User talk:Kablammo/Archive 14

Andrew U. D. Straw
Hi Kablammo. There's a false claim on the Andrew U. D. Straw page that he is a National Merit Scholar. There is no record of him in the National Merit Scholar database. WP:SPA Hindtoad inserted Straw into the Scholar list on the National Merit wiki page, but I've undone his edit. Cptmrmcmillan (talk) 17:43, 18 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Andrew Straw is a National Merit Scholar and I am obtaining independent proof of this directly from National Merit Scholarship Corp. There is no online database that contains all of the Scholars.  To say otherwise is false.  I provided a copy of his scholarship from C-Thru Ruler, since his scholarship was corporate in 1987.  Would appreciate if you would not undo my edits unless you know what you're talking about.  Hindtoad (talk) 06:37, 28 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Hindtoad's "proof" letter is of a scholarship open to all employees and employee relatives of National Office Products Association member companies, no mention of National Merit. A little additional searching finds that Straw's law license has been suspended. Finding of misconduct - Indiana Supreme Court I've added this to the Andrew U. D. Straw page. In light of this info, I'd say that page is a good candidate for deletion. Outside my area of competence, though. Cptmrmcmillan (talk) 08:01, 1 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't know the correct solution here. The author accuses me of enlisting support, yet I have not interacted with any of the contributors to the article.  And his litigation history is checkered, to say the least. Were I Mr. Straw I would want the article deleted.  I will propose it for deletion and we'll see if there is any objection.  Kablammo (talk) 16:36, 1 June 2017 (UTC)


 * , when I use the directions to nominate the article the template spits out the 2005 nomination, so I'm stymied at the moment. I will have to research it further.  Kablammo (talk) 16:51, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Talk: James Joyce etc
Was wondering about some of your recent edits... why did you delete a May 2017 notice from this talk page archive and why you are deleting similar notices from other talkpages as well? Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 16:17, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I delete the notices once I have checked the archive link to see if the link is good.  There's no purpose served by the notice once we have made sure that the bot did its job.  I would not delete notices from an editor.  Kablammo (talk) 18:28, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok @ not deleting editors' notices/posts but what about the archiving box message "Do not edit the contents of this page"?... I've just never seen an editor go in and strip out Bot notices before so am curious about the why etc. Shearonink (talk) 19:04, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Your draft
I've moved it here. Thanks for working on it. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:34, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * , I believe that the "Aftermath" section is now adequately sourced. I will continue to review my sources for use in the rest of the article.  I also need to integrate recent edits to the Aftermath section into my draft. Once that is done I will substitute my draft for the present text.  If you have any further requests on the article (whether yours or from others) please let me know. Regards, Kablammo (talk) 01:27, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Battle of the Santa Cruz Islands
Hi Kablammo, I saw you recently made an edit to the Santa Cruz page. I recently corrected a few things that I believe you may have inadvertently overwritten in your edit. The first is the quote from Nagumo, cited from Tameichi Hara's Japanese Destroyer Captain. The book does not say this was said in a report to Combined Fleet Headquarters, but privately to Hara when Hara visited him after he was reassigned to Sasebo. The quote from the book is:


 * "Just between us, Hara, this battle was a tactical win, but a shattering strategic loss for Japan. As you know, I made a special study of America's war potential during my stay in the States. Considering the great superiority of :our enemy's industrial capacity, we must win every battle overwhelmingly. This last one, unfortunately, was not an overwhelming victory."

The other inaccuracy is the statement that: "Although the Battle of Santa Cruz was a tactical victory for the Japanese in terms of ships sunk, it came at a high cost for their naval forces, which had no active aircraft carriers left to challenge Enterprise or Henderson Field for the remainder of the Guadalcanal campaign." This is incorrect as Junyo continued to participate in the campaign and planes from Junyo provided air cover for ships against air attacks from both Henderson and Enterprise during the pivotal Naval Battle of Guadalcanal. I had previously removed the last part of this sentence in order to make the statement factual.

I would like to remake these corrections to the article if there is no objection.

Regards, (talk) 05:18, 14 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Hello . I took on the task of reworking the last section in response to a request to help prepare it for the main page.  I worked in a a sandbox and you made changes in the meantime. I tried to incorporate your edits but apparently I was not entirely successful.


 * Feel free to edit the article. I cannot edit it much for the next ten days but will check in with you when I return.  Kablammo (talk) 17:08, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

, please look at my recent changes. Feel free to edit them, and to make or suggest any other changes to the article. Regards, Kablammo (talk) 20:11, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Sorry
Sorry I've been uncommunicative. Please see my user talk. , please can you help Kablammo? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:25, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * After we finish getting two new coords on board, a post at WT:TFA will work. - Dank (push to talk) 12:40, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you and.

A brief chronology: Kablammo (talk) 13:39, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * This 2006 featured article has not appeared on the main page.
 * Last month Dweller posted a notice to the talk page of its author,, concerning this article, with an apparent aim to improve it as TFA. User_talk:Cla68; see User:Dweller/Featured Articles that haven't been on Main Page, asking for a "World War II expert" who could help.
 * While I don't claim expertise, and neither my knowledge nor my library are equal to those of Cla68, I have some resources, and have in the past assisted in editing articles in this topic area. Featured topic candidates/Guadalcanal Campaign.
 * I responded to the request, and set about editing the article, especially the last section, where some more citations were needed.
 * My work is substantially finished, and I believe it is ready for the Main Page, perhaps October 27, the 75th anniversary of the final day of the battle.
 * Jim is finishing up the scheduling through October. Note that October 26 has already been scheduled, which means that Jim may have done most of the work to schedule the 27th already with a different article; you may be too late, I don't know. Thanks for working on this, I'm sure they'll want to run it sometime. - Dank (push to talk) 13:41, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks Dank.
 * , I worked on this article as an accommodation to Dweller and the project, and the date of October 27 would be a good day for TFA. I would be happy to write the text for the main page, and will continue to do any needed citation work and other gnomery.  Thanks.  Kablammo (talk) 13:49, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * ,, I've not done 27 yet, but, subject to checking, I can run this and do Paul Palaiologos Tagaris in January if it's not been used, so the blurb won't be wasted. I think I've already said that I'll rerun WP:TFAR Panic of 1907 on 29 instead of Mike's choice, but I've commented at TFAR that there are two dead links in the article, so if Gerda doesn't/can't fix them, I'll run PPT then Jimfbleak - talk to me?  14:12, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Guadalcanal_Campaign
I've run the link checker, result, and there is a problem with the USMC History Division link; Firefox also refuses to connect to an insecure website ''The owner of www.usmcu.edu has configured their web site improperly. To protect your information from being stolen, Firefox has not connected to this web site''. Can you fix or replace the link, or remove the claimed facts asap please? As you are aware, this is next on my list to be scheduled, so it really needs to be fixed in the next couple of days Jimfbleak - talk to me?  05:54, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Pinging, since it's in his area of interest too. Dan, are you happy to do the blurb, assuming the problem here is fixed? Jimfbleak - talk to me?  05:58, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * , that source is used on Guadalcanal Campaign, but not on this article. Is that an issue here?  ( will look for another source for the campaign article.)  Kablammo (talk) 10:42, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * My error, i was checking the wrong article 12:12, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure Jim, and it looks like Kablammo has done a blurb in the next section. - Dank (push to talk) 13:02, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Blurb
Suggested wording (links to be added):
 * The Battle of the Santa Cruz Islands, fought in October 1942, was the fourth carrier battle fought between the navies of the United States and the Japan in the Pacific campaign of World War II. It was part of the Guadalcanal campaign, where the Allies sought to parry and reverse Japanese advances in the Southwest Pacific. In an attempt to drive Allied forces from Guadalcanal and nearby islands and end the stalemate there, the Japanese Army planned a ground offensive on Guadalcanal for 20–25 October. In support, Japanese carriers and other large warships moved into a position near the southern Solomon Islands, where they hoped to engage and defeat any Allied naval forces which responded to the ground offensive. Allied naval forces also hoped to meet the Japanese naval forces in battle, with the same objectives of breaking the stalemate and decisively defeating their adversary.  The Japanese ground offensive on Guadalcanal was under way when the naval warships and aircraft from the two adversaries confronted each other on the morning of 26 October 1942, just north of the Santa Cruz Islands . ..

Battle of the Santa Cruz Islands scheduled for TFA
This is to let you know that the Battle of the Santa Cruz Islands article has been scheduled as today's featured article for October 27, 2017. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Today's featured article/October 27, 2017, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1100 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so. Thanks!

I've used your blurb, please check and note that Dan may tweak it anyway Jimfbleak - talk to me?  13:04, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

A Dobos torte for you!

 * Damn, man, that looks good! I never knew such a thing existed. Now I'll have to go on a quest until I find one!  Kablammo (talk) 17:26, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Shipwreck location in title section
I just saw your edit removing the title command from the location template for Shinano. AFAIK, all extant shipwrecks are supposed to have their location in the title. Has something changed that I'm not aware of?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:07, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi -- I'm not aware of any policy; I take it from your question that there is one. I had in mind the way coordinates were handled for RMS Queen Elizabeth which lists coordinates where remnants of the wreck lie (or used to lie) in the text, but not at the top. See (this diff.)  I don't have any strong feelings about the matter.  Regards, Kablammo (talk) 19:50, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that it's a formal policy, but it's there for most of the warship wrecks like HMS Prince of Wales (53) that I'm familiar with.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:34, 11 December 2017 (UTC)