User talk:MBK004/Archive 6



FLC
There are more comments on your FLC. I'll go fix them for you.  — Rlevse • Talk  • 23:48, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'm currently writing an ethics paper. (Just took a break to check my watchlist) -MBK004 02:03, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Addicted much? ;-) — Ed 17  (Talk /  Contribs)  02:36, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Featured list candidates/List of United States Military Academy alumni (astronauts)/archive1
I supported the above FLC. Also, I added Rlevse to the nominator line because he is the top contributor to the article. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:47, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * If you look, I contributed the vast majority of the full content. The reason he has more edits to the page is because he has dealt with more of the issues brought up at FLC than I because of real life time constraints. -MBK004 04:15, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * True, but that in itself is a valuable contribution; considering how tumultuous the FLC was earlier, it could have very easily failed had he not kept tabs on it. Anyway, feel free to remove his name if you wish. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:20, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I have removed his name. He will be recognized by me once the FLC is complete, plus even he considers the list "mine" as much as can be within the constraints of WP:OWN. I am especially aware of how tumultuous the FLC was early on, and the unexpected real-life time constraints with my school work which came literally hours after initiating the FLC had me seriously thinking about withdrawing it until I would be able to satisfactorily spend enough time on-wiki to address the concerns. -MBK004 04:23, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, no problem. Sorry for adding his name without consulting you, that was an oversight on my part. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:26, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVII (March 2009)
The March 2009 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) 03:12, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Quite the fan
Quite the fan I have with, huh? At least he is a lot more entertaining than the other prolific sockmasters I have dealt with! — Kralizec! (talk) 16:09, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

List of Houston neighborhoods
Please review and participate in the discussion to determine if/how Houston neighborhood articles should be merged/redirected to List of Houston neighborhoods. Thanks, Postoak (talk) 21:46, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Congrats on FL
Congrats on the USMA astronaut FL, outstanding job!!!! 19:05, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Soyuz-2_(rocket)
What's up with my edits? Reverting? Just like that? All of them? Do you know how much time I spent combining this info from different sources? This is not one sentence you reverted, but several evenings of work. If you don't believe in reliability of the info, just put [citation needed], and I will provide a link. I made it more readable, clean and true to facts. Info is taken mostly from official RosKosmos papers. Mikus (talk) 22:40, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/MZMcBride
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above.


 * resigned his status as an administrator on April 6, 2009, while the above arbitration case was pending. Should MZMcBride request restoration of adminship privileges, he will be required to submit a request for adminship or approval of the Committee.
 * MZMcBride is directed to consult with and obtain approval from the Bot Approvals Group before using any bot to edit Wikipedia and particularly before using any bot to undertake administrator actions.
 * MZMcBride and those working with him are commended for developing an innovative method to identify articles with potential BLP issues, but are strongly urged to consult and carefully consider whether the current location and nature of the listing of the output of the script represents the most appropriate means of addressing the issues raised.
 * MZMcBride is directed to create user accounts distinct from his own, clearly identified as bots and clearly associated to his primary account, from which to execute any automated or semi automated task that can make edits or administrative actions.
 * MZMcBride is restricted from making edits or actions from his primary account that are either (a) automated, or (b) at a rate higher than twelve actions per minute. Edits or actions made from authorized bot accounts are not so restricted.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Tiptoety  talk 23:56, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Discuss this

Battle of Coral Sea
Please read my edits, I was not disrupting or removing any of Cla68's work. More talk is on the article webpage. GoldDragon (talk) 01:20, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Just added it to the talk page. No hard feelings, I'll keep the edit summaries in mind next time. GoldDragon (talk) 01:38, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

When a FA is delisted
I've noticed that the SS Andrea Doria article has been delisted and been regraded as C class. I'm not questioning whether delisting or your regrading was correct. What I do wish to ask is this:-

When a FA class article is demoted, why does it have to drop right back to the Stub/Start/C/B system. I'm sure that many FAs which get demoted are at least of GA class. They will have had a lot of work put into them to get them to FA class in the first place and it seems that this is not recognised when an article is delisted.

I realise that this is something which probably needs discussion in the wider community, but I'm not sure where to bring it up. If you have any ideas please feel free to copy this over at the relevant place. Mjroots (talk) 06:16, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Raised at WT:FA Mjroots (talk) 05:17, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Rollback
Much appreciated, that will come in very handy!--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:15, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Crisis
An unexpected development on Wikipedia that concerns us has been brought to our attention by Moonriddengirl. Please follow this link for more information. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:35, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

ACM and rollback
Hi MBK. I had a feeling that I was going to be awarded the standard ACM instead of the ACM w/oakleaves; thanks for fixing that. Also, thank you very much for granting me the rollback feature, I'm sure it will come in handy. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:30, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

In search of help
Hello. As a MilHist coordinator and fellow administrator, I was wondering if you could help me with something. While working on a GA review, another editor contacted me with questions regarding an image upload I made long ago. While looking into the issue, I discovered a mistake I made in 2005. If you could don your MilHistCoord and Admin hats and offer some suggestions for how I can best fix my mistakes, I would be eternally grateful. While the obvious answer (liberal use of the 'delete' button) is the easiest solution, I would prefer some way that causes minimal disruption and still allows us to retain some visual aspect of these ships that were indispensable in their day, but now are largely forgotten in the tides of history. Thanks, — Kralizec! (talk) 22:03, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Endeavour pages
Wow, that was fast. Thank you for cleaning up after my HMS Endeavour page move. I'd barely completed the actual move when you were there doing the machinery edits behind it. The move was a little bold, as there hasn't been that much discussion first, but I think (hope) it will be uncontroversial. Thanks again for doing the tidying up for it. Euryalus (talk) 05:00, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Newsletter
Thanks for the reminder. I'm still fiddling with the review stuff and will be adding bits over the next week or so. I'll write something comprehensive for the newsletter just before it goes out (at the end of the month). Roger Davies talk 06:38, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I've not forgotten and will be adding something on Sunday, along with the other final tweaks before the newsletter goes out on Monday/Tuesday. I hope all is well and your exams aren't too horrific :)  Roger Davies  talk 05:21, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Sock tags
Sock tags go on user page (wipe out whatever they have there), not on talk page. Note the tag I used too.  — Rlevse • Talk  • 20:51, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Admin move request
Hey, MBK, can you move USAT General Frank M. Coxe (ship) to USAT General Frank M. Coxe (apparently a redirect with history)? I figure that since USAT is a ship prefix, there's no need to further disambiguate. Many thanks. — Bellhalla (talk) 23:17, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ -MBK004 23:45, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Alright, your next task, should you choose to accept it: A cut and paste move of USS Poinsett (AK–205) to USS Poinsett (AK-205) on 10 September 2008. The only edits to the former after the C&P move seem to be the addition of an orphan tag and the Sambot run adding . — Bellhalla (talk) 17:50, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the challenge. Cut-and-paste repairs are not my specialty, and thus I try to stay clear of them. Perhaps or  can help you, I've directed their attention to a few (but I forget who). I would tage it with Db-histmerge but this isn't a clean history merge because of the conflicting page history since the proper page was actually created before the final factual edit to the older page. -MBK004 23:35, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll take a look at it, should be no problem :) Parsecboy (talk) 23:38, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Barometer Discussion
Just FYI, I love your use of the term "Plaxico'd", I hope you don't mind if I steal it for my everyday use. ;-) (Morethan3words (talk) 03:09, 15 April 2009 (UTC))

unferenced tags
I saw the unreferenced tags added to List of submarine classes of the United States Navy, etc. Since these are list articles, does it really makes sense to have references on them? Wouldn't it be more appropriate, and less duplication of effort, to make sure that the articles for the lists' items are properly referenced? Just my 2c. &mdash; MrDolomite • Talk 05:47, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

citations on Jeffrey Hoffman
I don't know why you reinstated the header saying that the article on Hoffman lacks citations. I carefully reviewed the guidelines on citations, and it seems clear that this entry meets those guidelines. I'm not clear on what you think is missing.Davidlchandler (talk) 02:13, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Quick work
That was quick work adding the FAC on the Take Ichi convoy to WikiProject Military history/Review two minutes after I nominated the article! Nick-D (talk) 02:28, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Did you know you can watchlist redlinks? -MBK004 02:29, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No I didn't; that's interesting to know. Nick-D (talk) 02:34, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Added citations to Jeffrey Hoffman entry
As per your comments on my previouys edits, I have now gone through the article on Jeffrey A. Hoffman and added footnotes throughout. I also marked one pre-existing statement as "source needed", since I am unable to find a reference for that particular claim. (Perhaps that sentence should nbe removed). I believe the lack of citations has now been remedied, and the "citations needed" tag at the top can now be removed. I also added (properly sourced) material to the introduction, and I believe the "too short" tag can now also be removed. As for you comment that I may have a conflict of interest, I have carefully reviewed the Wikipedia COI guidelines, and I believe there is no conflict. The material I have added is simple, factual, uncontroversial and useful information. Davidlchandler (talk) 22:35, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
Hi MBK004, just want to say thanks for your support here. - Fastily (talk) 01:31, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I was in the process of editing the USS Maine article. But thank you ever so much for deleting it as I was certainly in error. You will, of course, find the citation there now. Thank you, most sincerely, for your attention to this matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crushthe (talk • contribs) 01:59, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Oriskany Pics
Hi and thanks for adding one of my underwater pics to the main Oriskany page. I am glad to see them getting used. But I think there are much better ones available. I am not an expert in Wiki stuff so maybe you can help. I uploaded 63 pics to the Commons with the category Category:Oriskany (CV-34); somebody mass-changed them to Category:Oriskany (aircraft carrier). If you go in the Commons you will see all 63 pics. The one you chose, the lighting was not that great and I reshot it later. So take a look at the others 42,48,49 in particular I think are better. I really think the original category is better for all these pics as they do not show up when you hit the link on the Oriskany page. What do you think? I don't know how to switch back the category of 63 pictures. Thanks for your time  Jetlife2 (talk) 18:23, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

an image problem
hi,

i would like to include a non comercial use image in the article ITER but i don't know how to upload it or even if such an image is alowed on wikipedia.

the image is part of the ITER newslwtter here: http://www.iter.org/newsline/issues/65/ITERnewsline.htm this is the image: http://www.iter.org/newsline/issues/65/site_snow_orig.jpg

please help me out, tnx U5K0 (talk) 12:51, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVIII (April 2009)
The April 2009 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) 23:41, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

GA Sweeps invitation
Hello, I hope you are doing well. I am sending you this message since you are a member of the GA WikiProject. I would like to invite you to consider helping with the GA sweeps process. Sweeps helps to ensure that the oldest GAs still meet the criteria, and improve the quality of GAs overall. Unfortunately, last month only two articles were reviewed. This is definitely a low point after our peak at the beginning of the process when 163 articles were reviewed in September 2007. After nearly two years, the running total has just passed the 50% mark. In order to expediate the reviewing, several changes have been made to the process. A new worklist has been created, detailing which articles are left to review. All exempt and previously reviewed articles have already been removed from the list. Instead of reviewing by topic, you can consider picking and choosing whichever articles interest you.

We are always looking for new members to assist with the remaining articles, so if you are interested or know of anybody that can assist, please visit the GA sweeps page. In addition, for every member that reviews 100 articles or has a significant impact on the process, s/he will get an award when they reach that threshold. If only 14 editors achieve this feat starting now, we would be done with Sweeps! Of course, having more people reviewing less articles would be better for all involved, so please consider asking others to help out. Feel free to stop by and only review a few articles, something's better than nothing! Take a look at the list, and see what articles interest you. Let's work to complete Sweeps so that efforts can be fully focused on the backlog at GAN. If you have any questions about the process, reviewing, or need help with a particular article, please contact me or OhanaUnited and we'll be happy to help. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 08:30, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Improper redirects
Hey, MBK! I hope your exams are going well. I have a question for you: the redirects DuPage and USS DuPage (APB-51) both point to the the index page USS DuPage. Given that DuPage (APB-51) was formerly the liberty ship SS John W. Weeks—a redlink at this time, and likely notable enough for a separate article—what is the best way to handle the redirects right now? Should they be deleted, do you think? — Bellhalla (talk) 13:02, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, I was wondering the same thing about HNLMS Java&mdash;it redirects to Java-class cruiser. Would a redlink be preferable to a redirect in this case or not? — Ed 17  (Talk /  Contribs)  20:42, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't set one up that way, Ed, I wouldn't change it, either. I can see a bit of logic behind it, since presumably there might be a bit of information on that ship in that article. For DuPage, if one looks only at DANFS (since it's one line), I can even see the logic of why the redirects go to the index page. — Bellhalla (talk) 21:36, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

We've Moved!
Our Iowa-class battleship working has been moved to WikiProject Military history/Maritime warfare task force/Iowa class battleship. Thought you might like to know :) TomStar81 (Talk) 04:39, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XXXIX (May 2009)
The May 2009 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) 03:21, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Welcome back!
Glad to see you've managed to return under your primary account name. You picked a good time to return as well, given that so many of us are either off on vacations or getting back into school. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:06, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Spaceflight crew
Starting a discussion about  Template:Spaceflight crew regarding its aesthetics and whether it's an improvement on the text listing we had before. Please join in. Rillian (talk) 22:36, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

 * Out of curiosity, would be interested in becoming an 'adviser' such as it were for the op? You, Ed, and Climie.ca have been a part of this longer than anyone else I can think of, and I could use a few extra people to keep tabs on and aid any newcomers to the op as we go along. If you decide you would like to assist in that capacity I would be happy to name you one of the people to whom others may addressed questions or ask for help from. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:38, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That works. I just need to be sure that editors will have more than one person to turn to for help should they need it, and its always better to ask than to assume, assumptions have been known to backfire pretty spectacularly. TomStar81 (Talk) 13:54, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

BB35 article to DANFS match
I will be changing again the BB35 article so content that cites DANFS matches the content in DANFS. IronShip (talk) 05:49, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * See also commons:Special:Contributions/IronShip — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  06:44, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the revert!
Thanks ! — Kralizec! (talk) 03:46, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
Also, please could you take a look at the GOES list, and see if it looks any better.  G W … 09:38, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Need your help
Hi MBK004, hope you could help out with a small issue I'm having. I've archived Talk:NorthPark Center several weeks ago (the last discussion was in February, 2009). Another user who I've had some issues with continues to revert the talk archive. User:DesGarçon and I had a disagreement about the article sources and content and I feel this is why this person continues the incivil behavior (please check out the talk archive which contain several attacks against me, as well as this person's user page history). I hope you could intervene in some way. Thanks, Postoak (talk) 21:16, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much, if it happens again, I will take to WP:ANI and keep you informed. I appreciate your assistance, Thanks 22:09, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I need to quote you on this part. You said "edits to your own user and user talk pages are in violation of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA".  But it's okay for Postoak to delete the talk page at Talk:NorthPark Center?  In case you don't know he did delete the talk page but only put it on the archive folder after I reverted his action.  I think you need to take reading classes.  DesGarçon (talk) 03:05, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The talk page was originally archived here, never deleted: . The text was moved immediately after the archive was created: . The archive is located at Talk:NorthPark Center/Archive 1. Postoak (talk) 03:17, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You seem to be only contacting people located in Houston. Why is that?  So they can stand on your side? DesGarçon (talk) 04:25, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You really should take the advice left on your talk page. End of discussion. Postoak (talk) 04:46, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You know MBK004 and Postoak, do you think I really care if you block my account? No I don't.  I have access to more than one computers and I have more than one emails.  So to scare me by saying that you can block me doesn't work.  I can't believe I even wasted my time here arguing with the two of you geeks.  MBK004 maybe when you wrote "I am a college student who is thought by many to have no life at all" on your profile, it is true after all.  When people ask what you do for a living and your response is "Oh I'm a sycop.  I edit wikipedia pages."  Is that even a real job?  I won't be proud putting that job title on my resumé.  Also the car that you currently owned suits your profile better than the Aston Martin V8 Vantage.  Your centuries-old 1999 Oldsmobile Aurora fits for a geek like you.  Sitting on your arse all day editing pages would give you a beer belly and no way you would look good in an Aston Martin.  Promise.  And Postoak you did delete the talk page before you put it in archive folder.  I also know you have a sockpuppet account of User:RJN.  My advice for you two is: get a real job and stop being a hypocrite.

WikiProject LGBT studies Newsletter (June 2009)

 * Please note the latest issue of the above-noted newsletter may be viewed here.
 * Newsletter delivery by xenobot  18:31, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't sure where to put this. I see very few citations on the 2009 in spaceflight page, which is why I wasn't citing. Where do I cite? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Egloskerry (talk • contribs) 00:24, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

User:GW Simulations/MLE‎‎
Thanks for adding those crews, I hadn't got round to it. If you ever want to make any other changes to pages that I am drafting in my userspace, then that is fine. -- G W … 11:24, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Images at Houston
Hello MBK004, an editor recently changed several images on the Houston article. I checked a few out a noticed that many did not have proper copyright notation and are scheduled to be deleted today, so I reverted all changes back to the origal images. One image that this editor states is in the PD is actually found at the George Bush Intercontinental Airport attributed to another user - please see Talk:Houston if you get a chance. Not too sure how to handle, could you check into this? Sorry to keep you so busy :) Thanks for your help, Postoak (talk) 21:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

mesoso2
I have gotten to the same destination as you, for the same reasons, but via a different & independent path.

How can I help? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 06:52, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Cold War Task Force
I have added your name to the task force as a TF coordinator. Thanks for volunteering for this assignment. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:31, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Neil Armstrong GAR notice
Neil Armstrong has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:58, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey...
Okay, a couple of pieces of advice: first, check the history of the battleship pages... those headers were there long before I came along, so don't accuse me of something I didn't do; second, if you guys have a problem with what I do, talk to me about it, please... I am trying to be reasonable, but when people go behind my back instead of confronting me about something, it's hard to take them seriously; third, the article also catalogues things aside from a service history, which means the service history is not the whole page... having said that, I find it difficult to believe this was never a problem before now, and anything that should have been said long ago is not fault of mine... Magus732 (talk) 02:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * And another thing, dude... what about the cruiser, destroyer, and auxillary ship pages? Most of them were set up the same way that I tried to set up the battleship pages... Magus732 (talk) 03:55, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: Missouri
Looks ok to me; admittedly there is more detail there now than previously, but the idea of the material is still intact and thats what counts insofar as the source is concerned. Good catch though, I commend you for catching that. TomStar81 (Talk &bull; Some say ¥€$, I say NO) 04:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

FAOL templates
Hi, I removed those from the talk page because I'm going through all of them and trying to convert them to the new Expand language system. (Those tags I put on the article itself to draw more attention but if you mind they could go on the talk page instead.) It's not necessary to have both because the Expand German tag categorizes it into Category:Featured articles needing translation from German Wikipedia, and interested editors can find it there. It's not necessary to have a talk page tag simply to indicate the existence of a foreign-language FA - that's what the little star template for the interwiki list is for. Can I go ahead and reremove the FAOL templates? Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:25, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * There hasn't really been a discussion/consensus because there's basically no one active in translation at all. I have gotten far more positive than negative feedback on my talkpage though, and I'm getting much of the way going through them all.... I did a major overhaul of the translation system and am trying to get everything totally consolidated. This way the FAOL thing is run just like all the other translation requests, but with an fa=yes parameter in case people want to prioritize FAs. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:36, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XL (June 2009)
The June 2009 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) 23:16, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
 G W … 17:07, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

USS Washington
Hi, MBK. In working on Colorado-class battleship, Tom copied over the short article from the Washington article. Way back in Jan. 08, you added a source to the ship article, but it's missing a page number. I was thinking the refs in the Colorado class article should be standardized, but I need the page number from the one ref. Do you happen to remember what page it was? Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 22:37, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

No heading
Hi MBK

Saw your note. Text was deleted in error while trying to correct a reference in the first paragraphs. I'll try again more carefully this time.Voila-pourquoi (talk) 00:10, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Final note on USS Galveston
It’s taken forty one years for DANSF to complete the last two years history of a ship with a total twelve year history. I’m not encouraged that the history will be completed in my lifetime. So the article will stand at, “She departed San Diego for the East Coast and duty with the Atlantic Fleet performing duties in the Mediterranean.”

Wiki’s goals for verifiability and NPOV, although laudable, I believe are  being too rigorously  applied given the uncontentious nature of my edits. I know you stated (adding for obvious reasons) that a ship’s Cruise Books, failed the NPOV test. But I read the policy --- “It means citing verifiable, authoritive sources, whenever possible, especially on controversial subjects.” I don’t see where this policy was abused in my post --- The ship went on a cruise … a record of the cruise was prepared by crew under the supervision of  the ships Captain…  the ship visited ports x, y, and z.  None of this could be considered controversial. And with the only other source cited in the current article obviously incomplete -- Galveston didn’t sail off to the Med never to be heard from again -- I don’t see why the cruise book can’t be considered the best authoritive source possible. But they are your rules, so I yield to your expertise.

I hope we both understand that what we have is the classic conflict of form over content. I have the content, but it doesn’t meet your requirements of form. So be it.

One thing I’m sure we can agree on is that volunteer work shouldn’t be so difficult. Thanks for your efforts, and I wish you luck in your endevors.

Brank (talk) 00:07, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Apollo 10 ... was the second manned space mission to contain a veteran crew.
Feel free to remove it, but please don't call it mine. I changed it from saying Apollo 10 was the first veteran crew, and if anyone can explain why Soyuz 1 doesn't count I'd like to hear it. I also corrected the claim on the Apollo 11 page, perhaps you want to remove that too? MartinSFSA (talk) 19:43, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Counter Charge of Vandalism against MBK004
MBK, You have willfully deleted two edits (from 2 different people) which highlighted serious lapses and indiscretions on the part of Continental Airlines against a distinguished Indian personality. The same are facts and / or are based on facts which can be verified. No inappropriate language was used. There is documented proof that the Airline has apologized. Your PARTISAN behaviour is against the SPIRIT of Wiki.

The matter has since been reported.

--shantanu2806 07:13, 22 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shantanu2806 (talk • contribs)
 * I have heard about this incident, but how important is it needs to be talked about. I don't think this needs to mentioned in the Airlines's articles. These kind of things happen day in day out. Well we can discuss it further. '''yousaf465'

Thanks
...for the kind words. I appreciate it. TomStar81 (Talk &bull; Some say ¥€$, I say NO) 19:26, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

USS John F Kennedy
Hi MBK 004,

You are probably right about my efforts about Dublin's light rail not being able to able to cope with 250,000 people converging at one stop at the same time trying to get a tour. I was there and it was certainly memorable but not in the overall context of the ships history, so I agree with you.

I hope our ships pass again on Wikipedia!

Best wishes,

Skreen (talk) 16:14, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Engology
Hi MBK, I have been having a bit of a problem with User:Engology. He was asked by myself and at least 2 other users to discuss a change he has been making. The change was adding that almost all astronauts are engineers. He has been adding it to the lead of lots of them and stating that he added it because it was instrumental in them becoming astronauts. He has also deleted another users post from my talk page. I am not sure what can be done, as I don't belive this can be considered vandalisim. I will let you decied what needs/can be done. Thanks.--Navy blue84 (talk) 12:28, 25 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the advice! I have for decided to just ignore the situation (one suggestion in WP:DR) and see what happens. My intention is not to get him blocked, but just to try to gain some consensus on how things should be done. I can understand your position, and respect that. Thanks again for the advice!--Navy blue84 (talk) 21:23, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Blynn89
This guy has been further messing with the Houston page, including removing a picture of TS Allison because it was "unattractive". I've reverted that, but since you'd noticed him before thought I'd let you know. --YixilTesiphon TalkContribs 16:16, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Al Simmons EL violations
This is stupid. MBK, you and I have been very vigorous about taking his links out, but yet, he only asked me why it's being done! Why am I being singled out here, man? Check my talk page. thanks. --Eaglestorm (talk) 05:34, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: Ship pronouns
Thanks for the information. I was not aware of the policy as I don't contribute much to military articles, and certainly not battleships. I contribute to Wikiproject:spotlight through the IRC network, and this week we are spotlighting this article. The ed17 is a coordinator at MilitaryHistory project, and will be helping us out with this article through the week. We hope to get it up to FA status, but realistically we are aiming for a GA. You are welcome to help us if you like. Burningview (talk) 16:34, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Re:Iowa class battleship
Thanks for the message. I had a look, and reverted the intro paragraph edits in there entirety. The rest looks ok, although I did tweak with the text a little for NPOV/SIZE compliance. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:42, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I've extended an offer to join us with a full name account; our contributor seems to be editing in good faith but also seems a little unclear on some aspects of procedure. I think having an actuall account would help us help him/her in the long run. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Congrats!

 * It is hard to earn this award for the page in question since it is fully protected and isn't regularly edited either. ;) -MBK004 06:15, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That's why it originates from my userspace and not the barnstar page :) I do plan to learn how to spell correctly one of these days, but today is not that day. (Tomorrow's not looking good either :) TomStar81 (Talk) 06:17, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Talk pages
That would be easier for me to just start over adding the text. just revert the talk pages that i have added. how do i tell awb to add the text to the bottom?--Tim1357 (talk) 21:36, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLI (July 2009)
The July 2009 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) 20:23, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

USS Massachusetts (BB-59)
I think the page could probably make it to GA-class; everything's been cited and all the cites are reliable. I was going to put for a GA-class review myself, but I thought a second opinion before doing that couldn't hurt to see if we overlooked anything in the article. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:47, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Its up. Thanks for the feedback. On an unrelated note, the academy has an as yet unwritten page for WikiGnoming, and I can think of no better user from within the project to write the page. If your interested, of course :) TomStar81 (Talk) 06:01, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Scouting barnstar
-For sustainded superior performance in the area of Scouting topics in support of the ScoutingWikiProject. — Rlevse • Talk  • 10:12, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Navsource cites wikipedia
Check it out. Third photo from the bottom is the bell from Illinois with the text from the Illinois article here. TomStar81 (Talk) 11:37, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Sheesh. It bags the question where on earth do these people come from? I mean if you want to invest in conspiracy theories fine, but show some respect for policy people. If this keeps up you may end up with a purple heart for grace under fire. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:51, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Sam Houston SSBN 609
Dear MBK, Thanks for your input on my post. I have never contributed anything original to wikipedia, only wikignome corrections. Anyway, I'm not sure how to validate my information about the Sam Houston after the Charleston refit. I was on the boat during the time that I wrote about, and told my story about what happened, but I cannot verify it other than by my own experience. What do you suggest that I do? Thanks, TL Abshier —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tlabshier (talk • contribs) 23:01, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I moved my story to the talk page. Does that meet the required criterion? Thanks for your help. Tlabshier (talk) 06:35, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Arrow (missile)
Hi. Are you sure that the Arrow (missile) article is within the scope of WikiProject Rocketry? None of the modern anti-ballistic missiles seems to be within scope. Flayer (talk) 13:10, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It is best to check with, I just tag them. -MBK004 13:12, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Flayer (talk) 14:00, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It is rocket propelled, so I would say it is. Most of the other ABM systems just haven't been tagged yet (WPRocketry was inactive for a long time, so many pages were missed). -- G W … 14:30, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd wish to rate its importance to WPRocketry. What do you suggest? Mid? Low? Flayer (talk) 14:34, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * "Bottom" -- G W … 14:38, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Editing own talk page question
Question on wiki policy - I noticed that the a user removed vandalism warnings from their talk page. Is this generally considered acceptable? What is the applicable wiki guideline for this? Thanks! Jminthorne (talk) 00:20, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: Awards
I suppose so. I singled her out since it was her program to begin with, but since shes no longer here it would make good sense to note that others - including but not limited to Rlevse - are carrying on the program. Good call. TomStar81 (Talk) 18:55, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Re:FT integrity
I know. The original plan was to get this completely built and cited before putting it in the article namespace, but every time I try and go to the library to re-rent the books to finish the project some earth shattering crisis arises that keeps me from going. I figure this way I can kill two birds with one stone: I can work on this during the school year (time permitting) and with this out in the article namespace others can help building it too. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:40, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd recommend asking, he promoted the FT originally so he could probably tell us where to go. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:45, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Apparently we hit three million articles right around the time I saved this (which probably explains why it took forever to load). If we push hard, we may be able to claim bragging rights for the first created article past the three million mark to earn a bronze star within the milhist project. Also, I had a go at a DYK hook for the grounding incident, so we may have two battleship-related DYKs up in the next five or so days (go team!). TomStar81 (Talk) 04:59, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Done, linked from the words run aground in the paragraph in the post war section of the main Missouri article. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:22, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Blogs
Hi. As regards, this revert to USNS Matthew Perry (T-AKE-9) — "Blogs are not reliable sources.",
 * Note that otherwise reliable news sources--for example, the website of a major news organization--that happens to publish in a "blog" style format for some or all of its content may be considered to be equally reliable as if it were published in a more "traditional" 20th-century format of a classic news story.
 * Reliable sources

So http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/...-ship-will-be-christened.html is an okay source as far as its form goes, though perhaps a bit premature. —WWoods (talk) 15:11, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

GameBoy789
You may be interested in User:ConverseBoy97 who I am positive is a sock of the account you blocked, User:GameBoy789, the other day. I thought I'd mention it since he keeps actively asking to be unblocked. Nikki ♥  311   19:54, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Re:SMS Hindenburg and Battleship
Dreadnought actually refers to a vessel with a uniform battery of main guns on the centerline, so it could easily be extended to battlecruisers, heavy cruisers, or any other large caliber warship. I for one fail to see why everyone seems to be getting so bent out shape.

On the other matter: Battleship can be saved. It looks to be in pretty good condition actually, its just that there are some uncited paragraphs and such. A month of research and development along with a PR should allow us to locate and address the major FAR-related issues without the need to demote the article, but that may take a month or two provided we start right now.

Speaking of right now, I finally had a chance to get back to the library today and I borrowed three book from the library used to lay the ground work for the grounding incident article. If I push hard I should be able to get it up to B-class or possibly GA class by the end of the week. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:48, 18 August 2009 (UTC) Well, nobody believes anything I say, and think that I'm rampaging around vandalising and trashing everything (probably people give me these jobs as a poisoned chalice so I can take the blame or whatever as people think I'm a troll, and my opinions were never hidden), but whatever, I'll rant. Sandy went and posted warnings to the talk pages of articles with five different tags on them: Featured_articles/Cleanup_listing. The number of variety of tags is not a good rank of FA-endangeredness. A lot of the articles high up on that list are well-cited, which is why the odd uncited sentence sticks out and is usually tagged for cites, whereas a lot of heavily citation-lacking articles like Fauna of Australia aren't, because there is no point in tagging almost every sentence. Bodyline has four problems listed, but only four sentences are unaccounted for. Brihanmumbai Electric Supply and Transport and Rail transport in India were removed for having 75%+ home-made or non-independent sources, but neither have any tags. A lot of the weakest articles sent to FAR had little/no tags before they were nominated; I mean most unreferenced start-class articles (and thus FAs), nobody adds everywhere.  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) 06:10, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It's hardly likely to be the first one targeted. Most of the ones at FAR are the least cited ones, with about 30%+ completely uncited paragraphs.  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) 06:10, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello
Hello. I do not vandalize, I am reverting Emeleff editions, which themselves are possibly vandalism. Forgive if my English is not understandable, I am from es.wiki. — Nixôn 03:26, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

1945 Roster of Officers for USS Hornet CV-12
I wrote my concerns on this issue (deletion of link) at the bottom of the USS Hornet CV-12 discussion page. Happy to discuss. Many thanks.

BowmanBass (talk) 18:14, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Moon "men"
I concur and support your stance taken on WT:SPACE re. the 24 moon voyagers, and hope you will do so if the vandalism persists. Thank you. Edgeshappy12 (talk) 18:19, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The plot thickens. The results of my preliminary investigation may be found at .  Did I mention that I am in training as a SPI cleric ... ?   :-)  — Kralizec! (talk) 04:49, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I doubt that a rangeblock would work in this case. Leaving aside the massive potential for collateral damage, Gayle has asserted her opinions on this topic from two different ISPs as well as an AFB.  Should she press her juvenile threat, I suspect that WP:RBI paired like a fine wine with WP:DENY would be our best option.  In the meantime, I am going to go ahead and add the articles in question to my watchlist.  If you do the same, that should afford us some measure of protection.  — Kralizec! (talk) 21:27, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

USS Sennet references... Help?
Hi there,

I am having a bit of a challenge incorporating the references, since I've never was requested to do so before. So it's lack of "HOW" on my part.

As for the references, I was honored to photograph the final honors of CPT Clark at Arlington National Cemetery and have been working on a memorial book for the family and have received material & references from his son and the webmaster at www.sennet.com

Another reference is a book provided to me is US Submarine Operations in WW II, by Theodore Roscoe published in 1949 by the US Naval Institute, Annapolish (no ISBN number) and references page 487.

Both his obitiuary, published in the Washington Post 9 MAR 2009 and the Sennet website are sources for the information. Could you help include these to honor this outstanding American who also was awarded the Navy Cross for this mission success in the 4th patrol of the Sennet?

Thanks!

JM Military photographer (talk) 17:53, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

INS Arihant...
The only things I have added to the article had to do with clarifying that presently, the sub is nothing more than a floating hull, with no sensors, reactor, or weapons installed. The versions prior to my edit made it sound like the submarine was already fully functional and were undergoing trials, which were untrue. However, for some reason, there have been quite a few fly-by-night editors who chose to omit my sources and clarifications. Since each time an omission was done by a different editor or IP, I found it rather difficult or even tiring to reason with each one. Furthermore, I see no need to explain my edit beyond the edit summaries, as the cited sources clearly state the same thing, if only these other editors would bother to read them, they'd agree with me too, unless of course they had ulterior agendas. By78 (talk) 23:19, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Page move
Hi MBK, I need some help with a page move. I tried to move Arandora Star to SS Arandora Star but that page name is used as a redirect. Shinerunner (talk) 01:47, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ -MBK004 01:58, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the help! Shinerunner (talk) 11:27, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: Forgetfulness
Thanks for the barnstar, I've been waiting for that one since before it was officially ratified for use by WP:SHIPS. To be fair to you, I remember that you left a message concerning me and this barnstar about two years ago which said something to the effect of ' he hasn't received one of these barnstars yet (hint hint)'; I guess no one took that hint. At any rate, I'm glad to have finally received the ships barnstar, I guess its one of those odd facts that those who most deserve a certain barnstar are among the last people folks think to award the barnstar too :) TomStar81 (Talk) 02:44, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: References for edit?
Fine, then why don't you put the correct dates into List of GPS satellite launches? --  Denelson83  22:16, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

User talk pages
Hi. Regarding the comment you left here; please provide a source for your information. As I explained at User talk:Javert, there's no point in edit warring over something like this. - Rjd0060 (talk) 23:42, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Per my understanding of the policy and this line: "These notices and templates are necessary in order to keep a user from gaming the system. Such templates are intended not only to communicate with the user in question, but to share important information about e.g. blocks and sockpuppetry with other users." I have never seen anything to say that removing block notices is okay but unblock and sock notices are not. If we truly intend to have this policy say that it is okay to remove active block notices, then shouldn't this be discussed on WP:AN or on the policy's talk page? While there is little point in edit warring, the IP is abusing their ability to edit their talk page post-blocking to request an unblock and should be reverted and their access removed. It is unfortunate that the non-admin did not request that the block be tweaked to disallow talk page editing or request protection, which is what should have been done. -MBK004 00:01, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You seem to have omitted the part of the page just prior which refers to which "notices and templates" shouldn't be removed - those are " ... declined unblock requests and confirmed sockpuppetry notices (while blocks are still in effect), as well as miscellany for deletion tags (while the discussion is in progress) or, for anonymous editors, shared IP header templates." I don't see block notices listed there.  Again, putting policy aside (especially as it doesn't even apply in this case) is it really beneficial to anything to revert these edits?  - Rjd0060 (talk) 00:05, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The policy says two different things in two different places. I suggest you propose a clarification to the policy to address this. Also, I have seen many admins, do exactly what I have done, so I am clearly not the only person who sees the policy the way that I do. Let's leave this IP's talk page the way it is now, plus there wasn't a sharedIP notice before I got there. The blocking admin should have added it via looking at the WHOIS link and then the IP's blanking would have been against policy even as you see it. I really have no stake in this except for seeing the policy is clarified. -MBK004 00:13, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I really don't care to so feel free. Just trying to understand why people think policy wonking and edit warring on a user talk page is beneficial.  Unfortunately I still don't understand it but hey, that's Wikipedia for you.  Cheers. - Rjd0060 (talk) 00:17, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm no policy-wonker (and MBK004 isn't either, I would imagine), and I really would have had the IP think they had the last word with "Try harder", but to call editors who are trying to protect Wikipedia "edit-warriors" is a bit beyond the pale. You may have had this policy interpretation discussion outside normal watched pages, but Javert et al have done nothing wrong here, in my opinion. – B.hotep •talk• 00:58, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

As an aspiring policy wonk and someone who participated in the WP:VPP discussion that lead to the specific phrasing at WP:BLANKING and WP:DRRC, I may be able to add some clarification here. Editors -either registered or anonymous IPs- are permitted to remove almost any message (including warnings and block notices) at will from their own talk page. However, in order to prevent blocked editors from potentially gaming the system, they may not remove either declined block notices or confirmed sockpuppetry messages from their talk pages (note that these messages may be removed once the editor is no longer blocked). Additionally, unregistered editors may not remove shared IP header templates, which are explicitly defined as those at (note that the whois template was designed for non-shared IPs, so since it goes on the talk pages of static IPs, the IP may remove the template if they choose).

While I can understand and appreciate the sentiment Bubba hotep expressed about the "edit warriors" comment, unfortunately the opinion he expressed is not supported by Wikipedia policy. The WP:USER page explicitly notes that "restoring talk page warnings is not a listed exception to the three-revert rule." As 3RR is a part of the Edit war policy page, anyone who violates the three-revert rule is, by definition, an edit warrior. Looking at the edit history of User talk:209.36.244.253, it appears that in the span of 50 minutes Abce2 and Javert reverted the page seven times each. Does this mean that I am blocking them for edit warring or 3RR violations? Absolutely not, as they either did not know about, or did not fully understanding the WP:BLANKING section of the WP:USER guideline. That said, I have seen editors blocked (usually for 3RR, edit warring, or harassment) for edit-warring with IPs over talk page warnings. In fact, I have performed some of those blocks myself when editors have stubbornly refused to "let it go" even after they have been brought up to speed on WP:BLANKING.

Hope this helps clear up any confusion that people may have experienced over this issue. Assuming MBK004 does not mind us using his talk page, you can feel free to respond here if you have any additional questions or concerns regarding this topic. Thanks, — Kralizec! (talk) 04:23, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow, this is confusing. I've had editors I know tell me one thing, and then others tell me another. We need to clarify or something abut this. Abce2 | Aww nuts!  Wribbit!(Sign here)  05:20, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * With wikis, few things stay the same for long. :-)  So ... if someone told you differently at some point in the past, the other person might well have been correct.  However it has only been within the past sixteen months that WP:BLANKING was explicitly updated to include anonymous editors.  Prior to that was anyone's guess.  And yes, lots of people have unknowingly flubbed this up over the years and inadvertently harassed IPs over their talk page warnings (me being one of the worst).  As penance for those earlier harassment sins, I now travel about and try to help people avoid making the same mistakes I did.  — Kralizec! (talk) 05:44, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That's fair enough. I apologise to all involved for getting het up about it. I think I articulated my views better on Javert's talk page. – B.hotep •talk• 10:03, 29 August 2009 (UTC)