User talk:Parsecboy/Archive 18



Cup?
WikiCup/2010 Signups. A contest that is easier to work with than Amazing Race IMO (even though I just got knocked out of this year's contest :P). What do you say? And should we just quit the Amazing Race? We still haven't gotten the third round requirements yet... — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  03:08, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * What the heck, I signed up. And I used a pretty appropriate flag :) I don't know what's going on with the Amazing Race. It'd be ok if we quit, since it doesn't seem to be all that active anyway. Parsecboy (talk) 10:36, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

HMS Cochrane
I've expanded the HMS Cochrane (1905) article as much as I can without going into the Battle of Jutland, for which I don't have the proper sources on hand or accessible via Google. I'm wondering if you'd be interested in looking at the battle from the British viewpoint and extracting Cochrane's little piece of it to take this to a B-class? Did you ever get a hold of Campbell's book on the battle? Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:06, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I do in fact have Campbell's book (I guess I haven't updated my library in a while). It mentions Cochrane four times; two are in order of battle type lists, the third is to state that during the battle she nor her sister ships in her unit fired their 9" or 7.5" during the battle. The fourth line states that at 19:30 UTC she and Minotaur were on the port quarter of the British BCs, which would have put them on the disengaged side (at the time, the British fleet was turning southward; this was just before Jellicoe crossed Scheer's "T"). A map in Tarrant's book shows the ships as being nearly directly astern of the BCs, a good distance to port of the 1st Div 2nd Battle Squadron. It seems as though the ships didn't really see action during the battle. Parsecboy (talk) 12:30, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh, and a question about the article: it states that the extra weight from the wing turrets decreased their stability which made them better sea-boats and gun platforms. Is that supposed to read that the turrets increased their stability? Parsecboy (talk) 12:34, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Another thing: if you're considering working on the class article, this book has some interesting details, especially about the propulsion system. Parsecboy (talk) 13:32, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The stability comment is straight from the source. It all ties into metacentric height; it has a couple of paradoxical effects in that a ship with a high metacentric height will often be good seakeepers and not roll so much under normal conditions, but are fundamentally less able to handle off-center flooding, extreme weather conditions, etc. To be honest I don't quite understand it, and all its ramifications, so I rely on my sources. (I'm not a naval architect, I just play one on Wiki!) D.K. Brown has a really good multi-page explanation in the back of his Warrior to Dreadnought book if you want to follow up on stability issues.

If Cochrane and her sisters had such a minor role in Jutland perhaps I'll just see what I can find online. I hadn't really planned on doing much more with these ships unless I found some better sources covering the design history. Cochrane was really just a target of opportunity when I found that issue of Warship was online. If you haven't noticed my ship articles are usually cued from an article in Warship as they generally give me design histories with some operational stuff. But the latter I can dig up almost anywhere. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:27, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I had read the source after I posted the comment. Actually, after thinking about it some more, it does seem to fit with other things I've read (for instance, the wing turrets on the Nassau-class battleships were supposed to make them very stable gun platforms, but their roll frequency happened to coincide with the average North Sea swell).
 * It does sound like Cochrane was largely on the unengaged side of the British fleet for the duration of the battle. Of course, Warrior and Black Prince (two of her sisters) were both heavily involved (and both destroyed) at Jutland, so if you did decide to work on the class article, I could write up sections on those two ships.
 * Oh, by the way, I fixed the conversion issue you had pointed out at Talk:Bayern class battleship/GA1. Could you take a look please? Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 17:57, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Oops?
With this edit you cited a Halpern ref that isn't listed in the bibliography. Could you please clarify it? Thx.LeadSongDog come howl 06:58, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Ooh, thanks for catching that. I've added the appropriate full reference to the bibliography. Thanks a lot! Parsecboy (talk) 11:57, 9 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) 20:42, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Favor to ask
I vaguely recall that you have Bennett's The Battle of Jutland. Could you please check something for me if you get a chance? On p. 126 Bennett apparently quotes a conversation between Rear-Admiral Leveson and his Flag-Lieutenant (who according to my records was Alfred E. Evans) which ends "We must follow the next ahead". Does Bennett cite the source of the conversation? Cheers, --Simon Harley (talk | library | book reviews) 14:45, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * This is really confusing me; pg. 126 describes one of the night actions, between the British destroyers and the German dreadnoughts. Leveson was the commander of the 2nd Division, 2nd Battle Squadron, right? I checked the index, and he's supposedly mentioned on page 126. I just found it though, on page 114. Apparently my printing of the book has been reorganized somewhat, and the index hasn't been updated to match. Bennett does not, however, provide a source for the conversation. Parsecboy (talk) 16:15, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Damn, that's annoying. The tale sounds far too melodramatic to be true (and suits Bennett's point on obeisance far too well), and it would be nice to know where the Hell he got it from.  Thanks for looking, anyway.  Somewhat worrying about the index - never had that happen to me before, thank God! --Simon Harley (talk | library | book reviews) 20:35, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Another favor, if you'll humour me. I noticed you have a copy of Luxury Fleet.  I know Herwig mentions the date in November, 1918 on which Kaiser Wilhelm II released the officers of men of the Imperial German Navy from their oath to him.  Unfortunately, I never noted the exact date or the page reference.  To my mind, it's a fairly important point because (Van der Vat informs me) von Reuter's main public justification for scuttling the fleet was the order "It is the wish of the All-Highest that disabled ships should be sunk."  Any chance you could help me with the ref?  Cheers, --Simon Harley (talk | library | book reviews) 22:52, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * No problem at all :) It's the 28th of November, and the number is p. 253. I checked the chapter on the navy's personnel first, and after not finding it there, started flipping through the last couple of chapters. It just happened to catch my eye, which is always handy. If there's anything else from Herwig (or any other book I've got), just let me know. Parsecboy (talk) 23:25, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Typical - the 28th was the date I had in mind. Thanks for finding out so quickly!  Needless to say, if there's anything I can check for you, just ask.  --Simon Harley (talk | library | book reviews) 23:54, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

30 cm SK L/50
Hi, have you considered setting up a separate page for this gun rather than having to repeat the details for each ship class ? It appears to have been quite an important gun in its time, certainly superior to British guns, and as such is significant. regards. Rod Rcbutcher (talk)
 * On this line, now that you've written the article do you want to collaborate on expanding it? I've got good info on its coast defense uses in both World Wars and we ought to be able to take it up to A-class. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:59, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure, that sounds like an excellent idea. I of course have more on its WWI use :) I'm going to post it over at DYK shortly, so if you have the time to work on the article in the next few days, you can get credit for it too. Also, I saw your note on the talk page, and can add armor thickness info, probably tomorrow. Parsecboy (talk) 23:16, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Apparently I had the time to add the turret armor and weights now :) Parsecboy (talk) 23:38, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Check it out, I've added the coast defense stuff that I have, but now am stuck waiting for some additional info to try and resolve the contradictions between Navweapon's CD mount info and other stuff I had. If I don't get any response soon, I'll just delete the cites from Navweaps so we can take it to GA. Next task is, I think, to try and rework the ammunition section into a tabular format like I did for 38 cm SK L/45 "Max". What do you think? Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:35, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The ammunition table sounds good. I nominated it at DYK for both of us, there should be no issues with the hook or anything, but if you want to suggest an alternate to the one I did, feel free. Parsecboy (talk) 12:55, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Added the ammo table although there's a fair amount of redundancy between the text and the table. I don't think that we should integrate the armor penetration data into the table, but we could, maybe, do that for the amount of propellant for each round. Not sure though, what do you think? Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:28, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I've added a cite to the gun destroying Queen Mary and the other BC. Do we want to submit it for GA yet?
 * Sure, that sounds like a good idea. Parsecboy (talk) 20:30, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

wp:FTC
Seeing your list of articles I thought you might care to check out wp:FT and wp:GT. Nergaal (talk) 16:12, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I actually have one waiting around for two of the articles to be reviewed at GA, and another waiting for a rewriting of the third article. I'm also planning a somewhat larger one here, a pretty big one here, which is itself part of a collaboration that is truly humongous. Yes, we are a bit out of our minds :) Parsecboy (talk) 16:33, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * You may want to check this for more inspiration. Good luck! Nergaal (talk) 17:08, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Belhalla is kind of a legend at WP:SHIPS/WP:MILHIST :) Parsecboy (talk) 17:43, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

We need your help
We now have a new article in the Iowa class battleship FT pool: USS Missouri grounding incident. FT rules state that we have 3 months to bring this article up to Featured Status and add it to the FT train or we lose FT status, and as you may imagine I am not hot to have that happen. Any help you can provide to get this article up to FA status ASAP would be appreciated. Thanks in advance, TomStar81 (Talk) 07:11, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I can lend a hand. I have Stillwell's Battleship Missouri, which has a good 20 pages on the grounding incident. I'll try to look through it and see what can be added to the article. Parsecboy (talk) 13:46, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
Auntieruth55 (talk) 14:54, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Cöln versus Köln
You may have noticed that I've been working on German cruiser categorization, so I'll pose a question that has arisen during my work: Should the WWI Kaiserliche Marine cruisers (and the latter ship's class) be spelled as Cöln or Köln? Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships 1906–1921 lists the ships both as Cöln (and the latter's class name with a C, as well). The German Wikipedia spells the ships with a C—SMS Cöln (1909) and SMS Cöln (1916)—and gives the class as Cöln-Klasse. Miramar lists both ships as Koln (but no umlaut). Personally, I think Conway's is probably a more reliable source for the spelling, but do you have any other references that support the K version, or should they all be moved to the C spelling? — Bellhalla (talk) 19:41, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I did see my watchlist light up today :) I seem to recall discussing this in the past, but I can't for the life of me find the old discussion. I can tell you that in Jan 08 Eurocopter moved the articles. I can tell you that Gröner's also has the ships at Cöln, and I'd say his book is pretty authoritative on the issue, given that it's based on the official German records. Move them back to "C" if you like. Parsecboy (talk) 21:12, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll ask Eurocopter before doing anything, but another question, then. Do you have sources regarding the spelling of the German K class cruiser (currently at GERMAN CRUISER Köln)? Given the class name, I suspect the K spelling may be the correct one in that case. — Bellhalla (talk) 11:27, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Gröner's has the latter ship at Köln, so that seems to be correct. Here's something to consider for the 1916 C/Köln: V. E. Tarrant's Jutland: the German Perspective has the ship as "K", as does Holger Herwig's "Luxury" Fleet, as well as Geoffrey Bennett's The Battle of Jutland. Still, I would lean towards "C", since that's what Gröner uses. Parsecboy (talk) 11:39, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
I raised the question about the title here, to see if someone who might be too shy to respond on the featured article page might have some input. Auntieruth55 (talk) 01:48, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

SMS Hindenburg
Hello Parsecboy. Quick FYI, the picture at the top of the Hindenburg article is actually Derfflinger. Note lack of flag bridge, widely splayed tripod legs, lack of funnel caps, half cased funnels, and only 6 secondary guns on each side. In the picture at the bottom of the article, you can see the funnel caps, flag bridge, and narrow grouping of tripod legs. What a beautiful ship Hindenburg was. Nice work on that article. Best regards. Orpy15 (talk) 17:02, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmm, I thought there was something not quite right about that photo. Thanks for pointing that out :) Parsecboy (talk) 19:17, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Can you fix this? Its holding up my ACR-support for ship. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:49, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Oops, somehow I missed that part of your comment at the ACR page. It's been fixed now. Thanks Tom :) Parsecboy (talk) 10:23, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Userfy request
Could you userfy Sommet Group to User:BilCat/Sandbox/Sommet Group? I'd like to take a look at it, and see if what was there was salvageable. The Sommet Group has naming rights for the Sommet Center, and arena in Nashville, and thus the company is probably large enough to be notable. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 00:20, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * ✅, though it doesn't look like there's much there beyond what you already told me :) Good luck with the article! Parsecboy (talk) 00:23, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. You're right, and I see why it was deleted, and rightfully so! I'll see what I can find on the company, but it's not a priorty right now. Thanks again. - BilCat (talk) 00:43, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Something for you

 * Thanks, Ian! Parsecboy (talk) 23:26, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

problem on Unificationof German FAC page
Sandy Georgia took out the collapse templates on Unification of Germany FAC archive so probably it would be helpful for you to go back and cross out the ones that are satisfied, which is all of the comments. Thank. Ruth Auntieruth55 (talk) 00:42, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Bayern Class
I have a copy of the publicly published report of Stanley Goodall, an RCNC constructor (and later DNC) who examined Baden after it had been recovered from Scapa and before it was expended as a target. Some of his comments may make an interesting addition as a commentary on the class. For example, the statement that: 'The machinery would be described by a naval architect as "compactly arranged" and by a marine engineer as "very congested."'

One thing which puzzles me however, is the given size of the propellers. Goodall gives the diameter as 12 foot 9 inches. Someone is out by over two inches, which while insignificant in the grand scheme of things, is remarkable. --Simon Harley (talk | library | book reviews) 22:07, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


 * That would be an interesting read. Do you have it as an electronic copy? If so, I wouldn't mind it if you sent it to me ;)
 * Well, for some reason, the convert template in the article renders it as 12.7 feet, instead of breaking down the .7 into inches. That's about 8.4 inches, so it's really about half an inch off, which I think is a pretty reasonable discrepancy, given that the screws are round, and it's fairly difficult to make sure you're on the exact diameter when you're talking about something as big as a battleship screw. Parsecboy (talk) 22:44, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah, that makes more sense - re: propeller size. Will send what I have - a friend sent me a copy in A3 size photocopies, then I scanned it sans the plates.  I need to wangle from another friend the Warship article on the destruction of Baden.--Simon Harley (talk | library | book reviews) 22:52, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Sounds good to me. Thanks a ton for sending it! Parsecboy (talk) 23:01, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Did it go through in the end? --Simon Harley (talk | library | book reviews) 17:34, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I just emailed you back, but no, it didn't go through all the way. The first email you sent was fine, but the documents in the others have bad file extensions (or at least I don't have a program that will open them). If you can fix them, I'd greatly appreciate it, but if not that's ok too. Thanks! Parsecboy (talk) 17:45, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Something up your alley!
This article is desperately in need of some help, and may be right up your alley. The editor seems to have the right ideas, but his citing skills seem weak. Perhaps you could offer to collaborate with him, or maybe nudge him to do the proper citing? Auntieruth55 (talk)

SMS Derfflinger
The photo I posted was one of the last series of cards made by W.Schäfer from Kiel in 1918. There is a correct tag included - This image is in the public domain in the United States because it was first published outside the United States prior to January 1, 1923!! So, what is the problem? There is really not one. As you know, the ship was scuttled in Scapa Flow on 21 June 1919. So, the photo was not taken after that date and definitely was not published after 1919 because Schäfer stopped publishing military postcards that year!! I really don't get what your problem is with this photo. I acquired 1000 of original prints from Schäfer and Max Genz last year and want to make them available to Wikipedia. Many of these postcards were published in less then 1000 pieces and are very rare. I spoke to a friend of mine, who works for the Library of Congress in DC and according to him all the images are in the public domain in the United States!! Mariaflores1955 (talk) 21:56, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I understand all of that, but we need an actual source that states where the image came from and when it was published. I may be wrong, but your contact at the Library of Congress could email Wikipedia through the WP:OTRS system and confirm the copyright status of the photos. There's no one here more than me who would like to use that photo of the ship, but we need to be able to document everything. Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 22:08, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

British superfiring gun problem
Have you seen D.K. Brown's The Grand Fleet, Warship Design and Development 1906-1922? In it he mentions a problem with British superfiring guns. The open sighting hoods on the turrets below them prevented them from firing within 30° of the stern because of blast effects. I had had no idea that this was an issue through at least the QE class ships. If you want to do more on the British BBs you should really get a hold of it because it talks about a bunch of these types of issues that aren't often mentioned in more conventional histories. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:29, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * No, I haven't seen that, but it sounds interesting. I'll have to find that in a library somewhere; Amazon has it, but for well over US$200, and I don't think I can justify spending that much for it. Parsecboy (talk) 11:56, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * WP:TPS (as usual). It may have been uncomfortable but when push came to shove the guns could have been fired within the prescribed arc.  See Reginald Tupper's Reminiscences for example.  He was in the sighting hood of the fore turret of Minas Geraes when the superfiring turret went off directly ahead.  The most he suffered was having his hat blown off. --Simon Harley (talk | library | book reviews) 21:20, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Interesting; maybe that explains why it isn't more commonly mentioned. But Brown does make a big deal about it and how Jellicoe was responsible for this "feature" throughout his tenure as DNO. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:06, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Bayern class battleship
Promoted - congratulations ;) EyeSerene talk 11:49, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

the barrage of capital ships...
That was a funny comment of Ian Rose's. And he's right, these are good articles, and I like to see you plowing away at them! Would you take a look at Hermann Detzner and tell me if I should nominate it for A class in MH? Auntieruth55 (talk) 00:34, 29 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, that was funny :) And thanks, I'll be plowing away for a long time! I'm out of town right now and have very limited time here, but I'll take a look at the article on Monday. I see you're having some image size confusion at the Unification FAC&mdash;hopefully they'll sort it out soon :) Parsecboy (talk) 13:25, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Hey dude
...seems like it's been a long time. :-) I've got a favor to ask; would you be able to write "Armor" and "Propulsion" sections for North Carolina-class battleship? Friedman doesn't cover them much, but I can't just not include those sections. — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  05:42, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, for "Propulsion" I could write a page on the vibration problems, but not a lot on the machinery etc. itself. Cheers dude, — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  05:43, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I guess we've both been pretty busy :) I'll have to see what I can do. I'm away from my stuff right now, and will be for probably the rest of the day, so it'll most likely have to wait until tomorrow. Parsecboy (talk) 14:31, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes you have. :-) Whenever you can get to it, I'm not in a huge rush&mdash;the page has been a work-in-progress since July. — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  14:39, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Poke :-) — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  17:12, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Oops, looks like it slipped my mind for a few days. I should be able to get to it today. Oh, and when are we going to take Amagi-class battlecruiser to FAC? It's been sitting on the back burner for a while now. I'd take it, but I've got Derfflinger-class battlecruiser there right now. Hint hint. I note that you don't currently have an article at FAC ;) Parsecboy (talk) 13:16, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem. :-) I'll nom it right now; the only thing I think we could add is that it was "Project 64"/"Design B-64"/something like that&mdash;apparently, those who say that the Design B-65 cruisers were originally designated B-64 are wrong. However, this is from a book in Japanese, translations of which were emailed to, who emailed them to me...and which I don't have publisher or date information. I'm still working on this with Cla. It's of trivial importance to Amagi, though, so full speed ahead! — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  13:37, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  13:48, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That sounds fine to me re: the B-64 stuff. Add it when you get the chance, but it's minor enough to not be a problem at the FAC. Back to the North Carolinas, it looks like I'm about done with the armor/propulsion stuff, so we should be good to go! Excellent work with the rest of the article, by the way :) Parsecboy (talk) 16:50, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Upcoming coordinator elections
With the coordinator elections for mihist upon us once more I decide to leave a message here to urge you to run for coordinator for the upcoming tranche. I feel you would make an outstanding coordinator for the project, and it is my belief that you would easily obtain a spot should you decide to add your name to the running. You are, of course, under no obligation to run, but an editor of your caliber would be a welcome addition to the force. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:47, 30 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your confidence, Tom! I was thinking about running this time. I do, after all, put a heavy burden on the coords with all the A-class reviews I've filed, so I should do my part :) Parsecboy (talk) 00:02, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Echo Tom's sentiments, mate - the addition of someone like yourself would be even more valuable now, given Roger's announcement today... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:30, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you
For your attention and help with the Kitchen Nightmares edit war! Hopefully a couple short blocks will get the two editors to move on or rethink their approach. Drmargi (talk) 15:26, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

re Tomcha
Surely you realise that this block was inappropriate? Golden rule of blocking is not to block someone you're having an edit conflict with, which you clearly were. I recommend you unblock him straight away and just report him to WP:3RR as you should have done, because I can see this getting ugly--Jac 16888 Talk 20:30, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * His requests have been declined twice now by two other admins; I see no reason to reverse the status quo. His block will expire in 20-odd hours and then he can resume disrupting articles. Parsecboy (talk) 20:47, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't care about him or if hes blocked, the point is, you were way out of line, both with the block and and the removing his unblock requests. I mean come on, its the core rule when it came to blocking, Not if you're involved. Surely you know that?--Jac 16888 Talk 20:54, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see that I was; Tomcha has been disrupting several pages for going on a week now. That I have been attempting to stop said disruption does not preclude me from being able to block him when his behavior clearly violates policy. Parsecboy (talk) 20:57, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * When you've been involved with a discussion with an editor, even if he was in the wrong, and you've been edit warring with them (To the extent that you broke WP:3RR here), over edits that are not vandalism, then you're involved, and shouldn't block--Jac 16888 Talk 21:01, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not getting involved save to the extent of notifying you of this. Rodhull  andemu  18:03, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations, you've earned a present!
Per ...

Enjoy the stinging goodness. Cheers friend, — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  18:43, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks Ed :) Parsecboy (talk) 00:43, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Hunch
Two months ago you deleted Global-WAN. A recent AfC for TrustLeap popped up that looks like it might be an exact copy of a previous article. Would you mind checking for me if it is the same as the deleted Global-WAN? ~ Amory  (user • talk • contribs) 14:26, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Sure, but it's not the same. I've temporarily pasted the contents of the deleted article here if you'd like to see it. After you're done looking at it, let me know so I can delete it again. Hope that helps. Regards, Parsecboy (talk) 14:30, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmm, my hunch wasn't even close! Thanks, though, delete away! ~ Amory  (user • talk • contribs) 14:32, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No worries, it certainly does happen as you suspected :) Glad to be of help. Parsecboy (talk) 14:36, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Book about ships
do you have a book that lists ships? I'm looking for the data on a ship owned by the Neuendettelsau Mission Society (or Missionary Society) that they called Bavaria and that they owned @1905/1907. Auntieruth55 (talk) 21:21, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmm. It appears to be this ship that was launched in 1905 (the Miramar ship index has at least something on pretty much every ship ever built, for future reference). I also checked google books (results here), and there are a couple that might be worth trying to track down in a library. Hope that helps. Parsecboy (talk) 00:58, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * thanks for checking. The miramar ship index isn't loading...seems to be a problem with the page right now, so I'll check later. The other references in googlebooks are general statements of some things the ship did but not the details on the ship itself.  Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:03, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem. You might also try posting on WT:SHIPS. There are a number of editors who are more familiar with commercial shipping than I, so they might be able to help you out more. Parsecboy (talk) 16:51, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I will see what I can do. Would you mind taking a look at Hermann Detzner...and possibly adding to the review page?  There is one Weak Support (he doesn't like the size of an image, but I have a rationale for the size), and it needs at least one more review, I think, before it can be promoted.  Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:06, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure, I can take a look. I probably won't have time to get to it today, but perhaps tomorrow I'll be able to. Parsecboy (talk) 17:08, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi, have you had the chance to look at Hermann Detzner? There have been a few reviews/support, one weak support (he doesn't like the size of an image). Please take a look and tell me what you think?  Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:31, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Brandenburg class battleship

 * Kudos to you, sir, for your excellent work in expanding this article! — Kralizec! (talk) 03:38, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Parsec = machine. — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  03:46, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Kitchen Nightmares
Would you take a look at the latest edit war in the making on Kitchen Nightmares? User:Roman888 is determined to add updates to the article for the UK version of the show, citing the (now removed) use of them on the US show article as a rationale. Consensus was recently reached to remove the updates, as you're aware, and you've already blocked one user and one anon IP for edit warring. Now he's entered the fray, and is angrily attempting to force the issue by denying consensus. He doesn't seem to understand that consensus is not by vote, and that consensus can change, and insists there was already consensus to retain the updates (I assume he's largely referring to the edit summaries of the user and anon IP you blocked.) Note, too, the use of the expression "a consensus" both by Roman888 and User:Sophisticatedcat. It may be we have a sockpuppet situation. Drmargi (talk) 07:28, 6 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I am in the midst of trying to get the updates reinstated as the consensus was not done properly at all. Sorry but a lot of previous articles and other issues I have participated in was for called for removal or keeping of templates or updates. If there is a majority who are in supported of keeping the updates, I don't see any reason not to have the updates return.  Roman888 (talk) 11:42, 6 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I was in the midst of sending out messages to everyone, when you, Parsecboy inadvertently told me to stop. Not knowing that you were a moderator/ admin or not, I didn't want to chance it.  If you want I can sent out the same messages to HelloAnnyong or Thirteen squared and all that in the list to prevent you from making all those unwarranted accusations.  Will that be fair to you? Roman888 (talk) 16:04, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your attention to this matter, and your willingness to take speedy action. We can only hope this will bring the issue at hand to a speedy resolution. Drmargi (talk) 17:42, 6 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry to bother you again, but you might want to take another look in at Kitchen Nightmares. One editor feels we might have a SPA weighing in, and things are getting tense.  I'm keeping my head down for the time being, so as not to enflame things any further.  Drmargi (talk) 06:49, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Someone sounds worried that the updates will return. Sorry for being not civil here, but I can't stand people who make unwarranted accussations just to make a point and tell everyone that they have concensus.  Roman888 (talk) 07:02, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not unwarranted. The SPA issues are very ducky. The fact that you're getting so defensive about it, despite never actually having the accusation made directly at you, makes it look even more suspicious. --132 16:48, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know your true motive, but you seem defensive also when it comes to the accusations directed at you too. And I can report that one of your pals just tried to vandalise my discussion page.  So tell me whether you are being WP:CIVIL and not resorting to being a WP:VANDAL.  Roman888 (talk) 17:31, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * LOL. This is beyond ridiculous at this point. You're mistaking frustration over your behavior with defensiveness. If you truly think this about us and supposedly have "proof" (which I undeniably know you don't have), then feel free to report us at WP:SPI where they'll decide if your accusations have merit. Be aware though, you'll find the result is in our favor, not yours. --132 18:55, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Please take this to one of your own talk pages, not mine. Parsecboy (talk) 19:29, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that. This is the first time the user has come right out with the accusation, which was why I directed it here. I probably should have just taken it to their talk page though. :( --132 19:43, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Reinstating the Updates for Kitchen Nightmares
Hi, I am in the midst of gathering everyone to give their comments on reinstating the updates for Kitchen Nightmares. I would appreciate if you come and give your comments on whether to keep or remove the updates here: Talk:Kitchen_Nightmares Roman888 (talk) 07:02, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

DYK nomination of SMS Weißenburg
Hello! Your submission of SMS Weißenburg at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! -- Dylan 620  (contribs, logs)help us! 12:57, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Sent email
Hey Parsec. Just as a heads-up, I just sent you an e-mail via "E-mail user". Cheers. H aus Talk 14:20, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi, Haus. Sure, I can lend a hand with the article. I'll drop a note on Clem's talk page and see what he'd like me to help with specifically. Parsecboy (talk) 23:18, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Mathemagician57721
Regarding your question to, while processing requests at WP:RFPP, I noticed that the following IPs were all making very similar edits/reverts to Pokemon articles: All four of the these IPs resolved to the same ISP and geo-locate to the same city. Additionally this edit shows that the person behind the IP has more than just a passing familiarity with Wikipedia guidelines and policies.

Which WP:SPI are you working on? Perhaps I can help? Thanks, — Kralizec! (talk) 16:37, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks Kralizec!(<-- meant to be an exclamation point :) ) They all seem to be User:Oboeboy-socks, though I can't find the archived checkuser for him. I asked Raul654, because he was the blocking CU, but he hasn't responded to my question about it. There's also User:Aruseusu, which also fits the editing pattern. Parsecboy (talk) 23:13, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Nominations open 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 12 September! Many thanks,  Roger Davies  talk 04:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Irish Mercantile Marine during World War II
Thanks for the offer. The article was too large so I broke off a timeline piece and have it here : timeline. Haus had some other ideas which he was exploring here I need advice on these points: Is it still too big? Can you see any gaps in the references? Could it do with more images? (the artist: He is an 80yo retired Royal Navy chaplin. ). Would old photos be better than art (http://www.irishships.com/ has photos cc-by-sa). Any general advice/comment/opinion. How does it square up to the various article standards. Is the 'timeline' ok as a separate article? - thanks - ClemMcGann (talk) 08:42, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

copy edit favor
USS President (1800) has its GAR on hold due to the need of a copy edit. I'm really not sure who else to ask at this point and would appreciate if you could give it a look when you have a chance. Since I rewrote the article I'm sort of blind to things that could be improved. Thanks. --Brad (talk) 10:52, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * No problem. I looked over the article and fixed what I saw that needed fixing. If there are still problems, let me know and I'll look it over again. Parsecboy (talk) 12:24, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks! reads much better now. It should pass easily. --Brad (talk) 22:59, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

FAR for Werner Mölders
Nate, have you had a chance to review the article Werner Mölders, now at FAR? Ruth Auntieruth55 (talk) 15:20, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Some Hindenburg details...
Apologies I haven't got round to sending you the rest of Goodall to you yet. Back in Britain, poor net connection, and my father has gone back into hospital (it never rains, but it pours!).

Here's some details you may want to use for the Hindenburg article:

Hindenburg was fitted with the DrhLC/1913 mounting with gun elevation at 16° and 25-foot rangefinders fitted instead of 10-foot. The shell rooms for each turret were below the magazines. Her boiler rooms occupied a volume of 243,000 cubic feet and occupied 9,480 square feet, and her engine rooms took up 104,000 cubic feet and 5,110 square feet. She differed from Derfflinger in having shallower funnel caps and a narrower tripod mast.[Campbell. p. 57.]

British naval intelligence believed that Hindenburg's delay in completing was due to parts being removed to repair Derfflinger after Jutland.[Campbell. p. 56.]


 * Campell, N.J.M. (1978). Warship Special 1: Battlecruisers: The Design and Development of British and German Battlecruisers of the First World War.  London: Conway Maritime Press.  ISBN 0-85177-130-0.

--Simon Harley (talk | library | book reviews) 10:38, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * No problem on the Goodall stuff, I've got plenty of articles to work on in the mean time :) I'm sorry to hear about your dad, I hope he starts feeling better soon.
 * Thanks for the stuff on Hindenburg. I take it Campbell wasn't able to confirm the bit about the ship being stripped to repair Derfflinger? Regards, Parsecboy (talk) 11:12, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * He neither confirms or denies it. His exact words are "According to British intelligence the delay in her completion was partly due to the removal of material for the repair of Derfflinger after Jutland."  Damn, just realised that I embellished his statement somewhat, sorry.  --Simon Harley (talk | library | book reviews) 20:29, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I figured as much. It'd be too easy to have a straight answer, right? And no worries on embellishing, I don't see much of a difference in the two :) Parsecboy (talk) 20:34, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * It's a shame he never footnoted his work - the amount of grief it causes me is incalculable! Especially when it concerns the H.M.S. Lion Turret Explosion! --Simon Harley (talk | library | book reviews) 20:59, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

To the queen of German capital ship writing, I present...

 * Yes, the queen. You saw that right. :-D Congratulations, dude; thanks for the great articles you have been writing. — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  04:33, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Queen? What? I'd have thought that parsecboy would have been enough of a hint, but maybe I should add User:UBX/male2 to my userpage to clear up the apparent confusion :) Thanks a ton Ed! Parsecboy (talk) 11:20, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * it confused me too, maybe the Ed is the spacey one. Or maybe he's just wanting to claim kingship for himself. ;) I like to give flowers. :) [[Image:WikiThanks.png|75px|center|WikiThanks]]
 * I was kidding in any case, just wanted to make Parsec laugh. I certainly don't want that kingship. O_O — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  21:40, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
If I was baiting, I'm sorry, I didn't know I was Abce2 | Talk Sign  01:03, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Requested move of World War II evacuation and expulsion articles
I recently began a centralized discussion for the renaming of population transfer or forced migrations relating to WWII. You have shown interest in the topic in the past so I wanted to bring the discussion at Talk:World_War_II_evacuation_and_expulsion to your attention. --Labattblueboy (talk) 13:11, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:18, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Still being impolite
[]Abce2 | <font face="Verdana" color="#0099AA">This is <font face="Papyrus" color="#FFAA11">not a test 22:10, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * And here. []<font face="Fantasy" color="#3366FF">Abce2 | <font face="Verdana" color="#0099AA">This is <font face="Papyrus" color="#FFAA11">not a test 22:11, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I saw both of those earlier. It's best to just leave it alone at this point. I will be keeping an eye on the user though. Regards, Parsecboy (talk) 22:51, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Supermarine Spitfire
I've been working through the article and improving it according to your recommendations. More will be done when I have more spare time. Cheers Minorhistorian (talk) 23:52, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

GA Review
Hi Parsecboy. Looking at the GA Nominations page I've seen that you write quite a lot of military related articles. Could you please review one of my articles, Unit 101? I wish I could said I would review one of yours, but I am too inexperienced to do that. But I would help you with something else, if you wish. Thanks. Kind regards,  Lourie Pieterse  08:58, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLII (August 2009)
The August 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) 20:53, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Forced image
Hello, Parseboy. I have a question for you. We had a discussion on "force image size" due to an image on Korean War long time ago. And I think the guideline or policy regarding the image size seems to have been changed or the mention of forced size is significantly reduced at this moment. I've got a complaint from a FARC reviewer that images on Gyeongju article are too small to his eyes, and requested me to change them to set at 280px. Too me, the size is huge, and I don't think the rest of the images are not that tiny. Except image on intro, such the big size is not desirable, but I'm not sure whether the image policy has been changed or not. If you know anything about it, please give me some input. Thanks.--Caspian blue 13:54, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, good luck for the GRE and your preparation for graduate school entrance. As for the image size, your answer is very simple, but I like it. :-) I've checked image policies, but that say still forced images should be avoided. So I'm sticking with the MoS.--Caspian blue 13:25, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You're a gifted writer, so your writing score would add more to the already good score. :-) Have a good day and thank you for the kind words-Caspian blue 13:47, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Radetzky class battleship
Wow, I really loved the work you did on these two articles! You sir, are a regular ship writing machine!! — Kralizec! (talk) 13:01, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks Kralizec :) I had been reading Paul Halpern's A Naval History of World War I, and saw the line about Radetzky bombarding French artillery in Serbia, and thought to myself "why not see if I can put together a decent article about the ship?" Parsecboy (talk) 13:37, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Scharnhorst & Gneisenau
I have been to several libraries and bookshops this week looking for sources on the 9 April 1940 engagement. I have also ordered a book from Amazon. There is a lot of useful detail that can help add to the Scharnhorst & Gneisenau article you have worked hard to revise. It will take me time to digest this stuff though.--Toddy1 (talk) 19:34, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Contest Dept
Just a brief note to remind all entrants that, under the new arrangements, they are encouraged to self-score (but not self-assess) their own entries.

There's also a discussion about a new points scale over on the Coordinators talk page. This deals with some of the anomalies raised elsewhere and as ever comments there would be very welcome. Roger Davies talk 13:48, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Military history coordinator elections: voting has started!
Voting in the Military history WikiProject coordinator election has now started. The aim is to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of sixteen candidates. Please vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on 26 September! For the coordinators,  Roger Davies  talk 22:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

So Dak
not really...I didn't add much to the article, which is why I don't have a GA icon for it on my user page. DYK is one thing, because I did a little expansion. I don't know if I would have called that a collaboration though :-D — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  02:57, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Hey, don't shortchange yourself; you added a lot here and here, along with plenty of copy-editing. I'd consider that to be a solid claim to you having done significant work on the article. Parsecboy (talk) 03:01, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well... that's more than I thought I did. Fine. :P — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  03:46, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Classification of German Ships
Can I suggest that you buy a copy of German Warships 1815-1945, Volume One: Major Surface vessels by Erich Gröner. This book states the classification of each class of capital ship.

You have made a number of statements:
 * "rmv faulty citation; you can't cite an entire book, and as far as I can tell, his book never specifically states this anywhere."
 * Yes, you can cite an entire book. The Scharnhorst class is the first class of capital ship in the book to be classed as Schlachtschiff (battleship) by the German Navy.
 * "mv original research, the Deutschlands were never referred to as proper battleships, and (going way back) neither were the Sachsens)"
 * If you read Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships 1860-1905 there is a section starting on page 242 entitled capital ships.  The introductory section starts: "German battleship development up to 1906 can best be seen as a four-stage process.  Initially in the mid 1860s..."  In the third paragraph it does indeed refer to the Sachsen class as "coast defence battleships".  You will see that it lists various ships that the German Navy classified as Panzerschiffe (armoured ship), and Linienschiffe (ship of the line).
 * In case you should think that this is some eccentricity of Conway's, you could also look at page 76 of Brassey's Naval Annual 1888-89, which discusses the German Navy and refers to the Sachsens amongst others as battleships.

The issue of the classification of the Deutschlands is another matter. When the German Navy classified them as Panzerschiffe, they were aware that this classification had been used for battleships before the German Navy started using Linienschiffe. However this is not pertinent to the classification the Scharnhorst class. --Toddy1 (talk) 10:49, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I do have Gröner's excellent book, and it classifies the Sachsens as armored ships&mdash;I'd take his word over Conway's (which I also have). Coast defense battleships != battleships. That these ships were eventually developed into the more powerful Siegfried-class coastal defense ship and Odin-class coastal defense shipes, and these in turn led to the Brandenburg-class battleships doesn't make them all battleships, just like the incremental advances between the Scharnhorst-class armored cruiser, SMS Blücher, and SMS Von der Tann doesn't make all of them battlecruisers. Parsecboy (talk) 12:28, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Conway's 1860-1905 specifically states: "The Sachsens, class as armoured corvettes..." The heading for the class reads "Sachsen class central citadel ironclads". Parsecboy (talk) 13:00, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

To g sa
I'm going to nom Tosa-class battleship for A-class; I don't think it has enough meat for FA, but A should be alright. —<font face="Baskerville Old Face"> Ed  (talk  •  contribs)  22:14, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Congrats!
Congrats on your election as Coordinator for the Military history Project. In honor of your achievement, I present you with these stars. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:16, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

NowCommons: File:SMS Pillau.jpg
File:SMS Pillau.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:SMS Pillau.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case:. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 05:10, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
I passed the Scharnhorst article, but you'll need to deal with this guy's complaint. Please see his post on my talk page, okay? Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:30, 27 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I used the invisible text markup to deal with Toddy's complaint, but if you could deal with it, that would be great. Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:55, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Feature Topic!
Congratulations! Your good topic has by virtue of now having 50% of its articles Featured has automatically become a Featured Topic. -MBK004 01:48, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 'Grats dude! —<font face="Baskerville Old Face"> Ed  (talk  •  contribs)  04:21, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Cool, I didn't know how that would work. Thanks to you both :) Parsecboy (talk) 16:27, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It is automatic, but it does require some editor interaction to change the icons from GA to FA for each promotion, plus some null edits along with the statistics that have to be updated. I just left a ping here: Wikipedia_talk:Featured_topic_questions to get it done. -MBK004 18:19, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:MILCON
You've got to regrade your articles; we've instituted a new scoring system. :-) —<font face="Baskerville Old Face"> Ed  (talk  •  contribs)  21:04, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Page move request
Hello. You've helped before with unilateral page moves made by Westermarck, at Talk:Grand Place for example. He's also moved Laeken to Laken against consensus, and I'm wondering if you could move it back. Thanks,  Oreo Priest  talk 13:20, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

still confused about point system
I still don't understand the point system on the contest, not that it matters that much. Would you mind showing me what my points are in the table? Ruth Auntieruth55 (talk) 15:23, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations
WOW massive points, you ran away with the contest! Congrats to you!!!


 * Thanks Ruth :) The new points scheme helped a lot; I think Sturmvogel would have won under the old version. Parsecboy (talk) 19:59, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't begin to understand the point system. He wrote a lot of articles, yes, and yours were GA and FA etc. so that makes a  big difference.  Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:36, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIII (September 2009)
The September 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) 02:28, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

articles on GA list
Would you have a chance to look at Battle of Stockach (1799), Army of the Danube, and/or Battle of Ostrach on the GA nominations list? I also have Cologne War on the A review list at MH. Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:33, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't have a ton of free time right now, I'm pretty busy in real life :) I might be able to get to reviewing Cologne War sometime this week. Parsecboy (talk) 17:36, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * that would be great! thanks!  Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:38, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

strange article
You're an administrator, right? Two question: Connie Hamzy??? Notability? 2nd question, when I look at my watch list, there is a number next to and article, and it changes, sometimes it is plus something and sometimes minus. See below, the (+86) What does this mean?

(diff) (hist). .  Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Contest/Entries‎; 01:04. . (+86) . . Sturmvogel 66 (talk | contribs) (→Contest entries)

Auntieruth55 (talk) 01:09, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * TPS!! @notable, not sure, but it is borderline WP:NOT IMHO. @number, it is the number of characters added or subtracted in any given edit. —<font face="Baskerville Old Face"> Ed  (talk  •  contribs)  01:51, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah. that makes sense (re #), re notability, I thought it was marginal. Auntieruth55 (talk) 02:25, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'd agree that her notability is borderline, but I'd err on the side of her being notable. There have been sections of books devoted to her, which I think meets the requirements. If it was just for the alleged Clinton stuff, I'd say it would definitely be NOT#NEWS. Parsecboy (talk) 10:41, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Your attacks at User talk:Ocatecir
Considering your tone and attacks upon me in your posting on my talk page, I feel compelled to point a few things out. 1) I posted a discussion on the talk page of the article in question. You have not participated in that discussion and have twice reverted reverted back to the same version, so you are just as guilty of "edit warring", and as administrator, YOU should know better. 2) You cite my lack of knowledge of WP:V, yet you appear to not have checked any of the sources for yourself. Every source of the paragraph in question is about the selection process in the 1979-1982 period (Secret Armies, published 1987; Inside Delta FOrce, describes it as it was in 1979; Delta Force, published 1983). As such, none can can be considered to describe the current selection process as each is twenty years out of date. The language of the article NEEDS to reflect this. 3) Instead of doing any research of your own (I have read two of the three books I listed above), you have reverted to a misleading version with no improvements of your own. As an administrator, YOU should know better. I apologize for using the revert button, it was out of haste and laziness more than maliciousness, but my mistake does not invalidate my argument. If you are not willing to work constructively on the article I will take this to arbitration because I see blanket reverts without improvements made by the reverting editor to be a huge problem on wikipedia. No progress is made and the project suffers. Happy editing. <span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; border:none; font-size:10pt; padding:2px; line-height:10pt; width:30em;">— <font color="#660099">Ocat <font color="#333333">ecir T 01:48, 17 October 2009 (UTC)