviews). Also, editors who are new to the system have found having more than one review ongoing can be a strain on their priorities as well. -MBK004 21:05, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Edit, I just noticed that you acutally have four open and as co-nom with Parsec on one and WS on three. Two of the three you have just listed need to be withdrawn. -MBK004 21:08, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * K, I'll take off two of tem, and will re-transclude the two once the others finish up. Sorry for any trouble. Buggie111 (talk) 21:10, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Can I take full responsibility of one of My co-noms with Buggie in order to keep it open? That would mean that I'd like to withdraw/keep inactive the nom for SMS Arpad. Is that OK?-- White Shadows you're breaking up 21:11, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with that, but I'd like you to remove Babenberg. I added, so to say, most of the info, and mostly fixed GAN probs. On habsburg I fixed nearly all of them, so that's my criteria for both. I just glanced over Arpad, so could you please take it? If not, than take Babenberg. It's just a preference. Buggie111 (talk) 21:14, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll take Arpad since I wrote it and we can share credit for Habsburg since I wrote it but you got it to GA status. And once you are able to, You can have Babenberg I if you want, I can get co-nom since you did most of the work there.-- White Shadows you're breaking up 21:17, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

So which reviews are staying and which are gone, and who are the noms. That way I know which ones to clean-up with my delete button per WP:CSD, before making the notifications. -MBK004 21:28, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Ahh, I see that Babenberg is withdrawn and the responsibility for Arpad has been shifted. I will go ahead and delete the nom for Babenberg, and you can re-create it once the time comes for that nomination. -MBK004 21:35, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. And I hope that you don't mnid that Buggie is doing two co-noms at once :)-- White Shadows you're breaking up 23:22, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Brazilian battleship Riachuelo
The DYK project (nominate) 00:03, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

DYK for USS Washington (BB-47)
The DYK project (nominate) 08:03, 9 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for correcting "1886". I don't know that much about the ship but I was willing to bet that was a hasty typo. Adding a ref is icing on the cake. Cheers.--Phyllis1753 (talk) 15:21, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Your welcome. Buggie111 (talk) 15:34, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
Your input would be appreciated. Regards.  Taelus  ( Talk ) 10:15, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It's a bad joke. Buggie111 (talk) 00:14, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Editor review
I have reviewed you at Editor review/Buggie111 (2). Feel free to leave any comments or questions here, there, or on my talk page. PrincessofLlyr royal court 22:48, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

We still love you!!
Keep up the great work!!!Moxy (talk) 05:07, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 10 May 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 12:06, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Type 1936B destroyer
Materialscientist (talk) 00:03, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Elmer H. Inman
The DYK project (nominate) 00:03, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Spanish ships
Arapiles is yours, no problem. :) Sorry if I stepped on your toes there, had been eyeing DudT's page on the es.wikipedia for a bit and the bug to do it finally chomped. Puigcerdá needs a better translation too, BTW - I threw up my hands halfway through trying to make heads or tails of the Google Translate of its page! - The Bushranger Return fire Flank speed 01:14, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Nope, didn't hit my toes. I wondered how I could DYK qualify that, as it had already been written. Now that DYK cehck won't work (on vecotr), you managed to do it. Congrats. And I'll do Puigcerda.. Buggie111 (talk) 01:17, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I think the only part of the translation that survived to the final product was the line about the re-use of armour. I just need to get my hands on the appropriate Conway's now to see how much more it can be improved. - The Bushranger Return fire Flank speed 02:04, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Richelieu class
I saw you tagged the article at OMT; I wanted to let you know I've got Jordan & Dumas's French Battleships: 1922-1956 (and I think Ed has a couple of sources for the class too). If you need any help, just let me know. Parsecboy (talk) 01:49, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I found a ton of refs too, so help would be fine. Buggie111 (talk) 02:24, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Riachuelo class
It still has a "working on" tag. Woody (talk) 13:52, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * @ Woody. Apologies, you were thinking of Riachuelo. The one above is a French ship, so I moved your post. Ed put that tag on to make the table, but frogot to add the belt armor. I think you can remove it. Buggie111 (talk) 13:53, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

RE: Revert
It's alright. Just a reminder that the minor planet articles require some attention to detail, as you can see in the differences between your and my edits of (6018) 1991 PS16. --Merovingian (T, C, L) 20:44, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's what I did to 6016, but you had already started. Keep going! Buggie111 (talk) 20:46, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Admiral class
Hi, your idea was good except that various facts were so incorrect that I thought it was beter to remove the info than display incorrect information. Example : the Admiral class's main guns were mounted in barbettes, not in turrets. This distinction is important in a warship. You stated that that the secondary guns were 13.5 inch - they were in fact 6-inch. The photo you added of a 3-pounder Hotchkiss shows the gun on a different type of mounting to what they were mounted on on the Admirals - i.e. the picture was misleading, if you use an image it should relate directly to the subject, not indirectly. So I would recommend that for historical stuff you think about each fact as you type it - ask "is this correct for this article, do I understand what it means and does it make sense" - sometimes even published authors make silly mistakes and we don't need to copy their mistakes into Wikipedia. But your idea and intention is good, so please don't give up just because I reverted your edit. regards, Rod. Rcbutcher (talk) 15:57, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * If those were all of the problems, than I can fix them. And I knew that the secondary were six inchers, I just forgot to copy and paste the correct link from the infobox. I'll go fix them now. Buggie111 (talk) 16:04, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry - but I think you need to understand more about ships in order to describe them. Let me use protection as an example: You can see that the protection is actually quite complicated.
 * The Admirals had a short waterline armoured belt. (You might want to do some reading about belts so you fully understand them.)
 * On top of the belt they had a flat armoured deck
 * As the belt did not protect the waterline at the ends, the Admirals had an underwater armoured deck to protect this. On top of this armoured deck, they had a lot of subdivision, and probably had some materials such as cork or woodite - you would have to check.  The purpose of cork or woodite was to be a space filler that was lighter than water, which would preserve some flotation even if the ends of the ships were letting in water due to damage in action
 * The Admirals also used their coal bunkers to enhance protection.
 * As I mentioned, they had short belts. The belts are on the sides of the ship.  At the front and rear ends of the belt they had an armoured bulkhead joining them.  This bulkhead was carried up to a level that protected the 6-inch gun battery from end on fire.  The Nelson had something similar.
 * The main armament was mounted in two armoured barbettes. There was an armoured trunk connecting each barbette with its magazines, which were below the armoured deck.  The mounting of the main guns were in what were called 'semi-disappearing barbettes'.  This was a development of the Moncrief carriage barbette mounting in the Temeraire.
 * I think that the 6-inch gun battery was protected from amchine gun fire by 1-inch plate at the front. This would need checking
 * There was also an armoured conning tower.
 * The ships had torpedo nets

Then there is the armament.
 * The Collingwood had 12-inch breechloaders of an unsatisfactory design, it took time for the manfacturers to make some that were safe enough to be used with service charges - high powered breechloaders were hard to get right - other nations had problems too at the same time.
 * The Anson, etc. had 13.5-inch breechloaders. This design was much more sucessful - presumably because of experience with the 12-inch breechloaders.
 * The Benbow had 16.25-inch breechloaders - this was like the 13.5-inch design, but pushed the technology so far. They suffered from barrel droop (do you know what that means?), and short firing life.
 * The Benbow had more 6-inch guns in the secondary battery than the others.
 * There were also the smaller guns - whcih included machine guns. Machine guns from the ships were used in the bombardment of Alexandria in 1882.
 * The ships had torpedo tubes/launchers.
 * The ships carried 'second class torpedo boats'.
 * There were some guns mounted on ships boats, and at least a couple of small artillery pieces to be used by shore parties.

It is also worth considering how much ammunition was carried. Some ships like the Italian Duilio saved weight by carrying less ammunition.

What is known about fire control on these ships?

Movement.
 * What were their trial speeds?
 * Did they have forced draught?
 * What was their coal endurance?
 * What was their turning circle?

Other qualities of the ships.
 * Of six ships, there were four subgroups, each of different displacements.

I hope this helps.--Toddy1 (talk) 20:18, 16 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi there; I have re-visited the article, and have posted on talk. In view of the constructive advice that he has posted here, I am not certain how I can help. You will appreciate that my involvement in the article was the creation of a stub about four years ago. I do not wholly agree that deletion and re-write is the best way forward; I feel that a great deal of the deleted data is perfectly valid, and much of the data presented by Toddy1, while undoubtedly correct, could be seen as being in addition to your text rather than in place of it. But I would really prefer that the two of you arrive at a friendly editing consensus, please.

--Anthony.bradbury"talk" 21:26, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow. Where on earth did you get this info? I'm no newcomer to battleship writing (see this, but I must have missed a library full of references. Yes, by all means this information should be added to the article. I can't really start work right now, but I believe that an expansion would be just about as useful as a re-write. I highly appreciate your help on this. Buggie111 (talk) 22:03, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * And for your questions, yes, I know what barell droop is, (the rapid firing and form? of guns pushes the barrel a tad down, which, over the long run (meaning time of flight of the shell) moves the line of the shell's path away from the path given by the rangefinder. I've read a tad more about belt armor also, although I knew most about it and the slope given to it by reading, time and again, books on USS Merrimack (1855) and other Confederate ironclads along with other battleship articles here on the wiki. And of your questions purely about the ship, I don't have the references available or in any local library to go and cite them. Buggie111 (talk) 00:14, 17 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Fortunately it is easy to buy reference books over the telephone and the internet. I suggest that you buy some second hand Brassey's Naval Annuals from the late 1880s and early 90s.  They are not expensive.  I use AJ Simmonds's bookshop - you don't need to go there, you can just phone them.--Toddy1 (talk) 04:27, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * That seems good, though I hope they ship farther than that for a decent price. Buggie111 (talk) 13:36, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You don't need to buy the old books like Brassey's etc. etc., most of them have been scanned and put online by organizations like http://www.archive.org and http://www.gutenberg.org ... Many many books for training young officers were being written by experts in the late 1800s and early 1900s and they have a lot of serious detail because the idea of military secracy didn't exist then. Rod Rcbutcher (talk) 14:13, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Re:Standardization
Yep, that works perfectly. We need to have the ranges for the missiles in line with the format used in the gun section so that editors will not complain about it at FAC (or more urgently, GAC, since we need to get at least that far to satisfy FT regulations :) Thanks for the help. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:05, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Your welcome. I was just looking around my watchilst and saw action at WT:OMT, so I came over to check it out. Good luck with it, and I'll try to find references for any of the tagged areas of the article. Buggie111 (talk) 02:07, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

TomStar81 (Talk) 02:47, 17 May 2010 (UTC) TomStar81 (Talk) 04:25, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 17 May 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 18:26, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Moscow Portal
Unfortunately, I don't know an easy way to find what you need. In an ideal world, WP:RUSSIA would be tracking all of its DYKs, but in reality it just ain't so. A possible solution would be to harness this tool&mdash;select "Article lists" in the column to the left, enter "Russia" into the "Project" field and 0 into the "Page namespace" field (0 stands for main article space), click the "filter by category" checkbox, and enter "Wikipedia Did you know articles" into the "Talk page category" field. Check "Don't try to compute an overall count" checkbox (it helps speed things up; or at least not abort the query prematurely). Click "Generate list". It takes an awful long time to run, but eventually you'll get a list of all WikiProject Russia's articles which have a DYK banner on the talk page. However, you'll need to review them individually to see which ones would work for the Moscow Portal. Hope this helps at least to some extent! You might also want to ask around at the Village Pump in case someone knows a better solution.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); May 18, 2010; 20:57 (UTC)
 * Thanks there. I'll try to work through it. Buggie111 (talk) 23:04, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

DYK for HMS Anson (79)
The DYK project (nominate) 00:03, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Austro-hungarian battleships
Mind makeing a FT prep table like the one that Parsecboy has on German BB's? I also see that Franz Ferdinand passed the ARC. Looks like Habsburg and company will fail so how's about me and you get Zrinyi to A-class? I know we can do it as there is alot more on this ship than Habsburg. As for the remaing ships, I'l work on Ersatz Monarch class battleship and you get List of Austro-Hungarian Battleships along with the Viribus Unitis class. sounds OK? I suspect that this summer, we can get this to a Ft or at least a Gt if we try.-- White Shadows you're breaking up 22:00, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey guys, just to note, I had to cut the majority of the EM-class article because I discovered it was a copyvio. Good luck with the Austro-Hungarian BBs! Parsecboy (talk) 22:08, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I was about to hide the text myself. Thanks. Here's to OMT's first GT on an entire nation's set of BBs. (Assumeing that you don't beat us with Germany's BBs)-- White Shadows you're breaking up 22:15, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey, I'm only 40% done, and I'm waiting on this book to do the Kaiser and Konig classes, as well as get Bayern and Baden ready for FAC&mdash;but it doesn't come out until 22 June. Interestingly, perhaps, I stumbled across this, which should be quite handy for that article.
 * You guys have 9 of the 19 AH articles at GA or higher, which is about 47%, so you'll probably beat me :D Though I did get the first national BC FT :) Parsecboy (talk) 22:22, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah but the list will be killer for Buggie and the "replacement" Monarch class is going to be a bit rocky as well. That also leaves us with THE Tegetthoff class as well as another one.....-- White Shadows you're breaking up 22:32, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the Ersatz Monarch will be difficult, but you really only have the class article there. I seem to think I came across a book or something about the Tegetthoffs the other day, but can't recall where I saw it. It was probably in Google Books. As for the list, you have a template that's been proven at FLC&mdash;Sturm's more or less copied it for the Russian BCs&mdash;you might as well too. The main problem there is you have to take it to FL, as there's no "Good List." That ended up taking nearly 2 months from the time I started working on it (though that includes a Milhist ACR). Parsecboy (talk) 22:42, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * There is loads of info for the Ersatz Monarch class but I just do not know where to start! I'll copy your design for the list of AH BB's but the remaining classes will be tough to work on. What makes it even harder is the fact that I habve a grand total of 0 books on the SH navy and I'm not going to the library until...well....when I have the time.-- White Shadows you're breaking up 22:47, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Apologies, but I will be busy during the summer on vacation, so no go. Good luck though, and I'll try to get to work on the Virbius's soon enough. Buggie111 (talk) 23:57, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Can you still make the FT table?-- White Shadows you're breaking up 00:31, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure.Buggie111 (talk)

Turtle fence
Actually there are things called turtle fence, so I thought, it might be a good idea to redirect it to fence. 114.143.243.74 (talk) 17:40, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll be darned. Have a nice day!Buggie111 (talk) 17:42, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Greek battleships
Hi there. I noticed you'd redirected Greek battleship Kilkis and Greek battleship Limnos to the respective US ship pages. I've undone this for the time being, for various reasons:


 * the Greek service doesn't seem to be covered more than trivially in the US pages;
 * they probably have distinct enough careers to warrant separate pages - I'm not entirely convinced they do, but it deserves discussing;
 * and, if they should be a single page, it should perhaps be under the Greek title. Whilst they were built by the US, they only served for six years before being sold; after the sale, they served for two or three times as long with the Greek navy, and saw a reasonable amount of combat in WWI and immediately afterwards.

Thoughts? (The latter point has only just occurred to me - it's unconventional for the main career to be with the minor nation's navy after a purchase, but it seems pretty clear in this case.) Shimgray | talk | 19:05, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Apologies.I was gonna merge into the U.S. pages, but time is somewhat of a constraint. Yeah, Yoenit pointed out the sime things at WT:OMT. I agree with your points above. Happy editing. Buggie111 (talk) 19:10, 21 May 2010 (UTC)


 * No problem. I know just what you mean about time constraints! Shimgray | talk | 19:39, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Tegetthoff class battleship
Mind expanding the lead to that one so I can get to work on it for my list?-- White Shadows you're breaking up 00:03, 23 May 2010 (UTC) Way too busy. Wait half a day. Buggie111 (talk) 05:17, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
CamrynRocks! (talk) 17:08, 23 May 2010 (UTC)Hey, Buggie111. Thanks for giving me feedback at WHITE SHADOW's page, although my friend and i really don't use Facebook. Thanks anyway, though. If you have any other advice, it would be appreciated. :) That's nothing. Usually, people reference that as some of their facts. Buggie111 (talk) 17:19, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Encoraçado Riachuelo (1914)
Hello Buggie111. In fact a don't have any information about this ship. A asked another site about the question. I'll write to you if the situation change. Thanks for the good articles your group are writing about batleships. --HTPF 19:03, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your reply. You can join whenever you want. Buggie111 (talk) 21:47, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

List of battleships of Austria-Hungary ACR
can you start it please? Thanks...-- White Shadows you're breaking up 20:19, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You don't wanna? Sure, and I'm gonna list myself as a nominator, if you feel fine. Buggie111 (talk) 21:46, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Uh...nice try but I wrote 95% of it. It's mine. I just did not know how to start the ACR.....-- White Shadows you're breaking up 23:24, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I wrote most of the lead, and, uhhh, ok. Remove my name, and next time, read the instructions at the Review section of the project. Do you think the Karls are ready for a GA? Buggie111 (talk) 23:26, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You'll need a few more sources IMHO but yeah I guess. You can have all of the Karls and the Tegetthoffs (minus SMS Viribus Unitis since I wrote that one) and I'll get the list. Sound OK?-- White Shadows you're breaking up 23:27, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok. But you can support me at any time, and, as I've reiterrated (did I spell it right) about 9,00 times, you get co-credit for any of those if you fix errors in its review while im away. And what about, say, noming SMS Erzherzog Franz Ferdinand for a FAC? Exactly where would I place and find those sources? I've bust my head open looking for them Buggie111 (talk) 23:30, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * My (our first FA) I think that we are ready for it. Go and submit it to FAC when you feel like it. I'll be there to fix up and issues. (I'll let you have co-nom for my ARC for the list as well)-- White Shadows you're breaking up 23:33, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * as for the Karl's fix the bare URL's and thay are good to go.-- White Shadows you're breaking up 23:35, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * One more thing, do you think that SMS Zrinyi will be able to make it to an ACR and an FAC in the future? Once we get the List through ACR/FLC and Franz Ferdinand through FAC?-- White Shadows you're breaking up 23:45, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I think so. Buggie111 (talk) 23:45, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I've done the navweeaps, could you do the google books? Buggie111 (talk) 23:51, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do. but I think that we've covered everything already...-- White Shadows you're breaking up 23:54, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I meant fixing the bare google books. Buggie111 (talk) 00:01, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure. but one thing at a time. First the ACR and the FAC for the list and Franz. Then we move from there....-- White Shadows you're breaking up 00:03, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Speedy on Saad Wasiuddin
I have declined your db-person on Saad 'Merciless' Wasiuddin because there is a clear assertion of notability. The fact that the assertion is not verifiable through a quick Google search means the article may want to be brought to AfD, but I do not believe it qualifies for speedy deletion. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:43, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * wEll, I guess so. That's my second failed speedy nom. I'll wait and see if any other refs can be found. Buggie111 (talk) 13:45, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * WikiDan, you might have tried a google search; the only hit was the Wiki article itself (and zero for "Jacques Francois" he supposedly won the world title from as well, incidentally). That's a little odd considering he supposedly is a world champion in one of the major martial-art forms. This is an obvious hoax article; I've gone ahead and deleted it. Parsecboy (talk) 13:53, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Also note that all three books are non-existent. Parsecboy (talk) 13:58, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * A failed Google search is generally a bad reason for a speedy delete. The article made a "credible assertion of notability".  Per WP:CSD, "The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source." The fact that the assertion is false is a fact that can be discussed at an AfD discussion, but a speedy delete should really be reserve for incontrovertible cases.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 16:29, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't delete it under A7, I deleted it under G3. It was an obvious hoax; if the lack of any reference to three books supposedly published in the last year doesn't convince you, try searching for any of the alleged publishers. Furtgers? I don't think so... Parsecboy (talk) 17:44, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

RE: Musashi
Sure thing, possibly even sooner. I finish school on June 11, then have a light two-week exam period (three exams, 14 days, nothing to sweat), so I may consider doing an FAC-run before that. I'm away from my comp July 3-10 and 15-22, so any leadup in that period to an FAC cannot be handled by me. Cam (Chat) 05:30, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * And I come back to mine on the 23d of July. Well, look forword to seeing you there! Buggie111 (talk) 13:44, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

ISU-152
Thanks, man. Appreciate it. Oblivion Lost (talk) 15:30, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Reshadieh
A review was already in progress, and is now complete. Nice work on these obscure ships. The Turkish/Ottoman battlewagons have always been favourites of mine for some reason... - The Bushranger Return fire Flank speed 20:27, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Your Mother Teresa to those old frigates and obscure hulks of metal. I can work on the Popovs with you if you want. Buggie111 (talk) 20:28, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Heh, thanks. :) I don't have anything on the Popovs to refer to/work from at the moment, but once I can get my hands on the appropriate books through the library I might take you up on that offer. As for GANs - Abdul Kadir might be ready for it, seeing as how obscure she is there can't be too much more that can be reasonably said, I'd think? The Reshadieh class article would need some fleshing out though before going GAN, I'd think. - The Bushranger Return fire Flank speed 20:31, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * p.s. Although, if you have anything on Giovanni Bausan...? - The Bushranger Return fire Flank speed 20:31, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Any Ottoman ship article post-1865 is pretty well required to reference the Ottoman Steam Navy, so y'all had better get it from ILL before sending anything to GAN.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:34, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll add it to the to-get list once the two copies of Conway's and Gunston's Russian a/c book come in. :) - The Bushranger Return fire Flank speed 20:35, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * That means in July. When was said Giovani built? Buggie111 (talk) 20:37, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Between 1882-1885, by Elswick. I do have the issue of Warship with the article about Elswick's work for Italy (as the article on those gunboats probably attests) and will start an article in userspace sometime tonight. - The Bushranger Return fire Flank speed 20:41, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * World Warships in Review 1860-1906 by Leather doesn't give anything, but the entire book is British biased, meaning mentionings of pretty obscure ships that really fit the envelope. Buggie111 (talk) 20:45, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Hm, British biased or not you'd think they'd crow about Elswick's work. Ah well! As an aside, there's an article on the ship's namesake on de.wikipedia if anybody feels more paitent with translating - and referencing - than I am. - The Bushranger Return fire Flank speed 20:52, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Dank could do it. I hate messing with politics, but they, meaning the Elswick guys, might not have been seen very nicely as they were building for a cause different than the one of the Britishh Empire? Buggie111 (talk) 20:54, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Hm, s'possible, I suppose, although back then 'military secrets' were nearly unknown - note the sharing of information on shells and powder that today would be simply inconceivable. BTW, a rough-and-ready start for GB's page is up at the link there, feel free to fiddle/add. :) - The Bushranger Return fire Flank speed 21:11, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Could you rename it?
Hey, thanks for putting that stuff together, but could you rename it to just EAGLE COUNTY CHARTER ACADEMY? Thanks.CamrynRocks! (talk) 21:27, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, we'd need to make it bigger. It wouldn't qualify for WP:DYK until it gets to 1500 charcters of readable words. I'll try and work on it. Buggie111 (talk)
 * Done. You'll have to make it higher yourself. Buggie111 (talk) 21:31, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

DYK for List of commanding officers of the USS Oklahoma (BB 37)
Wizardman Operation Big Bear 12:03, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Golden Cue
Hello! Your submission of Golden Cue at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Espresso Addict (talk) 16:45, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Please enjoy my cookie!
Hey, Buggie111! This is a thank-you for starting that article for me. Enjoy the cookie! 

CamrynRocks! has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

CamrynRocks! (talk) 21:11, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yum! Buggie111 (talk) 21:36, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Core countries
I see you are interested in this article, which as you are aware, is a subject to a class assignment project. Feel free to offer comments and advice at any point - I am sure the students will appreciate interacting with other editors! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 01:31, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I was reading over the grading and saw that people discussing with other interested others would earn EP< so I decided to be bold and take up that role. I'm sure I could write a great GA on any one of those, but it would all violate WP:OR. Buggie111 (talk) 01:41, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Is Key core country a term that can be referenced? If it is it would interesting to have the chronoligical list of Key countries throughout history. For example United States 1890 to 1973 Britian?? 1889 to 1750 etc etc BTW who became "key core country" after 1973?-- Esemono (talk) 03:54, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Oklahoma
BTW congrats on the Oklahoma page. 7000+ hits! Not bad. But I was looking on the talk page and that guy has a point about Kenworthy not really being a captain of the ship. If Kenworthy is included then everytime then we would have to add everytime the captain left the ship and put his second-in-charge in command. -- Esemono (talk) 03:54, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. The book I got all about Oklahoma seems to only mention Ken as a temporary guy. Buggie111 (talk) 04:02, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Italian battleships
Since you have the Turkish ones, can I have a few of the Italian ones? There are a total of 8 seperate classes so how should we divide up the classes, the ships and the list?-- White Shadows you're breaking up 22:32, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I call Napoli and lower. You can get everything higher and their respective places en list. No one takes Roma. And feel free to push the Turks to GA. Buggie111 (talk) 00:26, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I only want to write the Turkish list. As for the division of the Italian battleships, I'm ok with that, However and I have just one ship from the Vittorio Veneto class battleship? I really don't care which one it is. As long as I get one....-- White Shadows you're breaking up 00:39, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure. Impero to FA, with me getting the ability to say that I contributed heavily to it. And then I would have to take Regina Elena class battleship. If it's too much, I can take the otehr Elenas also. They are the bottom amrgin of my Conways ref. Buggie111 (talk) 00:40, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Deal :)-- White Shadows you're breaking up 01:44, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * A look at my refs tells otherwise. How about you get Impero and Napoli, and I get Sardagena and Re Umberto. Buggie111 (talk) 01:51, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I kinda wanted the Re Umbertos's since I wrote about them in my list that I'm working on. Can you think of a few others that you want (I have no other prefrences)-- White Shadows you're breaking up 01:54, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I only want Sardagena because I've got a book ref on it and think I can expand. You can get the other two Re Umbertos, as I don't really care about them. I can also settle for the Regina Margherita class, but that would be pretty desperate. Buggie111 (talk) 02:01, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll settle for that. Impero and Napoli for Sardegna and Regina Margherita. Deal :) Goodnoght!-- White Shadows you're breaking up 02:11, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know if I could do MArgherita. I was suggesting one or the other. Buggie111 (talk) 02:14, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * well than choose another one...-- White Shadows you're breaking up 21:00, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll take a margherita please. Buggie111 (talk) 21:32, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

{{outdent}] Fine by me.-- White Shadows you're breaking up 21:34, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Re: Reward Board

 * Thanks. Buggie111 (talk) 21:00, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Großes Torpedoboot 1913 class torpedo boat
The DYK project (nominate) 00:02, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 24 May 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 03:25, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Ship articles
Hi Buggie. I was looking over some of the articles you've nominated for GAN, and I think there are some issues with them. Generally speaking, the technical stuff should be on the main class page, with only a short summary on the individual ships (unless the ship had modifications that made it different from the other ships in the class&mdash;for instance, compare SMS Hindenburg, SMS Derfflinger, and Derfflinger-class battlecruiser). The individual ship articles should be mostly service history. And I know this is difficult to do with ships like the Austrian battleships, but trust me, there is information out there. Take SMS Brandenburg for example; the only big thing the ship ever did was the expedition to China during the Boxer Rebellion, and even that was uneventful.

I think the problem is that you're trying to do too many articles at once. These obscure ships take a long time to put together properly. In the case of Brandenburg, I created it in 2007, and only got it beaten into fairly decent shape in March of this year. Granted, I only started seriosly improving it on 1 March, but I wasn't finished until the end of the month. Do you see what I mean? It's going to take a while to trawl through things like Google Books to find references to these old, obscure ships. Just for Erzherzog Karl there are 111 hits in GB; not all will be useful (indeed most will not), but to put together a quality article, you have to go through these things with a fine-tooth comb.

OMT isn't a project that will be accomplished in 6 months or even a year. Hell, we've already been working as a project for a year formally, and individually at least twice as long. My suggestion to you is to slow down, take each article one at a time, and compare your articles to those others have written that have already successfully passed GA/A/FA. Parsecboy (talk) 14:36, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I know. I was judging that Karl would follow in the footsteps of Franz Ferdinand. I'll go remove them now. And yes, I know OMT will take a long while. I'll submit at MHAR instead. Buggie111 (talk) 14:39, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm with Parsec here. Both you and White Shadows are trying so hard to get GAs out of these articles that you are skipping or overlooking sources and information. JAPANESE BATTLESHIP Tosa took me eight months to put together while I waited for sources, North Carolina-class battleship took me three months, and even my very first article, USS Nevada (BB-36), took me four months. I can relate with you and WS, however, with Alaska-class cruiser. At the time, I knew little about ships and was merely interested with the topic. Read that article; can you tell? I can. (I've been planning to rewrite that from scratch for awhile now, but haven't gotten around to it yet...) Only extremely experienced editors can crank a GA out in a day or two&mdash;and that's not a general rule because I certainly can't.

My advice? Take one, maybe two, battleships that have a decent amount of sources written on them (I'd suggest one of the WWII American battleships.) From here, research your chosen topic&mdash;what did the ship do, what battles did she take part it, when was she refitted, etc.; there should be a decent amount of American BB books around. Decide what you want to emphasize and what you think should be summarized. What is important and what isn't? What would be of interest to a general reader, even if it isn't extremely important?

Basically, I don't think you guys can fully handle ships that require such in-depth researching. American BB FAs require a few books and DANFS. Austro-Hungarian BB FAs require you to consult multiple sources all over the board just looking for any mention of the ship. You may be able to squeak by GA, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they are good or complete. I strongly, strongly encourage you guys to take up an American BB or two and create fully comprehensive articles on them. I can help you with recommendations for which are the best source if you would like. I'm sure that you will find writing them a much easier task. Regards, — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  19:33, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I've been thinking so too. I don't want to make a personal attack here, but I believe WS was edging me on to get them done. Personally, I think I could stcik to American and Russian battleships, but then there's the variety factor for me. My quality of articles has been getting lower, from somthing like, hmmm, Franz Ferdinand (with a lot of support from Parsec) to Moreno, which you are currently performing surgery on, and which I admit was a "Must DYK" job done by me. Hoperfully, over the summer, I'll be able to put together drafts of articles on ym Netbook. Well, I think I should sign off for now. Buggie111 (talk) 19:45, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I understand what you mean about variety. That's what spurred me on to do a few other articles away from the German ones (like the AH ships I did, Iron Duke class battleship, Florida class battleship, etc.). The other thing to remember about doing American or British ships (and especially WWII ships) is that there's going to be a lot more info available through Google Books.
 * The thing to consider is that DYKs are nice and all, but they're not really necessary. And if it's causing you to rush things, then perhaps it's better to avoid trying for them. Or, you could just get all your research done before you even start working on the article (or just work on it in userspace or offline).
 * And as for feeling pressured to work on articles, remember that this is completely voluntary. I've taken breaks from editing these articles from time to time (I'm sure the rest of us have as well), and they've still been here when I had the time/motivation to continue writing. Everyone works at their own pace; not all of us can crank out DYKs for ships, aircraft, and other miscellaneous pieces of military equipment like Sturmvogel can. Like I said before, I've been working on the German warships for 3 years now and am not even half done yet. Parsecboy (talk) 20:10, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm going to be leaving in a several days, so that should damper my editing. I know this is voluntary, I do this because, during my free time, nothing more interesting can be done. I know this conversation is starting to shift a bit to other things, so I'd like to say that this conversation should slow down. I feel that I've come a long way, from newbie who thought Finish Omt=Big Prize to someone more passive. I'm just not passive enough. I'm going to start reading Red Mutiny. Buggie111 (talk) 20:17, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


 * One thing I'd suggest that might help, is taking a two-stage approach to editing. When approaching a stub, small Start-class article, or even starting a new article, don't think, "what does this need to get to FA?" or even "...to GA?". Instead, think "what does this need to get to B-class?" and leave it at that. Getting it to B-class should, in most cases, grab a DYK too, I'd think; even if it doesn't, the article will be much improved and reasonably comprehensive, with a minimum of stress involved. Once that's been done, then you can look at what you have, corral the resources you need, and assess where things should go to keep moving up the ladder to infinity GA and beyond. - The Bushranger Return fire Flank speed 20:34, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I was following that rule when I tackled, more or less, Impero. I knew that I wouldn't take it to GA, I'd just help it be able to be taken to GA. Thanks you all for your kind words, I will heed them over the two months of my absense. Buggie111 (talk) 20:41, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I would take the userspace suggestion. I should have for USS Washington (BB-56) [still half done!]. ;) — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  21:41, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I guess so, and I have done so with Sevastopol, but other attempts have ended in WS barging in with a completed draft in under five seconds. I'll take Netbook. Buggie111 (talk) 21:42, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I see. Well, I'd suggest either adding to his additions or asking him to leave 'your' article for you. :/ — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  21:45, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Please don't accuse me of WP:OWN!:( I'm unhappy when people do that, but their drafts are always much better than mine. Buggie111 (talk) 22:20, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Man did I miss alot. I'm not trying to rush though these things. Sorry if I came off like that. But as you can see, I only am working on a about half of the AH BB's and the List for Turkey and Italy, while others have an entire nation that they are working on at the same time while going at the speed of light in editing them. I so try to spend alot of time getting my work all sorted out and I think that I'll stick with my topics for now....-- White Shadows you're breaking up 01:07, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Your statment on the Karl's and Tegetthoffs were pretty pushy, but nothing I was really compelled by. Buggie111 (talk) 02:55, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I cannot force you to do anything you don't want to or don't have the time to do. I was only trying to say that I think that you should get to work on them for my list but i the end I finished it anyway. You don't need to feel rushed. Work at your own pace :)-- White Shadows you're breaking up 10:22, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I know, You used words like please, so I thought you really wanted it. Buggie111 (talk) 13:20, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Italian battleship Andrea Doria (1913)
Hello! Your submission of Italian battleship Andrea Doria (1913) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! The Bushranger Return fire Flank speed 15:01, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Inconsistency on GOCE Totals Page
Friendly notice: I noticed that one of the pages you have copy edited points to an article entitled Oath of Office of the President of the United States, which does not appear to be an article. It is probably just a typo, but you should fix it, because you may not get credit for your copy edit if the page doesn't appear to exist. Of course, if it's been deleted, the fact that it doesn't point to anything would make sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quinxorin (talk • contribs) 19:52, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, it was a capitalization problem. You should put your name in alphabetical order. Buggie111 (talk) 19:57, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Ottoman battleship Abdul Kadir
The DYK project (nominate) 18:04, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Reshadieh class battleship
The DYK project (nominate) 06:02, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Reliable_sources/Noticeboard
You might be interested in this discussion since you read Russian. - Dank (push to talk) 14:33, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Colorado State Highway 64
Hello! Your submission of Colorado State Highway 64 at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 19:33, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Re: Bugle
I've just penned the big news. On Monday I'll leave a message on the coordinator page inviting the coordinators to make any last second changes before sending the newsletter out. Its also possible I'll come back and write a little more before the letter goes out. Don;t discount more being added until an announcement is made that the letter has been dispatched :) TomStar81 (Talk) 03:37, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I know. I'm currently dueling with The Bushranger for first place in the contest, so I just had to wonder. See you in July! Buggie111 (talk) 03:38, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Italian battleship Andrea Doria (1913)
Hello, you recently expanded the article Italian battleship Andrea Doria (1913) (I'm looking at it because of a reference error on the other article, Andrea Doria class battleship). The expansion talks about a ship named Caio Duilio but doesn't explain why that ship is being discussed on the article for the Andrea Doria. I don't know what your intentions were, so am not about it touch it, would you please revisit and revise? thank you. - Salamurai (talk) 06:38, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * As the two ships were of the same class, I copied the design section from Caio Duilo, forgetting to paste in Andrea Doria. don't worry, what you saw was just a minor error. Buggie111 (talk) 13:38, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

project
Thanks Buggie111. But I dont really think ill be so active here that Ill be of use for a project.88.90.88.107 (talk) 10:43, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * That's too bad. Buggie111 (talk) 13:38, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Erzherzog Karl class battleship, SMS Erzherzog Karl, SMS Erzherzog Ferdinand Max, SMS Erzherzog Friedrich
Hello! Your submission of Erzherzog Karl class battleship, SMS Erzherzog Karl, SMS Erzherzog Ferdinand Max, SMS Erzherzog Friedrich at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Allen3 talk 22:26, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

re: sig
Better too much than not enough. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bahamut0013 (talk • contribs) 01:07, 31 May 2010 (UTC) ;) I nearly thought that you forgot to sign, but Sinebot didn't pop up. Clever trick... Buggie111 (talk) 01:09, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Italian battleship Impero
The DYK project (nominate) 06:03, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

German destroyer articles
Hi Buggie, I've just assessed the four articles you've sought assessments on at WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Requests as stub class. My rationale for doing so is that they provide very little coverage of the ships, and most of their content is generic material available (and presumably taken from) the article on the class. I'd strongly suggest that you slow down and devote more time to the articles you're working on. At present you appear to be aiming to only do the absolute minimum needed to get these articles to B class (presumably as part of the contest you're taking part in) when you could be spending more time on providing more comprehensive and better sourced articles. Nick-D (talk) 11:21, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

DYK for French battleship Justice (1904)
The DYK project (nominate) 12:03, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

German submarine U-1023
You're going to have to fix up the article alot! I don't even know what U-boat it's talking about!-- White Shadows you're breaking up 02:23, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I've fixed that. Anything else? Buggie111 (talk) 02:32, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The talk page.-- White Shadows you're breaking up 02:30, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Oops. Done. Buggie111 (talk) 02:32, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I've made a few corrections to it as well. It's good to go for DYK.-- White Shadows you're breaking up 02:43, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Can you think of another hook?-- White Shadows you're breaking up 03:22, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * That it sank one ship and damaged another in 47 days for a total of 7680 gross register tons? You'll have to think of somthing else if not. Buggie111 (talk) 03:37, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * There we go :)-- White Shadows you're breaking up 14:27, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Erzherzog Karl class battleship
Victuallers (talk) 00:04, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

DYK for SMS Erzherzog Karl
Victuallers (talk) 00:04, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

DYK for SMS Erzherzog Ferdinand Max
Victuallers (talk) 00:05, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

DYK for SMS Erzherzog Friedrich
Victuallers (talk) 00:05, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

DYK for ARA Moreno
 — Rlevse • Talk  • 12:02, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

DYK for HMS Marlborough (1912)
Wizardman Operation Big Bear 18:02, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 31 May 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 21:34, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Golden Cue
 — Rlevse • Talk  • 06:03, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 11:03, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Colorado State Highway 64
 — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 12:02, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LI (May 2010)
The May 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) 17:25, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Almirante Latorre class battleship
Hi there, I was planning on doing this article after I got Latin America: A Naval History, 1810-1987. I may write it even though you've claimed it, if that's okay&mdash;if you have any other sources for it that I don't have, could you add the information when you get back? Thanks, — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  05:41, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Heh, didn't see you there. I haven't that many good sources, but I do have a Warship Profile, it's some magazine let out each year back in the 70's, for Eagle. It's chock full of info. Buggie111 (talk) 06:38, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

ISU-152-2
Hi, Buggie.

I just can't find more good data on this variant. It's very rare. I also don't have access to books on this subject. If you could try finding something? Doesn't matter under what designation you'll find the info or on what language. See what you can do. Don't worry if you're not able to find something. It's this variant. It's too rare. Oblivion Lost (talk) 15:24, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I also missed your post. Hmm, I'll try with some translations, but I don't know how much you can expect. A longer lead may do, and the a GA might be the light at hte end of your tunnel. Buggie111 (talk) 06:40, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

DYK for French battleship Suffren
Mifter (talk) 12:03, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Can you explain how data from article on the Iéna is applicable to Suffren, an entirely different ship? Aside from gun data there's very little relevant information for Suffren as they differ significantly in armor suite. And what the hell is Caresse, p. 96? His article starts at p. 121. This is pretty shitty history and I'll be trimming much of this improperly sourced material away and downgrading the article.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:20, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

McLaughlin
I've finally gotten a hold of McLaughlin from the library. What did you need?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:08, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Buggie is takeing a break until July :)-- White Shadows stood on the edge 19:12, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Although I have a draft en route on my Netbook, which might interfere with your draft, I need info on the Petropavlovsk class battleship Sevastopol, launched in 1895. My draft covers her action at the yellow sea, attempts to flee port arthur, and both times when she struck mines. I'd like some more service history though. Buggie111 (talk) 06:36, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Signpost comments
You shoud use yards or feet for American and meters for British and other ships, not the other way around.

Not necessarily so. IMHO you should go with what the sources say. Modern vessels will probably be described in metres, but historic vessels are likely to be described in imperial measurements if there is any connection to the British Empire. Ships built in Europe may well be described in metres. Maybe you might consider altering your comments. Mjroots (talk) 10:24, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

If you need anything...
Just drop a line on my talk page. I took a lengthy wiki-break but now as a Wikipedian I am alive and kicking (though a bit busy IRL because of the exams). Artem Karimov (talk | edits) 13:41, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

DYK for French battleship Démocratie (1904)
<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 18:02, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

DYK for French battleship St Louis (1896)
Materialscientist (talk) 18:02, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Hey, I had a thought the other day I'd like to pass on to you, after seeing your two most recent DYKs. The hooks should probably make clear that the subject article is a battleship (an excellent opportunity to link as well), as most readers won't know that on first look. I did the same thing recently too (like Westfalen, for instance). Just thought I'd let you know. I hope your summer break is going well, I'm still in the middle of finals at OSU. Parsecboy (talk) 20:00, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Kudos to you, sir, for your excellent work on this article! Great job! — Kralizec! (talk) 20:39, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 7 June 2010
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 11:15, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Grab some glory, and a barnstar
Hi, I'd like to invite you to participate in the Guild of Copy Editors July 2010 Backlog Elimination Drive. In May, about 30 editors helped remove the tag from 1175 articles. The backlog is still over 7500 articles, and extends back to the beginning of 2008! We really need your help to reduce it. Copyediting just a couple articles can qualify you for a barnstar. Serious copyeditors can win prestigious and exclusive rewards. See the event page for more information. And thanks for your consideration. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 14:38, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

GA Hold
Please see Talk:SM UB-50/GA1 for more information. This article is on GA hold. Chris (talk) 19:05, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The article has been GA Failed despite the best effort of other editors because the questions I ask were not answered in their entirity or not answered all together. Chris (talk) 15:12, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 14 June 2010
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 20:06, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 June 2010
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 18:19, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 June 2010
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 20:51, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 July 2010
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 15:15, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LII (June 2010)
The June 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) 18:43, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 July 2010
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 20:16, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 July 2010
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 15:25, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 July 2010
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 02:45, 27 July 2010 (UTC)