User talk:Parsecboy/Archive 19



Invincible class battlecruisers
I'm pretty well done with this article; if you look it over and fill out the Jutland section whenever you get a chance, I'd be grateful. I do need a source on the electrical generating capacity of these ships; the one I have isn't reliable. If you don't have anything that covers it I'll just delete it entirely. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:17, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll try to get to this sometime soon, but it probably won't be before Monday, unfortunately. I'm hammered in real life between as full a load as OSU will let me take, starting an Honors Thesis, and applying to graduate school :) Parsecboy (talk) 01:24, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Speaking of real life...how's marriage treating you? :-) — Ed   (talk  •  contribs)  02:10, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Four Award?
I think you might be eligible for WP:FOUR with Amagi class battlecruiser ... something to investigate and self-nom. -MBK004 01:07, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Way ahead of ya :) It just took me long enough to dig through my edits at T:TDYK to find the diff of the nomination. Parsecboy (talk) 01:22, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * We ask that nominators review other nominees to help keep the queue down. If you have time come by and review a nomination or two.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:15, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Edits by 218.102.169.224
Could you take a look at the edits of ? Some appear to be sneaky vandalism, others censor information , and others are helpful. I am totally confused here. — Kralizec! (talk) 15:26, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: Screws versus Propellers
Hello, the correct term for a propeller is "Propeller" the term "Screw" is for a type or design of the forementioned item.

Wikipedia is a source of information for anyone to study and using a term like "screw" in the article will not explain clearly to them what it is actually discribing.

I would welcome a reply on this subject.

Regards

msa1701 (talk) 10:19, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

SMS Moltke (1910)
FYI, I am about to start an image restoration of the Moltke after a chat with the ed17. This is the image I'll be restoring. Staxringold talkcontribs 02:01, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, I found another LOC image for you: http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.pnp/hec.00964 :-) — Ed   (talk  •  contribs)  02:10, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

NowCommons: File:SMS Moltke.JPG
File:SMS Moltke.JPG is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:SMS Moltke.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) 11:13, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

My condolences
on having the FAC for Derfflinger archived purely for a lack of reviews  -MBK004 00:39, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I just put in its third support earlier today; the page doesn't show it as being closed yet - is the process too far gone? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:49, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know; Jackyd and I were in the process of discussing things. I didn't expect the review to be closed for lack of reviews. Maybe I'll ask Karanacs about it. Parsecboy (talk) 00:52, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * If you don't, I will ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:56, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I guess it was too late... :( -MBK004 03:29, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Then again, perhaps not...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:11, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

<=Congratulations! The article is FA. Binksternet (talk) 04:09, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks to both of you guys for your help :) Parsecboy (talk) 12:33, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Four Award
Well done, and congratulations on your latest FA. BencherliteTalk 08:56, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Congrats on Derfflinger!
This seemed to go on forever. Nice article! Auntieruth55 (talk) 15:00, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Also congratulations from me. Although it's much too late, I too would have added my support if the FAC was still open. A very nice piece of work. Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:17, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey dude
Hiya there Parsec. Would you still have access to Garzke and Dulin's Battleships: United States Battleships, 1935-1992? I need to verify a couple of pages that I apparently once saw on Google Books, but it won't allow me to see them again. USS Hawaii (CB-3) is the article. Also, would you check a couple dates for me with it? G&D in U.S. Battleships in World War II give differing dates than the official Nacy sources, including a 11 March 1945 launching date (rather than 3 November 1945), a suspension of construction date of 16 April 1947 (rather than 17 February 1947), and a reclassifying from CBC-1 to CB-3 on 9 September 1954 (rather than 9 October 1954). — Ed   (talk  •  contribs)  21:51, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmm, I never had that book, and it's not showing me the relevant pages in Google Books either. Sorry I can't be of more help Ed :( Parsecboy (talk) 00:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thought you did? (or was that the 1976 version...ie do I need to go alter some citations now. ;-) Thanks anyway :) — Ed   (talk  •  contribs)  06:37, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I was using Google Books, my friend :) Parsecboy (talk) 11:50, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Classical history task force
Hey! I've just joined the military history project and I'm planning on joining the classical history task force (where I see you are one the people in charge). I'm a new wikipedian, and I hope that working on this interesting area of study will be a way to improve my article-writing skills. How does the task force function? How do we organize construction and updating of pages within our 'scope'? Cheers! Reubzz (talk) 02:04, 8 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the information! I plan to get started soon :)

--Reubzz (talk) 17:59, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Four Award
As a past WP:FOUR awardee you may wish to comment at WikiProject Council/Proposals/Four Award.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:27, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Test your World War I knowledge with the Henry Allingham International Contest!
As a member of the Military history WikiProject or World War I task force, you may be interested in competing in the Henry Allingham International Contest! The contest aims to improve article quality and member participation within the World War I task force. It will also be a step in preparing for Operation Great War Centennial, the project's commemorative effort for the World War I centenary.

If you would like to participate, please sign up by 11 November 2009, 00:00, when the first round is scheduled to begin! You can sign up here, read up on the rules here, and discuss the contest here! This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:11, 8 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Parsecboy, wouldn't this be an interesting oportunity for you to get involved considering that many of your ships articles are part of WWI task force? We are starting the contest this evening (after a 20-hours postponement due to a lack of participants) and your participation would be much appreciated! Best, --Eurocopter (talk) 14:42, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd like to, but I'm pretty busy with school stuff right now, and I don't think I'd have much time to devote to it. :( Parsecboy (talk) 14:50, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


 * No problem! Signups are open until 1 December if you eventually change your mind! --Eurocopter (talk) 15:04, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh, in that case I probably will. I'll be about done with everything school-related by then. Great. Parsecboy (talk) 15:12, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIV (October 2009)
The October 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) 20:11, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

GAR of Habsburg class battleship
Hi mate. I have just completed a GA review of Habsburg class battleship, but am placing it on hold pending a few, rather minor, issues outlined on the talk page. As I said, they are only minor, so it should not take too much to fix. :) I have also come here to try and convince you to join the World War I Contest, but I see that Eurocopter has beaten me to it! Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 06:33, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Abraham. I fixed everything you pointed out (except for the lack of info on WWI, there just wasn't much going on there). Parsecboy (talk) 23:51, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I didn't think there would be much more information available, but thought I should check anyway. Everything looks good, so I have just gone and passed the article. Well done! :) Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 04:05, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:26, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Hamidiye
Things are messed up and I hope you can help. I created the article "Hamidiye", after removing a pointer that erronously poined at "Hamidieh (wrong spelling) Soldier". I did not realize you had already created "Hamidiye (cruiser)". I noticed that, I guess becasue of conflict, the article did not show. I was going ask four your help to re-name it from "Hamidiye" to "Hamidiye(cruiser)", and now the whole article is gone. Someone has tried to help and created now blank "Hamidiye(war ship)" and replaced the pointer to the "Hamidiyeh Soldier". Meanwhile my original article under Hamidiye is now nowhere to be seen. I do not feel like wrting the whole thing over again. Help please! --Murat (talk) 01:59, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I was able to locate the original text with some help. My question is, what should be the proper article title: "Ottoman Cruiser Hamidiye", or "Hamidiye (cruiser)", or "Hamidiye (warship)"? Of course, there is also "TCG Hamidiye". There is also a conflict now since in this article Hamidiye points to "Ottoman Cruiser Hamidiye" and there is also a disambiguation page for Hamidiye that points at "Hamidiye (warship)". Both blank now. Any suggestions? Thanks.--Murat (talk) 15:00, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi, Hudavendigar. I moved the article to Ottoman cruiser Hamidiye and created redirects at TCG Hamidiye and Turkish cruiser Hamidiye. At some point, I'll try to add a bit to the article (I have Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships 1860-1905 and 1906-1921). Parsecboy (talk) 13:53, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, now I can embalish it too. There are many good pictures and details of her exploits in Meditreanean to Red Sea.--Murat (talk) 19:04, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Fully featured topic?
— Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  03:44, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Took me long enough for just 4 articles, didn't it? :) Parsecboy (talk) 13:21, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Geez Ed, you just noticed this now (I've got all the MILHIST topics watchlisted) ? Lutzow was promoted on 26 November. -MBK004 03:02, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I noticed on 28 November. :P — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  03:38, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm, this popped up on my watchlist as if it was a brand new entry...-MBK004 04:01, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Ping
You have mail — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  02:23, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Ed. That one will be useful for SMS Kaiserin und Königin Maria Theresia, which appears to be in pretty rough shape (i.e., it appears to have been translated via Babelfish or something). Overhauling that article might be my next project :) Parsecboy (talk) 02:45, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Interesting. From that article, Kaiserin did a lot without actually doing anything. :) A lot of participation with "international fleets" etc. — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  03:25, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Question: why the "SMS" and German name if it was an Austro-Hungarian ship? — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  03:26, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * 'Cause the Austrians speak German, and they're the one with the navy :p Parsecboy (talk) 04:37, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, didn't know they spoke German. :P But why the SMS then? Wouldn't they want their ships to honor their own ruler? I'm confused here. — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  04:50, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, SMS just means "Seiner Majestät Schiff", which is "His Majesty's Ship." Parsecboy (talk) 12:36, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Salamis assessment
Hi, Parsecboy:

I have just complied with your request for a B-class assessment for Greek battleship Salamis. Generally, I thought it met the B criteria pretty well. If you check my changes, you will find that I added the "abbr=on" switch to the undefined undefined template in places where it was left out; I did this for the sake of internal consistency only, and if you had some reason to leave it out in places, feel free to revert.

My remaining complaints are two: First (and of lesser importance, to my mind) is the inconsistent ordering of SI and customary US units; sometimes you will have dimensions expressed in meters followed by the conversion to inches, and sometimes the other way around. That is not a deal-breaker, but I would prefer to have it all one way or the other. The other complaint concerns a pair of numbers: in the section on the ship's armament, you write about the range "12,000 yd (13,120 m)." At least one of these numbers has to be incorrect. I have no way of knowing how to correct it or them, so I have to leave it to you. Make this change, and you have my permission to sign off the last B-criterion (I think it's B-4) in my name, without waiting for me to get around to it.

Cheers, PKKloeppel (talk) 04:41, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Pkkphysicist. I fixed the conversion problem (I had copied it directly from the source). As for the metric/imperial, I started writing in metric, because that's what I usually do (since the ship articles I write are normally German, and they used metric), but everything I saw in regards to this ship (with the exception of the smaller guns) was in imperial units, so I switched. I was planning on fixing the metric ones, but hadn't gotten to it yet. Thanks for your review! Parsecboy (talk) 13:22, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Scharnhorst GA Review
Hey Parsec. I'm looking over the Scharnhorst article for its GA review. It looks great - detailed, NPOV, all that jazz. My only point of query is whether the chase between the Scharnorst and the British ships leading upto Falklands Island is detailed enough. I read Keegan's Intelligence in War recently, and he devotes an entire chapter to the Scharnhorst and how Von Spee ran the British in circles until they could track him down. As Keegan isn't in the biography, I was wondering if you'd read it? If not, I think looking the chapter in it over might be a good idea - Keegan goes into some detail. Of course, I've not written any ship articles before, and I've no idea whether those kinds of details should go in the ship article, the article on Von Spee, or even the battle's article. Let me know what you think of these slightly rambling ideas. Cheers, Skinny87 (talk) 15:28, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for reviewing the article, Skinny. I actually have Keegan's book, somewhere around here. I was thinking that level of detail would be better for a "chase" article like Pursuit of Goeben and Breslau - something like Pursuit of the German East Asia Squadron. Parsecboy (talk) 15:43, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, yes. that makes more sense. Do you think the article would benefit from anything from Keegan being added? I'm not entirely sure, so I'll pop the ball in your court, as it were. Skinny87 (talk) 15:52, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure, but maybe a line or two about how the British couldn't figure out where Spee had gone might be useful. I won't be able to get to that until tomorrow probably. Parsecboy (talk) 15:09, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem, there's no deadline or anything :) Skinny87 (talk) 16:35, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XIV (November 2009)
The November 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) 19:28, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
Thank you, and I have a OMT comment for you there. -MBK004 08:56, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
— Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  08:33, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVI (December 2009)
The December 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) 04:13, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Tomcha
Hello Parsecboy. User:Tomcha is back editing disruptively again. I decided to go through and start referencing the Ford/Mazda link on some of the articles where Tomcha sprayed a bunch of fact tags, and he's been reverting my edits (calling them "vandalism") and placing his usual atrocious grammar on various pages, while at the same time adding other references that have no relevance to the statements he puts them on. Mazda B platform and Mazda D platform are the two he's been messing with at the moment, but I've edited a couple others recently and they're sure to get hit as well. I understand if you'd rather not get involved with this user again, but I don't like to deal with petulant fanboys alone. --Sable232 (talk) 21:48, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Clarification: I reverted Tomcha's removal of content on both those articles when I added the references, for what it's worth. Also take a look at his talk page history, he's giving people who try to deal with him the usual treatment and seems to be engaging in more tendentious editing elsewhere. --Sable232 (talk) 22:57, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

FAC video spoof
This video on YouTube is hilarious. It is already being discussed at the appropriate place: Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates. Just be sure you have the captions turned-on. -MBK004 11:04, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

:)
I'm disappointed. :P — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  04:49, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I guess we're not all perfect, are we? :P Parsecboy (talk) 00:34, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
You should be aware that a major change to the ship article guidelines has been proposed that would apply to all ship articles on wikipedia. -MBK004 08:47, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Question
Almost two years ago, you participated in the deletion discussion of the Otis AFB F-94C Disappearance page here. I've finally gotten around to fixing it to something worth while, so I was wondering if you would be willing to take a look at it here before I upload it to the main space. Thanks. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 19:48, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure it's ready yet. A good chunk of the controversy and support sections is filled with vague and speculative language (i.e., "Also the government also has a history in some peoples' eyes of covering up UFO's" and "Since it has been shown that memories can change over many years, there is the possibility that Clarence was correct in his account, even if it was a bit off"). The article also lacks citations. If those two issues can be tightened up, then the article will probably be ok. Parsecboy (talk) 23:35, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the help there. Should I seek out someone else to re-write some of my style, since I have an obvious bias? Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Happy Parsecboy's Day!
For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk  • 00:02, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Congrats! I was wondering when you would join the club. -MBK004 00:19, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

German battlecruisers
Congrats are in order for "finishing" the German battleships with today's promotion of Goeben to GA. With that promotion, the Moltke class is now ready to be nominated for FT, congrats on your second FT! -MBK004 00:27, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I'll put up the FT nomination tomorrow, as it's getting late and I need my beauty sleep :) Parsecboy (talk) 04:32, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I completely understand that. One suggestion, instead of using the image currently with User:Parsecboy/Moltke, why not use the FP: File:SMS Moltke Hampton Roads 1912 FINAL.jpg? -MBK004 05:06, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Review citations
I reverted your edit on the How You Sell Soul to a Soulless People Who Sold Their Soul?, per Template:Album ratings. It shows that u can simplify the review site's url title to just "Review: title". Dan56 (talk) 02:29, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVII (January 2010)
The January 2010 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) 04:26, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

45th Infantry Division (United States)
Hello. You supported the 45th Infantry Division's A-class review last fall, but the ACR was closed with no consensus due to a sourcing issue. I have since addressed that issue and have opened a new one. Please do come back to give your input. Thank you! — Ed! (talk) 15:49, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Please help
Hello Parsecboy ! I a user from german wikipedia de:Portal:Waffen. I might need your help in a case of international article vandalism. During quality service checks i came to Thompson (Maschinenpistole) there was a strange addition for .30 carbine caliber. I tried to proof this without effort. I patrolled the english article versions and found the same. The article Thompson Carbine was created by User:Yadayadayaday. The edits of Yadayadayaday and user WatcherREME appear very identically to me. When i got the idea of hoax i had a closer look to the accounts of WatcherREME and TheWatcherREME. By this i found your comments on this old case of suspected sockpuppetry. Obviously this account has been sleeping from that time until 02. Feb. 2010. Please keep an eye on this user - i will try to revert nonsense edits in the german wikipedia and possibly ask for blocks. Regards --Gruß Tom (talk) 23:39, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)
Hello, I am contacting you because you are a warship & ordnance history contributor. I propose to add an additional note to the "manual of style", warning not to use literal conversions for gun names, where the calibre, gun weight or projectile weight used in the gun name is just a convenient approximation rather than an exact measurement. This applies to cases such British "4.7 inch" guns, British "18 inch torpedoes", "6 pounder guns" etc... in such cases, using the undefined undefined template produces incorrect results and should not be used. In such cases we need to hardcode "4.7-inch (120-mm)", "18-inch (450-mm)". Currently well-meaning folks keep going through these articles and adding undefined undefined everywhere without understanding the subject matter, producing rubbish like "18 inch (460 mm) torpedo" and 12 pounder (5.4 kg).. We also ne3ed, in my opinion, to agree to what degree we abbreviate calibres in conversion e.g. 12-inch = 305 mm, 4-inch = 102 mm, 6-inch = 152-mm, etc.. What is your opinion on this ? regards, Rod. Rcbutcher (talk) 10:34, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

American terminology versus British terminology
Please stop reverting the word "Propeller" to "Screws".

The "Screw Propeller" was invented by Francis Pettit Smith from England - British terminolgy applies to ALL articles where a ships propeller is mentioned.

I left a response to your disagreeing with the wording back in 2009 on your talk page but you never left a reply.

The words "Screw propeller" and "Propeller" are correct for the article but simply putting the word "Screw" is a shortened word or an abreviation and is therefore incorrect.

Regards

msa1701 (talk) 08:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm new to this issue. I strongly disagree with the cause/effect relationship in The "Screw Propeller" was invented by Francis Pettit Smith from England - British terminolgy applies to ALL articles where a ships propeller is mentioned. WP:TIES only advises using to the nationality-tie of the article being written, not the target of the link, and explains it as trying to be matched to the readership of the article not the origin of the term. It's not a proper noun and I don't see any nationalist tie other than "country where invented". Further, infobox space is at a premium and it's intended to be a quick overview/summary not the end-all of content. "Screw" is concise and understandable enough for this purpose, and seems to be a common term for propeller in the context of ships, and wikilinking helps readers learn about that. DMacks (talk) 09:53, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Msa, you are constantly removing arabic numerals and replacing them with spelled out numbers. This directly contradicts established policy; please read WP:ORDINAL. Secondly, you are removing hyphens from compound nouns, adjectives, and adverbs. This is also incorrect; read WP:HYPHEN. As for your assertions about propellers, who invented them is irrelevant. If we went by your logic, since Daimler built the first truck, and they use camion over in mainland Europe, we must remove every reference to "truck" or "lorry" in Wikipedia&mdash;that's a ludicrous argument. "Screw" is very commonly used to describe the propulsion device used on ships; if you hadn't noticed by the number of articles you're constantly changing, it's probably more commonly used than "propeller." Parsecboy (talk) 12:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Screw is British terminology. See William H White's Manual of Naval Architecture, 1882 edition, page 543.--Toddy1 (talk) 23:49, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Ships

 * Reverted self while I hadnt checked edit history carefully... apologies for reverted comments
 * Sorry you had to do the reverts - thanks for doing them - hope the apology at ships is ok
 * We see the scopes very differently - I see the parallel tagging as fine - but I do not believe that ships has precedence over shipwrecks at any point SatuSuro 04:07, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Urgent
TomStar81 (Talk) 06:42, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Op Bagration stats
Hi, I noticed that your last reversion of the figures has been again reverted. Is that source (Krivosek) verifiable? Cheers, DPdH (talk) 01:02, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for letting me know. I don't have Krivosheev's book, so I can't tell you whether it's right or not. But I did revert, because you can't attribute a claim to one source but source it to another. I left a note on Blablaa's talk page, and hopefully that'll make him understand. Parsecboy (talk) 12:49, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

bagration
hi, i saw that zalogas numbers for armorlosses are krivosheevs numbers, thats why i put his ref behind because zaloga then is only citing krivo. regarding the overall casualties, when krivo says 7xxxxxxx casualties and zaloga says 1xxxxxxx than we have a big problem. i can provide the p. of "grif....." , high likly zaloga is only giving numbers for one front or hes doing something similar, dont know. maybe a different timeframe, but then is losses for german are strange. is this your edit can u check your source and confirm that zaloga means this are the casualties for the entire operation bagration. Blablaaa (talk) 15:50, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * That's not how sourcing works. If you attribute a claim to an author, you have to source it to that author. It doesn't matter if he's simply citing another work. I don't have either book, but for the sake of argument, even if Zaloga states in his book "Krivosheev tallies the Russian casualties as X killed and Y wounded," you cannot say "According to Zaloga, Russian casualties were..." and then cite Krivosheev directly.
 * As for the content itself, I am not an expert on the Eastern Front, and I don't have many books that discuss it specifically, so I won't comment on the numbers themselves. Parsecboy (talk) 16:03, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

ok i understand, i will let the numbers. Blablaaa (talk) 16:07, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

are u an admin? Blablaaa (talk) 16:18, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, I am an administrator. Parsecboy (talk) 16:22, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

i need an admin, a neutral one would be perfect. battle of kursk dicussion. Blablaaa (talk) 16:29, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Portal:Battleships/Selected article
What articles would you want here? Ideally it would be one pre-dreadnought (because we don't have many highly-rated pre-dreads) and one dreadnought/battlecruiser, but I leave that to you. :) — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  03:20, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Are we talking like we all get to pick a couple of articles? If we each get one pre-dread and dreadnought apiece, I'd probably go for either Radetzky class battleship or SMS Radetzky (both pre-dread GAs, and it'll help mix up the predominance of German/American BB/BC articles) and one of the German BCs (maybe SMS Von der Tann, since she was my first :) Parsecboy (talk) 03:36, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, we'll probably be adding more. I was trying to add about ten that would be taken from all over, regardless of who wrote them, and we could go from there. I just wasn't sure which of those crappy Ottoman/German articles you would want. ;) — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  03:41, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Crappy? You're just lucky you're an admin, or else I'd block your ass :P Parsecboy (talk) 03:46, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, you heard me. Crappy! Don't block me or I'll have your ass desysopped. :D Adding Radetzky and Von der Tann now. — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  03:49, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Nominations for the March 2010 Military history Project Coordinator elections now open!
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 8 March 2010! More information on coordinatorship may be found on the coordinator academy course and in the responsibilities section on the coordinator page. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:10, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVIII (February 2010)
The February 2010 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) 23:03, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

SMS Moltke (1910) TFA
Hey, there. I was wondering whether you have considered nominating SMS Moltke (1910) at WP:TFAR for April 7, the 100th anniversary of the ship's launch? I believe the article would get 7 points; 6 for being a centennial and another 1 for being promoted over a year ago.  Pyrrhus  16 ''' 11:14, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I actually hadn't thought of it, but that's a great idea. The last ship article was HMAS Melbourne (R21), but that was in February. As long as no other ships are run in the next few weeks it should be ok. Thanks! Parsecboy (talk) 12:43, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, Moltke would be much more appropriate than the currently proposed April ship TFA: Design 1047 battlecruiser as listed at Today's featured article/requests/pending. I've taken the liberty of adding Moltke there since you won't be able to nominate it for a bit of time due to the number of points it has. -MBK004 19:56, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll probably still nominate 1047 anyway, just to see what happens (it's a 70th anniversary), but I will certainly be supporting Moltke! — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  19:59, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Just a reminder that the time has come to nominate Moltke at WP:TFAR. -MBK004 17:53, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

3RR
I won't template you, but you have come up against 3RR on Scharnhorst class armored cruiser. I don't have to tell you what will happen if I see another revert there, do I? -MBK004 18:15, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I have it watchlisted now, that wording seems fine to me — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  21:06, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I know. I think Rcbutcher and I are at an agreement now anyway. Parsecboy (talk) 01:01, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Rollback Permission
Hello,

You were listed on admins willing to grant rollback permissions, so I thought I might ask for this. I have considered applying for adminship myself, but I'm not really around enough to justify it at this time. However, many of my edits are correcting vandalism or making minor cleanups of editing errors on an article. The rollback feature seems like it would assist me in doing this. Would you grant me this permission? Lumbergh (talk) 12:41, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Confused
I'm a bit confused by this edit. I'm not sure why any article would top out at GA, and why that would be ok. Are you referring to something in specific?  bahamut0013  words deeds 02:32, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * For a lot of articles, there just isn't enough information to get the article past GA. For example, SMS Brandenburg will probably never get past GA, as the ship's career was pretty dull, with the exception of the Boxer rebellion duty and the very limited service in the Baltic in the beginning of WWI. But that's perfectly fine, because a featured topic requires only 50% of the articles involved to be FAs, the rest can be GAs. Parsecboy (talk) 02:50, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Personally, I wouldn't consider a dull career to be a reason to deny FA, but I see your point: uninteresting ships don't get much historic attention, thus, there aren't enough sources to do much with it. Okay, thanks for answering my question.  bahamut0013  words deeds 12:41, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Coord?
Hey Parsec, are you going to run for coordinator again? — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  21:51, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I'll add my name there tomorrow. My grandfather passed away this morning, so I've been busy. Parsecboy (talk) 03:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * My condolences. Be aware that nominations close in 20 hours though, so you need to time it perfectly. Heck, we'd probably co-opt you regardless. Don't forget about nominating Moltke at WP:TFAR when you get a chance. -MBK004 03:21, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry Parsec. I'll add at least a placeholder for you; come back whenever you can/feel ready... I'll also watch your A-class nom for you, jut in case. — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  04:21, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks guys. I should be able to get to both of those today. And thanks for helping out with Helgoland, Ed. I'll be gone for Wednesday and Thursday; that's when the visitation and funeral are. Parsecboy (talk) 11:20, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to hear about your grandfather, Parsecboy. If you need some time away for personal reasons feel free to take it, we will be here when you get back. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:03, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks Tom. The funeral was today. I probably won't be on tonight, but I'll be around tomorrow. Parsecboy (talk) 19:48, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * My condolences, Parsec. Anything I can help with, just drop me a line. Skinny87 (talk) 19:52, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Zam
I'm sorry I was unable to respond while the discussion was still open. They closed it too quick

Official U.S. policy is simply to note that Chinese (Taiwanese are ignored because they were powerless when the policy was made) on both sides of the Taiwan Strait say there is one China and that Taiwan is part of it, and to say that we're not in the mood to argue with either one of them.

The poster who claimed that the U.S. considers Taiwan part of China (to whom someone replied "Zam") was wrong, The U.S. does not take an position on whether Taiwan is part of China. Readin (talk) 23:57, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Re Bahia
Good, you saw the problem. It's near impossible to cure a case of the warship flu. — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  15:05, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Lol, that's why I asked. I've got this battleship that's feeling under the weather and I just can't figure out what to do... Parsecboy (talk) 15:13, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Ohhh, that sucks. Poor thing. The only you can do is to give it some cool salt water and a little gunpowder + some prayer. — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  16:11, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Coordinator elections have opened!
Voting for the Military history WikiProject coordinator elections has opened; all users are encouraged to participate in the elections. Voting will conclude 23:59 (UTC) on 28 March 2010. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:12, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Moltke TFA
You never did nominate SMS Moltke (1910) at WP:TFAR for 7 April. Since Raul has scheduled up to 2 April already now would be the time to do so. Would you like to, or should I go ahead? Unless we have decided to wait and forgo the centennial of the launch in favor of commissioning next year. -MBK004 02:16, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I'm going to do that today, probably very shortly. I figured that since it was a 7-pointer, I could wait to not take up a spot. Parsecboy (talk) 11:17, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm still waiting on a response from one of the regulars here before I put it up. I'm going to have to leave for work momentarily, so if you want, you can put it up for me. Parsecboy (talk) 18:05, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I would put it up, but I am not so good with doing the blurb. From my look at the rules and how I see the points, I would replace the one with the date the farthest away and ask for mercy if you did something wrong. -MBK004 01:25, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Alright, I've put it up. We'll see what happens :) Parsecboy (talk) 16:39, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Another question
Perhaps a bit more personal than you might be comfortable answering online, which I would understand. But you mentioned that you go (or at least can access) Ohio State, and I plan to study there once my enlistment is up. I'm guessing that perhaps you also have a goal of a history major? Any insight you can provide would be helpful to me.  bahamut0013  words deeds 17:07, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Not a problem, I was in your place 3 years ago. The online application was pretty easy as far as I remember it. The main problem I had was getting my Ohio-resident status straight; I had to call them repeatedly after I faxed them my pay stub showing that I paid Ohio state taxes. I'm going to graduate at the end of the summer quarter and hopefully start grad school at OSU in the fall. The biggest piece of advice I can give you is to figure out what classes you want to take for your major (the history major requires 50 hours, and there are other requirements too, you can find them here). Of course, OSU is finally going to switch to semesters this fall, so some of those will probably change in the coming months. Regardless, it's a good idea to try to plan out as much as you can, major-wise, so you know what you need to take and when. If you're planning on majoring in history, Maria Mazon is a good person to contact once you've been accepted, she's the undergrad coordinator for the department (you can find her contact info here).
 * If you're thinking about going to grad school in history, I can help you out a lot, given that I just went through the application process in December.
 * If you have any specific questions, feel free to ask me. How soon will your enlistment be done and when are you planning on starting at OSU? Parsecboy (talk) 18:02, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * My EAS is July next year, though I'm hoping to accumulate enough terminal to move out to Mansfield by May. I also hope to finish my associate's by that time, so I can use the GI bill's four years and finish with a Master's. Reading the website, I see that I should be able to get all of my requirements at the Mansfield campus, I hope that doesn't change. I might hit you up for some more info once I get full swing into application. Thanks!  bahamut0013  words deeds 18:15, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it helped a lot that I took classes while I was in the Army (I don't understand why more people don't, the military basically pays for school after duty hours, it's too easy). I can tell you that Ohio State is really good about accepting transfer credit, so even if you don't get finished with the Associates, everything should transfer. Feel free to ask me whenever you need. Parsecboy (talk) 16:41, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

William Garrow
As far as I'm aware the criterion when points are tied is which article is later, not how many supports there are. In that case, you should have removed Morotai Mutiny rather than William Garrow. Ironholds (talk) 17:17, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * According to #3 under the "Adding requests" header, the latest date is the last resort, after checking for most opposes and least supports. Since none of the 3-pointers had any opposes, it went to lease number of supports, which was William Garrow. Parsecboy (talk) 17:24, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Ahh, okay - just me misreading then. Thanks! Ironholds (talk) 17:55, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem :) I had to read them pretty closely myself to figure out what to do in the first place. Parsecboy (talk) 18:03, 20 March 2010 (UTC)