User talk:Parsecboy/Archive 11



Correct way to report vandals
Can you help me out? I am not familiar with the correct way to go about this. Scruff323 (talk) 02:21, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

13th Airborne Division
Hey. I'm toying with the idea of taking 13th Airborne Division (United States) to A-Class and maybe even FA. Thing is, the article is short and I think I've found all the info I can on the division. Do you think in it's current state (apart from MoS issues and the like) it could make it to FA? Skinny87 (talk) 10:06, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I would say that length is definitely not a problem; FAC is all about comprehensiveness and quality of writing. Take a look at USS Illinois (BB-65) and USS Kentucky (BB-66), both FAs, even though they're both pretty short. If you do decide to take it to ACR or FAC, I'll be glad to help with any issues that arise. Parsecboy (talk) 12:36, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, if you've got the time, would you take a look at SMS Roon and see what needs to be fixed? I don't think it'll ever make it to FA or even A, because there just isn't information about the ship in English language sources (and I thought I had a hard time finding stuff on Von der Tann...). I'm still looking to see what I can find, and I've got a book on the way that may be able to help, so we'll see. Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 12:56, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Ta, Parsec. I'm going to get 11th Airborne up to FA first, though, however. It's been nagging at me for ages. Now then, as to the Roon, it isn't in that bad of a shape. The service history is nice and solid, as is all the bits about her armament. Some more on the crew and her composition in terms of boilers and other naval bits like that looks to be what's needed. Skinny87 (talk) 14:12, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry to bother, but it says for a MILHIST Peer Review of 11th Airborne Division (United States) I need to move the old peer review into an archive. But I've no idea how. Would it be possible for you to? Skinny87 (talk) 14:18, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Going for the 11th sounds like a good idea. The problem I've been having with the Roon is that there just aren't any books about the ship, or even about the German armored cruisers; at least for Von der Tann, I had the one book that went into detail about the German BCs. What little I've got about the ship itself is what I've managed to scrounge up from Conways. That's the main problem I see that's keeping it from having a shot at A or FA.
 * I'm not sure how to archive the old peer reviews, but I'll see what I can find, maybe I'll figure it out. If not, I guess we could ask one of the coordinators to give us a hand. Parsecboy (talk) 16:42, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * It seems that you've beaten me to archiving the peer review. Glad one of us figured it out :) Parsecboy (talk) 16:57, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I archived it, but when I click the link to the new peer review, it takes me to the old, archived one. So, not sure what to do there. Skinny87 (talk) 17:26, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Sorry about the long set of messages, this should be the last one, promise! I intend to get 11th Airborne Division (United States) to FA-Class even if it kills me. Therefore, I've set up a new MILHIST peer review for the article, which can be accessed via the talkpage. Any comments, especially on the prose, would be a real help if you have the time. Cheers! Skinny87 (talk) 17:46, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Don't worry, Skinny, we're all here to help each other, right? I've got class in a bit, but either later on tonight or some time tomorrow, I'll read through it again and see what I can do to help with the prose. Parsecboy (talk) 18:30, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The map looks awesome, thanks. Anything you need help on? I'm looking at the PR for the 11th, but I have some time spare if you need anything. Skinny87 (talk) 13:43, 18 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I'm pretty pleased with how it turned out. I not really in the middle of anything major right now, I think I've taken Roon as far as I can at the moment (until I start speaking German and can go sift through their archives ;). I'll probably start working on another article soon enough, but haven't decided what yet. Parsecboy (talk) 14:23, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

ANI notice
Hello,. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding a possible topic or community ban of Middim13. Thank you. ---MBK004 02:24, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Graphic_Lab/Image_workshop#Map_of_Allied_forces_in_Europe.2C_March_1945
I responded to your request on the page above. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 06:30, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

List of stars of Hyades

 * In Cut_and_paste_move_repair_holding_pen I have credited your work on pages List of stars of Hyades and List of Stars of Hyades. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:15, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

SMS Yorck
Hello Parsecboy, SMS Yorck was laid down at Blohm & Voss, Hamburg, but the builder (see box) was Kaiserliche Werft, Kiel? Or is my screen playing tricks?--Gamahler (talk) 03:25, 21 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Glad you caught that mistake. I guess that's what happens when you copy and paste the infobox for SMS Roon (built in Kiel) into the article for her sistership, and miss one of the fields. Thanks for pointing that out. Regards, Parsecboy (talk) 11:53, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

11th Airborne Division
Hey Parsec. I'm nearly at the point where I'm going to submit 11th Airborne Division for FAC. If you have a sec, could you give it a look through and see if anything glaring pops out at you that shows it isn't ready? Cheers, Skinny87 (talk) 18:41, 22 October 2008 (UTC)


 * No problem. Have you given any thought to creating an article about the Knollwood Maneuver? I think someone brought that up during one of the previous reviews for the article.
 * This line:
 * "The 188th continued to advance against increasing Japanese resistance until midnight, when the 187th took over the lead, with the 188th then following the 187th, the two units resting briefly before coming to the Japanese main line of resistance."
 * in the "Luzon" section, seems a bit awkward and overly complex to me, but I'm not sure how to rephrase it. I made a few tweaks to the article, but on the whole, it looks pretty good. Nice work! Parsecboy (talk) 21:03, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Hispanics in the United States Navy
Parsecboy, thank you for your corrections, it is much appreciated. Tony the Marine (talk) 17:38, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


 * No problem. I happened across the article and started reading it. I just fixed some things things as I saw them. Parsecboy (talk) 17:41, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

DMB introduction
Accepting that "LeRoi Moore was one of the founding members, he should be in the intro," why put Peter in there? He was in the band for two years. As per WP:LEAD, "the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic." Peter is an old, good friend of mine, and I say this with that in mind: he is not of sufficient importance to Dave Matthews Band to meet WP:LEAD standards. Really, why bring him up in the first paragraph?--WaldoJ (talk) 23:42, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't really think Peter needs to be in the intro either, I was more concerned with retaining LeRoi. I've reworded the line a bit to mention only LeRoi. I'm not wedded to the wording in the slightest, so feel free to reword it if you can think of something better. Regards, Parsecboy (talk) 00:46, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Khemerak
Hi Parsecboy. If you could look at this user and determine if you could try to get him to stop uploading the same picture over and over again. Maybe an email would help. I would hate to see a user banned because he is too technically incompetant to figure out how to read his messages. Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:06, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * It seems obvious to me that English is not Khemerak's first language (if s/he can speak/read it much at all). I think it's more likely that Khemerak isn't very English-literate; the vast majority of his/her edits are adding images and messing with formatting; the very few content creating edits have poor grammar and may have been made through the use of an online translator. Therefore, it seems a bit useless to attempt to contact Khemerak further; if s/he is unable to read the "You have new messages" bar, it's improbable that an email to the user would do any good. Of course, if you or Alexf (the admin who deleted the most recent copyvio image) would like to pursue this further, that's fine, and I'll refrain from blocking Khemerak again. Regards, Parsecboy (talk) 15:29, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Fixing redirects for Swedish Estonia and Swedish Ingria

 * Dear Parsecboy,
 * Thanks for fixing the re-redirect for Swedish Livonia. Would it be possible for you to do a similar job for Swedish Estonia and Swedish Ingria? Those were the old and correct article names, but the same person who changed Swedish Livonia to Duchy of Livonia (1629–1721) also changed those to Duchy of Estonia (1561–1721) and Duchy of Ingria, although none of them were ever Swedish duchys. He may have been confused by the fact that among all the titles for Swedish kings during that time, you find that they sometimes called themselves "Hertig av Estland, Ingermanland och Livland" (Duke of Estonia, Ingria and Livonia), but "hertig" in this sense was the established Swedish title that kings used for dominions under their rule, as Swedish practice restriced the usage of "kung/konung" (king) to what was regarded Sweden proper. However, the usage of the title didn't make these areas Swedish duchys. In Fact, the only Swedish duchys that have existed were within Sweden proper, and were always awarded to sons of the king - but the last time a prince was given such a duchy was in 1611, and after that the practice was abolished and duke was from then on only an honorary title.
 * So, Swedish Estonia and Swedish Ingria were never Swedish duchys, and there were never any "official" names for them in Swedish or any other language; the Swedes just called them Estland and Ingermanland, which was what the areas were known as before Sweden took them. Consequently, both Swedish and English-language historians have for a long time used the terms "Svenska Estland/Swedish Estonia" and "Svenska Ingermanland/Swedish Ingria" to distinguish this period from other periods for these areas.
 * Best regards, Thomas Blomberg (talk) 13:29, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the quick help and the notification! Thomas Blomberg (talk) 19:52, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Closing discussion at Pope Clement I
Thanks for dropping by and trying to be helpful. Discussion at this page had not concluded, and certainly not in the direction you suggested. I believe sources are customarily decisive in Wiki discussions, so far little has been offered in support of the current title. Leadwind appears to have raised a good point.

You may also like to consider consistency with the Bishop of Rome article, which currently claims the first Pope, so titled was Boniface (if I recall correctly); and offers words to the effect that strict historical usage refers to Popes after this point and Bishops of Rome (as appropriate) prior to it. Naturally, the Catholic convention is noted there to be otherwise.

In my experience, consensus takes time, longer when there is controversy, and even longer when the status quo is in error. I trust you simply overlooked that in this case. Keep enjoying your Wiki-ing! :) Alastair Haines (talk) 10:52, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * It seems to me that the evidence you provided, in the section or two above the move proposal (the google searches and Documents of the Christian Church) does not overwhelmingly contradict the evidence provided for the current title (both versions of Britannica, Encarta, and Columbia). Add to that the fact that 6 editors oppose the move, while only you and Leadwind support it. It seems apparent that there is no consensus for moving the entire article to Clement of Rome.
 * Of course, the closure of the move does not prohibit the proposed compromise of splitting part of the article off to Epistles of Clement. Regards, Parsecboy (talk) 12:07, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah, thanks, now I see how you have misread things. I haven't actually started providing evidence, except of the most cursory sort. There's no rush, there's mountains of it. It's more important to let others have their say first.
 * Leadwind was quite right to request evidence for the current title. And so far, none has been provided.
 * You might like to check the alleged evidence offered by actually following the links. It did not surprise me to find that they did not support what they were alleged to support, since I regularly read books and journal articles on church history, including Catholic writers and Catholic journals. "Non-confessional" terms are widely prefered, "Hebrew Bible" rather than Old Testament in various cases. Clement of Rome is just one of many such "neutral" options available.
 * Assuming good faith has led you into error this time, since someone I do not wish to confront, because he is a friend, has been a bit naughty, claiming sources in favour of his preference, when in fact they do not. I'm actually very surprised he should do this. He's normally scrupulous.
 * I'm afraid I've been involved with academic writing for too long. I reference check often. Sadly, references do not always support what they are claimed to support. I'm sure you've seen that before at Wiki. Start with Britannica and Encarta, which do not title their entries Pope, as boldly claimed.
 * I'm sure you wouldn't want to suggest that six editors with no sources outweigh hundreds of sources opposed to them.
 * I'm sorry, but I don't have time to extend discussion here, or to follow talk on other user's pages.
 * There's no rush, the sources will sort it out over time, as others get involved in the discussion.
 * Cheers Alastair Haines (talk) 08:42, 31 October 2008 (UTC)


 * It would seem to me that the best way to ensure a move's success (especially if it's controversial like this one is) is to provide an overwhelming amount of sources at the start a la this example.
 * I did follow the links provided; Britannica's article is "Saint Clement I, pope", while the 1911 version is simply "Clement I", the Roman numeral to me indicating he was the first Pope named Clement (although I'm no Catholic history expert by any means). The other articles use "Saint Clement I", which I feel is far more POV than "Pope".
 * If you don't have the time to continue this discussion, that's fine. Good luck with the article naming discussion. Regards, Parsecboy (talk) 12:39, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

ScottFisher sock
You recently blocked, a sock of. He's back, as. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:51, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I've blocked the new IP, if he returns again, just let me know. Parsecboy (talk) 22:56, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Will do, thank you. Note also that there are permanent blocks on other IPs in that range, e.g. 160.91.231.73. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:59, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Operation Biting
Hey Parsec. If you have a second, could I be really cheeky and ask you to combine the refs in Operation Biting? Whatever I do, I can never figure out how to combine them together, and just mess up the article. I'd be real greatful if you could. Cheers, Skinny87 (talk) 15:15, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry for taking so long to get to it, I was out of town for a good chunk of the weekend. I think I got them all, but let me know if I missed one, or if you add refs more later and need them combined too. Parsecboy (talk) 13:53, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Cheers mate thanks for that. Very kind of you. Didn't realize you were out of town, but hope you had a good time wherever you were. Skinny87 (talk) 14:18, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

request for third opinion
Hi, I and my fellow editors are facing a deadlock on a issue of removing/toning down a section on 'allegation of cruelty' as subsection under 'criticism' section in Operation Blue Star article, concerns include WP:NPOV, the summary of dispute can be found at, please let us know your views/opinion at the talk page of the article so that 'alleged' bias may be looked into and a consensual solution may be found. Thanks LegalEagle (talk) 07:35, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

13th Airborne Division A-Class Review
Hey Parsec. I don't know if you'd be interested, but I've got 13th Airborne Division (United States) up for an A-Class Review at the moment; I'd sure appreciate any comments you could make about the article to help me improve it. Cheers, Skinny87 (talk) 07:43, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Sure, I can probably take a look at it either later on tonight, or sometime tomorrow. I'm going to be out of town starting in about an hour or so, to visit some friends at another college for the weekend, but I believe they have a project to do either tonight or tomorrow, so while they're busy with that I'll have a bit of free time. Regards, Parsecboy (talk) 17:01, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * It struck me, when I was looking over the article and saw that XVIII Airborne Corps needed to be linked, that I had never mentioned to you that "the gaggin' dragon" was the unit in which I served while I was in the Army. Also, my fiancee's grandfather was a paratrooper in the 517th (fought with the unit from its activation, through Italy, southern France, and the Bulge, iirc, he was a rifleman assigned to HHC, 1st BN). Anyways, I thought that might be a bit of interesting info, and explain my interest in this topic. Parsecboy (talk) 02:21, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXII (October 2008)
The October 2008 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) 00:43, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Have a star

 * Thanks a lot :) Parsecboy (talk) 05:04, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I looked around on commons and found an action-photo of you getting a big blue blob of incivility square in the face earlier this evening. Thought you might get a kick out of it...  H aus Talk 03:29, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * That's pretty much an accurate representation ;) At least of how I felt, anyways...he did apologize, however, so I suppose that's it. Parsecboy (talk) 03:52, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Request
Hello dear Parsecboy!

I turn to you beccause you're the only active admin I can turn to right now.

, who is known for constantly moving different articles, moved yesterday (for the nth time), different articles to many other names time after time. The articles he moved include Salman Khan, Saif Ali Khan, Soha Ali Khan and Sharmila Tagore. His moves are essential vandalism. I asked an admin yesterday to take care of the issue. He blocked the user and all his sockpuppets indefinitely, but I forgot to ask him to move the pages to their original names and delete all the silly redirects he created (that's something that had already been done by an admin called Gwernol in the past, but he is inactive now). But this admin will be here again only in the night, so it will take a lot of time.

I can't do that because he moved every article several times. Could you pleaae move these articles back and delete all the redirects? Shahid •  Talk 2 me  13:02, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Sure, I'll look through his contribs and move the pages back to their original titles. Parsecboy (talk) 13:11, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I've cleaned up the two most recent of his moves, but I've got class shortly, so the rest will have to wait a couple of hours until I get back. Parsecboy (talk) 13:16, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * No problem. Thank you very much for the quick help, but you deleted the wrong pages. The names I've given you above are the original names... Actually everybody would get confused in this situation, because he moved the pages several times. I think the best way is to follow the articles' history pages. Thanks again. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  13:30, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, much of it is pretty convoluted. I have a question about Farooq Sheikh: the page was moved from that location to Farooque Sheikh by a different user, and then moved back by Srkhan. Which version should it be? Other than that one, I think I've got them all in their correct places now. Parsecboy (talk) 16:52, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you so much for your help. Well you will be suprised but this guy is his sockpuppet (was also blocked yesterday). The name is Farooq Shaikh. However, in this case the redirect can remain.
 * Other than that, the Talk:Salman Khan page is still unfixed, as it has a redirect... Do you know why it happened and is there any way to restore the original talk page? Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  17:03, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, I figured the two accounts were related. I had accidentally deleted the talk page, which had been at Sallu. I assumed that the talk page had moved with the article back to Salman Khan, and deleted what I thought was a redirect. I've restored the talk page, and moved it back to Talk:Salman Khan. Thanks for pointing that out to me. Looks like everything is in order now. If he returns with another account and moves the pages again, let me know, and I can move-protect the pages to put a stop to it. Parsecboy (talk) 17:14, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Tetrarch references
Hey Parsec. I was wondering, if you had a few minutes, you'd mind going through Tetrarch (tank) and combining the references? I hate to bother you, but I still can't get the hang of doing it; tried a few times by previewing the page, but it didn't seem to work. Be real greatful if you could, cheers! Skinny87 (talk) 15:41, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Sure, I can lend a hand. I'm in the middle of cleaning up after a page-move vandal (see the above thread), but once I'm done there, I'll fix up the refs. Parsecboy (talk) 16:44, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Cheers Parsec, that really helps. You don't think the refs look too messy, with lots of single-page references to Flint, do you? Only I had to use them as it's the only book that goes into any detail on the Tetrarch. Skinny87 (talk) 17:24, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * No problem, glad to help. I think the refs are fine. The only time I ever combine page numbers is if the text I'm specifically citing starts on one page and ends on the next. I saw the discussion you had Hohum about this, and I have to disagree with him. The more exact the references are, the easier it is for readers to find where you got the information (i.e., one could look at "Flint, p. 11", instead of trying to scan through "Flint, pp 9-22"). I had a similar problem with SMS Von der Tann, as far as having to rely on one book for most of the details about the ship, and there were no concerns raised at any point in the review processes about it, so I'd say it's ok. Parsecboy (talk) 17:31, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's what I thought. Thanks again. Anything you need help with over your way? Skinny87 (talk) 18:08, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I've been working on SMS Moltke (1910) on and off for a while, but it still needs some expansion before any copyediting needs to be done. When I get the article filled out, I'll let you know if you want to help refine the prose. Parsecboy (talk) 18:19, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, friend
Please don't think I'm giving you this award because of your recent help. I'm giving you it because you're a very helping and kind admin. I've gone through your work and I am enormously impressed.


 * Thanks a lot! It's always nice to hear you're doing the right thing :) Parsecboy (talk) 18:20, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Fortress
Whoops, I did not see the 1986 film article. Since you brought that up, I think that Fortress (film) should redirect to Fortress (disambiguation). Thanks for catching that! — Erik (talk • contrib) 19:22, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

RfA thanks
design by neurolysis | to add this barnstar to your awards page, simply copy and paste and remove this bottom text | if you don't like thankspam, please accept my sincere apologies