User talk:Climie.ca/Archive 8

WikiCup Newsletter

 * 20:26, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Delivered by J Milburn, on behalf of the judges. 20:26, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Your input is needed
on a proposal listed here. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:19, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Operation: Trailblazer
After a straw poll on the matter I have initiated the FT nom for the Iowa-class battleships. Since your name appears on the list of major contributors I am leaving this message here to inform you of the nom's opening and to offer you a chance to chip on the matter. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:31, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: Request
Hi Cam! I will try to get to your article in the next couple of days. I have one article to do before yours, and then I'll grab it, if no one else has by that point. Today is fairly busy for me, so it may be tomorrow before I have a chance to look at your article. Dana boomer (talk) 12:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks like Bellhalla grabbed it, so I'll cross it off my list. Good luck with the GA review! Dana boomer (talk) 00:26, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

GA nomination for [[JAPANESE AIRCRAFT CARRIER Shinano]]
Hello. I've reviewed the article JAPANESE AIRCRAFT CARRIER Shinano for its nomination for Good Article status. I have some minor concerns, so I am placing the article on hold for seven days. My complete review may be found here. If you have any questions about the review or individual issues I have raised, please note them on the review page (which is on my watchlist) and I will answer them there. When you have addressed the issues I have mentioned, I will be happy to reevaluate the nomination. Thanks, and good editing. — Bellhalla (talk) 19:56, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Cam, you might want to re-word your nom for the Yamato GT, you put it in the wrong place:, and as a GT not FT, it isn't the second, but more like the fifth since Bellhalla has the first four in submarines. -MBK004 04:52, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Disbelief
I'm surprised that you don't have a DYK to your name. You need one, because once you get one you're eligible for a Triple Crown, and will help the project if it is MILHIST: User:Durova/Triple_crown_winner's_circle Wikipedia_talk:MILHIST. Get to work! -MBK004 00:20, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Be sure to poke Ed with questions about the process when the time comes. -MBK004 00:52, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi, Cam. I saw you mention that you're planning on fixing up the Kongō class ships; I've got a copy of Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships 1906-1921, which has a pretty good amount of technical data, and a decent amount of service history. If you want some help, just drop me a line. I know Ed also has the 1906-1921 edition (and I believe the 1922-45 edition as well, which might have more information); I'm sure he'll be happy to help as well. Parsecboy (talk) 01:01, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I can't believe that I missed this on my watchlist earlier...but feel free to ping me if you need help at DYK, and ping me if you would like help with the Kongo class ships (if you don't, I'll sit on the sidelines and just review it for A-class ;)
 * ...but I don't have the 1922-45 edition. :( I would like to get it though...maybe when I'm working 30 hours in the summer. I used Google Books for Alaska class cruiser. But if you use that, verify your authors/editors through Amazon - they've screwed up authors way too many times by them. —  Ed 17  (Talk /  Contribs)  05:08, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Congrats! I'll set up your nom soon if you haven't done it already. Because of you, Ed and Parsec, there were four battleships on the Main Page within 24 hours! -MBK004 21:56, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXV (January 2009)
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:59, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Second Battle of Passchendaele‎
I'm on the tail end of largely re-writing Second Battle of Passchendaele‎. Given your past involvement I would appreciate it if you could have a look over (copy edit). If you could suggest any sources to incorporate the experience of the British 5th Army (it's still lacking at this point) that would be appreciated. Labattblueboy (talk) 17:17, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Siege of Leningrad
Thanks for your offer to help. It seems that our anonymous editor started to spill the article to the other articles: and, taken from Siege of Leningrad article and it's talk page. I think you have better experience about what to consider about these edits, and how to react properly. --Whiskey (talk) 07:05, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

After a month quiet time, the anonymous editors are back in the article with the same agenda. And their responsiveness to any kind of argumentation seems non-existent.:-( --Whiskey (talk) 23:47, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

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

WikiCup Newsletter

 * 23:03, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

GA nomination for [[JAPANESE BATTLESHIP Haruna]]
Hello. I've reviewed the article JAPANESE BATTLESHIP Haruna for its nomination for Good Article status. I have some concerns about prose, referencing, and image copyright along with some other lesser concerns, so I am placing the article on hold for seven days. My complete review may be found here. If you have any questions about the review or individual issues I have raised, please note them on the review page (which is on my watchlist) and I will answer them there. When you have addressed the issues I have mentioned, I will be happy to reevaluate the nomination. Thanks, and good editing. — Bellhalla (talk) 05:52, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Question mark.
? Scroll down 3 inches. What is going on? — Ed 17  (Talk /  Contribs)  05:31, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * When you say "in keeping with Japanese doctrine", what does that mean? — Ed 17  (Talk /  Contribs)  05:52, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It's fixed now, I guess....purge the page if you are still seeing it. There's a section on WP:AN about it...
 * Can you put that into the article for the un-initiated? :) — Ed 17  (Talk /  Contribs)  05:57, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey Cam. If you want to get Yamato-class battleship to FA, this will probably be invaluable to you. :) — Ed 17  (Talk /  Contribs)  09:49, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Whoo, another message for you. :) Did you want me to write the "Naval war" section of WWI for you (lessen your workload a bit)? — Ed 17  (Talk /  Contribs)  07:47, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Replied on my talk page. — Ed 17  (Talk /  Contribs)  07:59, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Your block of User talk:842U
Hey, User talk:842U is requesting an unblock. Looking through the history of his talk page, I can see no block notice, nor anywhere where you listed diffs of his disruptive behavior. If you could perhaps leave a comment at his talk page so that I may respond intelligently to his unblock request. Since there is no information from you, I have no idea what sorts of "disruptive editing" we are talking about. A short description of the problem, along with a few diffs to back it up, would be most helpful. Thank you. --Jayron32. talk . contribs 23:45, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Yamato
Hi! Climie.ca. Previously, you deleted contents. Then, I moved contents from Yamato class battleship what is same one you deleted.  But other user deleted the contents, because of your deletion. I think Yamato (film) and Space Battleship Yamato suitable here. Because they are more relevant to Japanese battleship Yamato than Yamato class battleship. What do you think?--Bukubku (talk) 13:16, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Is there any objection? I would recover the contents.--Bukubku (talk) 12:23, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Bukubku, if I were you I'd add links to those articles to the 'see also' section of either the class article or the ship article, but wouldn't restore those sections. The Land (talk) 12:37, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you, The Land! I did so.--Bukubku (talk) 12:49, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Japanese battleship Haruna
Shubinator (talk) 19:06, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * LOL three battleships on the main page AGAIN? :D — Ed 17  (Talk /  Contribs)  19:08, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

My Sandbox
Hey Cam. If you have a moment, could you take a look at my sandbox, here? I'm building an article on 1st Para Brigade in North Africa to bridge the gap between my articles on the early Brit operations, and the larger ones from Sicily onwards. I'm having two problems - well three, the other is images but not much I can do there, bugger all pics to use - firstly is the title okay? And secondly, is the section on Beja sufficiently summarized? Any commernts you could give would be a great help, cheers. Skinny87 (talk) 20:32, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

WikiCup Newsletter

 * 21:44, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Triangle Hill
Hi Climie

Can you help with Battle of Triangle Hill? It needs some copyediting for naturalisation, style and elegance. Thanks a lot. Greetings Wandalstouring (talk) 10:13, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No, it's not urgent. Take your time. Greetings Wandalstouring (talk) 08:48, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Editor review
Hello, you currently have an Editor review request listed on the main page, although it has failed to gain comments, are you still interested in having it open, if so or if not please acknowledge me of that to make a proper archival of the nomination. Thanks.-- TRU  CO   22:37, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay. Done. Sorry you were unable to gain comments, the process has gone through a "great depression" of editors. Feel free in the future to nominate another request if you like, maybe by then more reviewers will be available.-- TRU  CO   23:25, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

RE: scoring error
Fixed - you didn't include the topic article as an article in the topic, merely the topic name. Looksee. :D  GARDEN  23:08, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Battleship Yamato
It is very well documented that the Yaamato and its fleet was turned back by Taffy 3 and aircraft from the other taffys, and that they were seriously mismatched. The account in the article makes it appear that the Yamato was victorious in hitting other ships. The rangekeeper article shows that japanese fire control was ineffective against targets which steered towards splashes, and the combat record shows no hits at long ranges - all of the hits were when they were close enough to the carriers to fall within the 10 mile range of 5 in batteries. Bottom line, Yamato in its only major surface action was effectively beaten by destroyers and destroyer escorts, but there is no hint of that in the article. What specfically do you dispute before I go back and restore the edits? Surely you are familiar with Hornfischer's account and BOSAMAR websites which document the events. The version there appears to whitewash the dissappointing performance of the Yamato. Bachcell (talk) 14:51, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You should be aware of what is happening with this article. I've just reverted a large restoration of material that was unreferenced from earlier in the article's gestation. I'd recommend taking a look at all of the edits of to the article very closely since he seems to be set on making drastic changes to it. Also see this: User_talk:Bachcell -MBK004 20:39, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

WikiCup Newsletter

 * 17:49, 1 March 2009 (UTC) The  Helpful  Bot  17:49, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

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

Thanks
Thank You so much for the information and the compliment! Have a Great Day! Lord R. Oliver I His Lordship's Court 01:49, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey Cam I'm sorry but could you help me? I'm trying to use the Lupin/Anti-vandal tool but I don't think I am doing what the instructions are saying. On User:Lordoliver/monobook.js I am trying to upload the tool but it isn't working. Lord R. Oliver I His Lordship's Court 02:04, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Try the instructions at WP:BYC? — Ed 17  (Talk /  Contribs)  02:11, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you so much! I will do my best not to misuse or take advantage of this! If you see that I am doing something wrong or not reverting the edits in the right way, please alert me and I will immediately correct it. I will go to New admin school/Rollback and User:Kushan I.A.K.J/New Rollbacks School so that I can get a better feel of Rollbacking. Have a Great Day! Lord R. Oliver I His Lordship's Court 03:16, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVI (February 2009)
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:21, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks Again,

Thanks for the rollback rights, and because of that you have set me up for a new goal that I have just set to become an admin, Thanks Again! Have a Great Day! Lord R. Oliver I His Lordship's Court 00:56, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

For you

 * You're welcome. BTW, you forgot to change the 'name' parameters for the other two tabs on the coordinator page to 'Cam', so I went ahead and fixed this for you. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:51, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

[[JAPANESE AIRCRAFT CARRIER Taihō]]
Hey Cam! I'm working on the design section for this ship; would you like to write the "Service" section and co-nom a DYK? (Writing those isn't my favorite ;) As block quotes and infoboxes don't count in the pre-count (only prose), we only need to expand it by about 8,000 bytes to get the DYK (see, though obviously I hope that we expand it a bit more than that. — Ed 17  (Talk /  Contribs)  22:42, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Awesome! Just remember that you have to finish that in the next four-five days so that we can nom it in time :) — Ed 17  (Talk /  Contribs)  23:30, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Answer
Great Answer, I am glad to see some intellectual thought being put into these answers, and it is also good to see that most people are agreeing on this, that they do not want use the C-Class for assessment. Your opinion is greatly appreciated! Have a Great Day! Lord R. T. Oliver  The Olive Branch 00:30, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes I agree, I don't think the C-Class will be necessary for this WikiProject. If the C-Class is to be implemented personally there are going to be many questions answered:
 * How do we decide what is a Start and what is a B-Class article.
 * How are we going to go about reassessing the articles to see if they truly are Start or B-Class articles, or if the are C-Class articles.
 * What happens if later on the members of the WikiProject decide that they don't want to use the C-Class for assessment. (Highly improbable but you never know) Lord R. T. Oliver   The Olive Branch 00:52, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It would be automated; if it fails two or less of the five criterion, it is a C-class article (unless it fails B2, which automatically demotes it to start). Or something like that... — Ed 17  (Talk /  Contribs)  01:04, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the Question
Thanks for the question I think more of those kind of questions need to be asked of the Coordinator nominees, people need to know where everyone stands on important issues like those. Lord R. T. Oliver  The Olive Branch 01:37, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Morotai
Frank Horton Berryman is quite close, but there are some comments unadressed yet. Hoping Cobra will pass next week. Cheers, --Eurocopter (talk) 17:13, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Nominations for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election
The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 13 March! This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:25, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Siege of Leningrad
I'm afraid that I'm not really on top of this one - I don't know the history of the edit war. There does seem to be some IP socking going on though, as several different IPs have been insisting that Britannica is the last word on the battle. Nick-D (talk) 02:19, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

wanna !vote on WT:WIAFA?
wanna !vote on WT:WIAFA? Ling.Nut.Public (talk) 09:07, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Glossary of German military terms
First of all, I'm fairly new so feel free to scold me if I don't follow Wikipedian protocol or whatever. I have come across some kind of a problem and figured I'd get this straightened out before I started editing. My guess is this topic has been discussed before in relation to other pages, so I thought I'd get your opinion on this since you're coordinator of the German military history project (the other coordinator seems to be on WP break). -Gruendlich (talk) 22:15, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Adil your
Hi. Can you take a look at this guy's edits to variuos subcontinental war articles. I don't rate him as anything more than a vandal with the sources he is using, and in any case, he is reverting against a consensus, in my opinion, eg see Khemkaran, and the ridiculous "source" that he is using.  YellowMonkey  ( click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model! ) 03:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. Unfortunately, there are a few of these around and sometimes my blocks get undone by admins who seem to get tricked by them.  YellowMonkey  ( click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model! ) 04:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Triple Crown
Thank you for contributions to the project, Great work, especially on Battle of Verrières Ridge - I see you were successfully able to address quite a few comments during the FAC process. May you wear the crowns well. Cirt (talk) 21:31, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

My Awards
Hey Cam. A few months back you very kindly did some magic to my userpage that made al my awards look smaller and neater in rows. I've added a few more since then, but can't seem to get them looking nice. If you have a spare moment, could you take a look? Skinny87 (talk) 11:35, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Done it, en passant. Good luck at the hustings, guys! &mdash; Roger Davies  talk 12:43, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Good Luck
Good Luck on the Election for Coordinator! I Hope you Make It! Lord R. T. Oliver  The Olive Branch 00:37, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You give me high praise in your vote, my friend; thanks for making me feel all warm and fuzzy inside. :) — Ed 17  (Talk /  Contribs)  05:39, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

C-Class
It seems as if the C-Class issue is about even at the moment I'm not sure what to think, I mean: This should all turn out right (but it is always good when it turns out the way you want it :) At the end one side will be forced to bow to the consensus of the WikiProject while the other side shall watch over. (Hopefully it shall be us watching over :) Have A Great Day! Lord R. T. Oliver  The Olive Branch 04:42, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It is great to see such diversity in the Military History WikiProject.
 * But do we really want to have a C-Class?
 * I am really glad to see that the members are really showing that they care about the future of this WikiProject!
 * But what if this all turns out wrong?

Congrats!
Sorry That I am One Day Late :( Have A Great Day! Lord R. T. Oliver   The Olive Branch 22:17, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * No Problem you Deserve it! Lord R. T. Oliver   The Olive Branch 22:40, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Coordinator
It seems we have our fourth official candidate with 20 or 20+ endorsements, congratulations! Have A Great Day! Lord R. T. Oliver  The Olive Branch 23:17, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

WikiCup Newsletter

 * 16:49, 15 March 2009 (UTC) The  Helpful  Bot  16:49, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Sad fact
You know the really bad thing about this: ? The fact that I was the one to close that review, yet I neglected to do that. -MBK004 05:38, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

A-class review request
Hey Climie, I was wondering if you could review the Spokane, Washington article in an ACR. After you read the article, I believe all you need to do is apply the A-Class criteria to the article and put whether you believe it is worthy of being A-class in the section dealing with the review in the articles Talk page. Also, in addition to doing the assessment, it would be helpful if you could include some points for improvement. If you are up to review it, notify me on my Talk. Thanks! Anon134 (talk) 21:51, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

With Great Pleasure, and Thanks!
You truly deserve it Cam, Great Job and Keep up the Good Work! Have A Great Day! Lord R. T. Oliver  The Olive Branch 00:49, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks Cam! :) — Ed 17  (Talk /  Contribs)  00:52, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks Cam. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:13, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you :) Maralia (talk) 01:46, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I can only echo what has already been said. Plus, I agree with Kirill below. -MBK004 02:23, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Cam! And no, I don't agree with Kirill; our coordinator emeritus should be regularly and liberally festooned with barnstars. &mdash; Roger Davies  talk 09:10, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: With Thanks
Thank you very much for the barnstar! :-)

(Although I'm not sure if Coordinators Emeriti should be awarded them as a routine matter, given that the position is both permanent and, in theory, honorary to begin with.) Kirill [pf] 02:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you as well Cam, and congratulations on being reelected - it's very well deserved. Nick-D (talk) 06:52, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Enigma1990 said this might interest you: 'Montgomery's Scientists: Operational Research in Northwest Europe: Operational Research in Northwest Europe - The Work of No. 2 Operational Research Section with 21 Amy Group June 1944 to July 1945'. PP 71-78 cover the analysis of the strategic bombers' effect on Charnwood, pp 99-106 a summary of the effect of such bombing 'in support of the army'.Keith-264 (talk) 10:02, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your Barnstars Cam, I'm very pleased to hear that! Hoping to continue the good work together as long as possible! -Eurocopter (talk) 13:07, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

http://www.angelfire.com/scary/richi/charnwood/2.pdf may help.Keith-264 (talk) 07:54, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election
The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. We will be selecting coordinators from a pool of eighteen to serve for the next six months. Please vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on Saturday, 28 March! Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:28, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Capture of Fort Ticonderoga
You were kind enough to comment on the MILHIST A review of Capture of Fort Ticonderoga. I'd appreciate your comments in the FA nomination as well. Thanks!  Magic ♪piano 23:25, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Congrats!
Congrats on your re-election as a Coordinator of the Military history Wikiproject! In keeping with the tradition of the project and in honor of your achievement, I present you with these stars. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:49, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I am honored that I was elected to my new position of assistant coordinator, and look forward to working with you for the next six months. Lord Oliver   The Olive Branch 01:27, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you!
Thank you very much for your support for me in the Military History coordinator elections. I am honored that I was elected to my new position of assistant coordinator, and look forward to working with you for the next six months. – Joe   N  01:19, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you
P.S. And, yes, I did shameless pilfer this idea from you from the last election. ;-) Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:45, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Lol! Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 05:31, 29 March 2009 (UTC)