User talk:Parsecboy/Archive 21



Sources?
I can't decide. What are the two sources for German battleships and battlecruisers that you wish you had, don't have, and can't get via inter-library loan? I'll be happy to invest in a couple of solid sources. (Watching) - Dank (push to talk) 23:28, 4 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Honestly, I have just about everything I need, at least for the WWI ships. The only book I need that I don't currently have is this one, which is because it hasn't been released yet (but rest assured, I already ordered it). That book (and the first volume) will be enough to get all of the German dreadnoughts to FA (along with the more battle-specific books I have). The main problem I foresee with the WWI ships are the older pre-dreadnoughts, but most of that stuff can be found in PD documents on Google Books. Some of them had interesting things (mainly accidents and such) happen (like SMS Kaiser Friedrich III, but others like SMS Kaiser Wilhelm der Große seem to have had uneventful careers. The battlecruisers are all but done; the only thing that remains is to take last few of them through the upper-level review processes.
 * Now that I think about it, I don't have a ton of stuff for the WWII ships, especially the Tirpitz. I just got a short book by Siegfried Breyer about the ship, but it's pretty scant on service history stuff. I have books in the same series on the Scharnhorst and Gneisenau, but more on those would be useful too. I have a book on the Bismarck, but I'd prefer to have a variety of sources for such a major topic. The various H-class proposals could use a solid source or two as well. So really, anything on the WWII ships would be quite useful. That being said though, OSU has a pretty good inter-library loan system (I have a book requested from out of state that should be here soon&mdash;can't think of it off the top of my head), so I could probably get whatever I needed for those ships.
 * So I guess I don't know what to tell you. I'd hate to have you to sink money into a book or two if you don't need to, you know? I do really appreciate the offer though. Maybe the best option for now would be to wait until I'm ready to tackle the WWII ships, at which point I can find what books will be most useful. If they aren't available through ILL, then you could get them. How does that sound? :Just to note, I'll be doing the WWII ships last (and probably the Bismarck class the last of all, given its much higher visibility/number of editors participating/etc.) so it'll probably be a while. I hope to be able to finish at least all of the dreadnoughts over the summer, but we'll see how far I get. Thanks again. Parsecboy (talk) 23:47, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Will respond in a minute. Btw, I can't tell how navweaps.com is doing at RSN.  Blücher uses it, and the source was challenged in the previous FAC.  So many MILHIST pages use navweaps that it would be a major pain if it were determined to be an unreliable source; any ideas on how to tackle this? - Dank (push to talk) 23:57, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Just about every good article or better in OMT uses it. It's a big deal if we lose access. We need to get everybody in OMT to weigh in and overpower outvote the idiots who've challenged it. I'm not at all sure that my eloquent defense will carry the day.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:18, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure, I'll be happy to help with the WWII books. I've got Friedman and the '95 edition of Garzke & Dulin, so I have some relevant information on service histories ... just seen through another set of binoculars, at least when German ships came up against U.S. ships.  I also have Conway ('22-'46), although I've found that Conway often sucks.  On the WWI articles, I'll try to do a thorough search through Google Books and other sources and see if I can add anything. - Dank (push to talk) 00:03, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Uhhh, I got two emails from DiGiulian on Sunday and Monday... Totally forgot to check that over the last week. Should have emailed him from my WP email, seeing as I checked that three-ish times this week. I'll add his thoughts to the RSN discussion. — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  01:09, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It's going to be a pain if we have to replace all of the Navweaps links... If it does come to that, I should be alright (though I'd obviously prefer we don't)&mdash;Conway's 1906-1921 has a table with most of the information for German guns (I'm not sure if there are similar tables for other countries), and Gary Staff's books can fill in what isn't there. Parsecboy (talk) 02:13, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * ...I won't. Does anyone want to contact Ealdgyth and see what she thinks? I believe that she cleared it as well. — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  02:45, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Roughly how many articles use that reference? I'm getting the sense it's a lot, in which case we've got an IAR argument ... that is, even if it technically doesn't meet SPS, no one has found that something they cited for WP turned out to be inaccurate (right?), and the time needed to replace the reference, plus the chance that the replacement refs won't be as good, plus the chance that we'll have to re-insert navweaps after we find out it's okay after all ... that can't be in the best interest of the encyclopedia, can it? - Dank (push to talk) 04:28, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

SAS GA review
Hi, asking a question here so as not to clutter up the review page. I am still waiting some response in connection with the cap badge and wings images but having checked other articles with cap badges etc they seem to display the non free tag

Not being as well read in wiki image licences as I probably should be, would this do with the relevant text for why they are being used ? --Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:50, 5 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, according to that template they can only be used to "illustrate the symbol in question," so if we decided to call them fair use, they could only be used in a Badges of the SAS type article. Fair use is pretty restrictive in how images can be used. Parsecboy (talk) 11:15, 5 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes that was my take on it as well, I will remove them from the article pending any further update from Media copyright questions. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 16:10, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

(od) I made a first copy-editing pass through the article, mainly grammatical and a bit on readability. Thanks to Jim for his clarifications. Some quick feedback would be appreciated, thanks!  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА  ►talk 02:38, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for letting me know, Peter. I'll look at the article tomorrow morning and see if anything still needs work. Regards, Parsecboy (talk) 02:42, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks in advance! 13:48, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the review --Jim Sweeney (talk) 07:37, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LI (May 2010)
The May 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) 21:32, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Can you check a source for me?
Hi Parsecboy. According to your library, you have access to Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships: 1860–1905. The article HMVS Cerberus listed the book as a source (moved down to Further Reading following my expansion a few hours ago), but there were no specific cites. Would you be willing to look at the article and see if (1) anything in Conway's marries up with the three fact tags in the article, andor (2) if its worth keeping the book listed, or is everything in there covered in the article. Thanks in advance. -- saberwyn 07:25, 24 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The Conway's entry is pretty lean; it does confirm the two-shaft engines. Specifically, it states "2-shaft Maudslay, 1,369ihp=9.75kts. But that's all the information on the powerplant. The only thing it mentions in regards to the trip down to Australia was the fitting of the three-masted sailing rig, which I see is already cited in the article. However, this might be a useful tidbit: ...they represent the beginnings of practical turret ship design in Britain, having no sail power and being fitted with fore and aft turrets with almost uninterrupted arcs of fire.


 * I'll let you work the engine details in as you think best, as the information in the book doesn't exactly match the first line. The listing does provide a somewhat more detailed description of the ship's armor, which I could add if you like. Parsecboy (talk) 11:23, 24 June 2010 (UTC)


 * If you could update the armour info, that would be brilliant. If you can find a home for that 'tidbit' of yours, that would be appreciated as well...i'm not sure where exactly to work it in. I think I'll leave the engines alone until I can check the other two Further Reading sources. Thanks muchly for your help. -- saberwyn 11:35, 24 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Not a problem at all. I added the info, but you'll probably want to fix the citation; I didn't know how much of the book title you wanted to use so I didn't put it in. I think I found a good spot for the quote, but feel free to move it if you like. Parsecboy (talk) 12:05, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

List of battleships of Austria-Hungary
Hey there parsec. I've just returned from my vacation so I'm back to editing. I have a question though. Since that list that I wrote has just been promoted to A-class, can you please tell me if I need to get it through a PR before I nominate it for a FL? It's in the criteria but I thought that an ACR would count as a PR.-- White Shadows stood on the edge 01:35, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Normally I would suggest it, but as far as I have seen PR has been pretty quiet, reviewer-wise. The only one I've done recently got just one comment in the span of a month. You might as well nominate it for FL; the worst that happens is it fails and you have to try again later. Parsecboy (talk) 02:36, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

SMS Zrinyi
Well since Franz Ferdinand went so well (excludeing that disastrous FAC), mind helping me get this next one to A class? Just a few fixes is all it really needs I belive.-- White Shadows stood on the edge 01:37, 30 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Nah, I don't really have the time for that right now. What time I do have for Wikipedia is mostly devoted to the German articles. I'd suggest looking through the ACR and FAC for Erzherzog Franz Ferdinand and see what comments there also apply to Zrinyi, and start from there. Thanks though. Parsecboy (talk) 02:36, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Alright. And that FLc for the SH ships does not seem to be going very well....Hope you have that copy of Sokol's book!-- White Shadows There goes another day 02:42, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I haven't been able to get it...I requested it back during the Erzherzog Franz Ferdinand FAC, but still haven't gotten it. Someone must have it checked out. Parsecboy (talk) 11:06, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Contest entry for SMS Westfalen
Hi Nate, I have verified the contest results for June. I had to leave SMS Westfalen as a B because the GAN hasn't been completed yet. Apologies, I understand that this is no fault of your own. It will be eligible for entry in the July contest. Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 07:47, 1 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh, that should have been SMS Rheinland listed. For some reason, I've been repeatedly mixing those two up...Can you re-verify that please? And thanks for letting me know. Parsecboy (talk) 11:11, 1 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Done, I've updated the points table also. I had already issued the awards, so luckily it didn't change the result. Ruth just pipped you for second. Take care. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:20, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Yeah, I was hoping a few more of my GANs would have been reviewed this month; then I could have beaten Ruth :) Parsecboy (talk) 11:34, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The GANs will possibly be my next project. I did one this month, but have been reluctant to get involved. I did five late last year, but got some bad feedback about my reviewing so I haven't been too keen on them this year. Will see if there's any blowback from the latest one and then decide from there. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:12, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I've been doing a few here and there. What was the problem with the reviews last year? Did the author disagree with your interpretations of the GA criteria? Parsecboy (talk) 13:01, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, something like that. I was too harsh with one review (I knew the subject fairly well), too easy with another (I didn't have any content knowledge). AustralianRupert (talk) 23:34, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't feel bad. I started five, but only completed three. One is still on-going and I've not yet gotten a response on the other after a month, so I suspect that I'll fail it shortly. I like to do them, so as to make it harder for others to avoid my own GANs, but just couldn't muster up any enthusiasm this past month.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:37, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * My thoughts exactly. I try to pick GANs that I have at least a modicum of knowledge about. And Sturm, that's one of my primary motivators too; I have six up right now, half of which have been waiting for a month or longer. Parsecboy (talk) 02:39, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LII (June 2010)
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:29, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

BlaBlaa
I've seen the earlier discussion about this editors block. I've just been looking at his edits at (and the rest of the talk page, particularly his 'blatant lie' one. I'm wondering if it's time to go deal with him again in some way, either directly or via ANI? It's been suggested I ask you about this. I'm not trying to pass the buck, just wanting to get other opinions from people who know something about his history. I haven't been involved with him. Dougweller (talk) 09:11, 10 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for bringing this up. I left another note on his talk page (although in regards to another comment he made) and suggested he disengage from the whole mess. We'll see whether he takes the advice. Parsecboy (talk) 11:20, 10 July 2010 (UTC)


 * please read the discussion at the talk page of allied warcrimes and then read enigmas post. then u maybe rethink your position. Read the talk page there before u claim my comment is wrong. If people behave like this, whats my option ? All question my faith but go to the allied war crime page read it and then read enigmas summarize, and then tell me which word is better then lie for this ! I do not accept that people can behave like this on wiki. To claim such a lie do affect the reputation of an other editor is very bad. He gets no problems for this. Please show me that wikipedia has no lobbies where people have more rights then others. Read the talk page and then read enigmas post. If all people here get handled the same way enigma should get a warning for being mean with this comment. In my opinion the milhist is kinda a lobby, people beloning to them for a while have fool's license and can do what they want. Blablaaa (talk) 15:23, 10 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Its like politics here. Political correctness has more value than good faith. If people would stop watching the style of editors and start watching for their intention enigma would have got a warning immediatly. But i guess when i say liar to a liar this is ten time worse than constructing a well sounding lie to affect the reputation of somebody who wants to discuss points which are valid. Where do people attack the reputation of others to get consense? Please tell me. i thought on wiki the aim is getting consense. i dont think so when i see milhist. How much does it say that people immediatly critizise me instead of checking my correct accusations? Thats called lobby and thats also called corrupcy. Again please go to the allied warcrime talk page read the discussion there understand what my intention there was and than proof your integrity. with regards. The only problem why i get problems on normandy at the moment is because iam against this subtile british bias which is spread through all the articles. Why do you think enigma doesnt give an opinion to the infoboxes? Because its obvious a try to fool the reader. But he hopes that it stays in the article, he would never change himself. Never. Blablaaa (talk) 15:40, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Re:Civility warning?
Hi. You assumining bad faith on my part was unwarranted, it makes it hard for me to assume good faith with you but I'm trying. Using my past (yes I'm no choir boy but no need for you to rub it in) against me is unacceptable. Threatening to block me for my past and for my honesty is totally wrong. As an admin you should know better, I'm sorry but I feel you're treating me unfairly by using my past blocks against me. Let me clear things up for you and explain. I was not incivil. I was being honest. Yes perhaps too blunt but nevertheless I was simply speaking the truth. Have you looked into the behavioral patterns of Enigma? Have you seen his lack of AGF in regards to Blablaaa? Did you read the link I posted on MILHIST? Have you seen his unacceptable posts that are WP:CIVILITY violations? Why is it okay for him to violate WP:NPA and WP:CIV? Please be neutral here and be fair. What other word in the English dictionary can you say best describes him in regards to the talk pages I've mentioned? AGF is not possible once you do the homework like I did. As for Hohum, once again I was being honest, perhaps too honest but most certainly not incivility. How is me telling him that not a single person is forcing him to be a part of the discussion on Kursk considered incivil? I can't see how him complaining is helping matters? Have you seen the several edits he made where he called another editor (Igor) a vandal in his edit summaries? Check the history for the Battle of Kursk article. He's treated Igor very poorly on the Kursk talk page as well. I also don't understand how me being honest is such an issue for you? I'm sorry but your message on my talk page was vague, biased, offensive and not helpful. I'm sorry dude but I just don't understand you.  Caden  cool  21:15, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Please read the section "Death rates of POWs held by the Allies" at Talk:Allied war crimes during World War II and then go back to MILHIST and compare. Thanks.  Caden   cool  21:32, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes I know how wiki works. I know about WP:RS and WP:V. Since we're on the subject of Kursk I already mentioned before on the Battle of Kursk talk page that Wikipedia is not about what is true or what is not. Wiki does not care about the truth. It's reliable sources that matters and published books are reliable sources. Bellamy's "Absolute War" is a published book that supports some of Igor's edits that Hohum is fighting to remove. As Paul mentioned a page number from Bellamy shows that some edits are backed up as reliable. Books are reliable sources, it says so under the sources policy on verifiablity. Wiki is not about truth, it's about reliable sources. Books are just that. Bellamy's "Absolute War" is therefore a reliable source since it's a published book Hohum can't deny it. It's policy. By the way I didn't ask for a free pass because "they started it." As I told you before I was just being honest. Maybe too honest. Furthermore, you didnt give me any answers in regards to why you're using my past against me. I still don't think that's fair at all dude. I don't think you like me much.  Caden  cool  21:54, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, it's obvious you're biased and not neutral in regards to everything I've said in good faith. I see no further need in me trying. You've judged me already. I need a unbiased, neutral, uninvolved admin to take a look at the link above and to check out what I've tried explaining to you in good faith.  Caden  cool  22:25, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Since my name has been brought up here, along with accusations: It's a matter of record that I have said nothing at all about Bellamy. However, other editors have. Books are not automatically reliable by being books.
 * Regarding my repeated advice to Igor, I believe it has always been civil. A couple of my edit summaries did say they were reverting vandalism, which is what repeated re-inclusion, ignoring talk page comments, against consensus, is. It looked like a duck, it quacked like a duck, I called it a duck. If Igor, or anyone else, feels that they need to report my behaviour, they should do so, which is what Caden has already threatened on my talk page. ( Hohum  @ ) 22:49, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Talk:SMS Kaiser Friedrich III/GA1
Hey Parsec, I've begun the review of this article and I'll be awaiting your reply to the comments that I have. Not that many issues exist and if you get to it fast enough, perhaps I'll pass this article today :)-- White Shadows I ran away from you 00:08, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I've passed it. Good job ;) (On another note, mind doing a GA review yourself-I'm asking since you are supposed to according to WP:GAN-perhaps Ersatz Monarch class battleship?)-- White Shadows I ran away from you 01:22, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, White Shadows. I can probably take a look at it sometime later today. Parsecboy (talk) 10:52, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Advice
Hi, I wonder if you could offer me some advice. Article talk page Talk:Battle of Kursk is ballooning in size during an attempt to make a novice editor understand the requirements for inclusion. This is likely disrupting or dissuading editors making relevant threads which could be about improving the article. After weeks of pointing the user to the relevant wikipedia policies, they still ignore them, and I see no evidence that they ever will comply.

Other than constantly firmly but politely rebutting them, what would be a sensible course of action? ( Hohum  @ ) 18:22, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The thing I'd suggest doing is posting a notice on the relevant project pages (i.e., WP:MILHIST and WP:RUSSIA) and ask for help. Maybe if more people are telling him (I assume you're talking about Igor) then he might accept the message. At this point he might just think this is your interpretation and is therefore not binding.
 * If that doesn't work, it might have to go to ANI, where some formal warnings, restrictions, and eventually blocks could be placed. I'd hate to see that have to happen, but we can't have editors flagrantly ignoring core policies, especially on widely viewed articles like Battle of Kursk. Parsecboy (talk) 10:41, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


 * @Hohom. No,I disagree. Igor is not disrupting nor is he dissuading editors. He is trying to improve the article by bringing many sources to the table, some of which is reliable which you have failed to mention here Hohum. Igor's (excellent) attempts at an open and honest discussion is what wikipedia encourages. Open communication is the way, the only way. I can't help but wonder why you fail to recognize this. Am I missing something? It's clear to me that Igor is passionate about the topic and it's also clear that Igor is going out of his way to discuss sources. I respect that. @Parsecboy. ANI is not the answer. Neither is MILHIST due to the politics. Posting at WP:Russia for help would be the better solution. What would also help a great deal is finding another user who speaks the Russian language.  Caden  cool  20:27, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


 * He has yet to provide any evidence to support the reliability of any the sources that he keeps shotgunning on the talk page. He might hit on a reliable one by chance. You clearly are missing something - 100+ KB of evasion, non-sequiturs, and bluster, versus 0 KB of what has repeatedly and politely been asked for - which is easy to produce for a reliable source. I note you haven't tried to provide any either, despite championing his "excellent" efforts.
 * I haven't failed to mention anything - I linked to the talk page in question. I'm intrigued by your slur on MILHISTs character though. ( Hohum  @ ) 20:47, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I have posted on the talk pages of the Wikiproject Military history/Russian and Soviet military history task force, and Wikiproject Russia in the hope that someone will accept the challenge of giving guidance to Igor. ( Hohum  @ ) 21:05, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I would suggest both caden and hohum stop their little dispute. I think caden tries to defend a new user which is to appreciate i guess, and i think hohum pretty often tried to explain igor the problem, and i think hohum stayed calm and repeated himself very very often. To be honest i guess hohum behaved better than me ^^ Hohum gave no warnings or something like this nor did he go to ani to complain about igor. I think many editors would have react worse than hohum. So my summarize you both act in good faith and manner. So i guess its a big waste if you argue to much about it. Blablaaa (talk) 21:17, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Well said, Blablaaa. Parsecboy (talk) 21:25, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Wrong. Have a look at Igor's talk page. Hohom left warnings. Furthermore, nobody is arguing. Both Hohum and I are talking, communicating openly but not arguing.  Caden  cool  21:36, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * My Bad!Blablaaa (talk) 21:37, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

@Hohum. " He has yet to provide any evidence to support the reliability of any the sources that he keeps shotgunning on the talk page." looks inappropriate and lacks AGF. Please remember WP:CIV and WP:NPA. Like I mentioned often before, Bellamy's book did support some of Igor's edits. Paul made it clear on the talk page. "I'm intrigued by your slur on MILHISTs character though." Slur? Nope not at all. It's called stating the truth I'm sorry. Hohum, I might be blond and blue eyed but I'm fully aware of what happens off wiki. Okay, I'm finished sharing my thoughts, so everybody happy editing :)  Caden  cool  21:41, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It's also interesting to be lectured on AGF CIV and NPA by someone who makes idle threats on my talk page and alludes vaguely to conspiracy theories here. Sadly an edit war seems to have erupted at Battle of Kursk in the meantime. Anyway, I'm sure parsecboy doesn't need this on his talk page. He gave advice, I have taken it and neutrally asked for assistance. ( Hohum  @ ) 22:12, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

SMS Blücher
Gratz on the featured article! This would make a great "today's featured article" I think. - Dank (push to talk) 14:13, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks! And you as well, you helped out a lot to get the article up to FA quality. Perhaps we could save it for 2015; it'd be the 100th anniversary of the ship being sunk. Or, we could run it whenever, that's five years away. Parsecboy (talk) 18:47, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Ersatz Monarch class battleship/GA1
I've fixed all of the issues I think.... Just get back to me when you reply :)-- White Shadows It's a wonderful life 20:33, 18 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Alright, I'll look at it this afternoon. Parsecboy (talk) 16:12, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

jutland
i responded. i would think about striking the comment.Blablaaa (talk) 12:02, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

User:White Shadows/Monarch class battleship
Hey Parsec can you take a look at this draft of the Monarch class coastal defense ships/pre-dreadnought battleships that I'm working on. I think that I'm done but can you comb over it and let me know about any issues (including the images and citations) Thanks!-- White Shadows It's a wonderful life 18:19, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

DYK for SMS Kaiser (1911)
The DYK project (nominate) 00:03, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

The long wait has ended...

 * Congratulations on becoming only the second person to be awarded the Swords, after the legendary Bellhalla 13 months ago! -MBK004 08:51, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Congratulations from me too - extremely impressive. EyeSerene talk 08:56, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks guys! Parsecboy (talk) 10:55, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Good stuff. Thanks for letting me look over your shoulder; without you and Sturmvogel, I would have no idea what I'm doing. - Dank (push to talk) 12:10, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Speaking of that, have you thought about writing a battleship article yourself? I'd be happy to assist in any way you'd need. Given your sources, you might try a WWII Brit battleship - maybe HMS Prince of Wales (53) - I don't know if it's mentioned in Sunburst but I'm guessing it is. I have Brown's Nelson to Vanguard, which might prove helpful. Just an idea :) Parsecboy (talk) 13:04, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Writing ship articles from scratch is on the short list of things to do. I see that one is B-class;  should be possible to add material and polish it.  Thanks kindly for the offer, I'll add that one to the list on my copyediting page. - Dank (push to talk) 13:31, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Rivadavia class battleship
Thank you for your constructive participation in the above review. Although the review still has a week or two to run, it may be eligible for early closure. If you get the chance, would it be possible for you to check back to see if your comments have been satisfactorily addressed? Thanks, EyeSerene talk 07:50, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Our topics collided
Well, for a brief moment at least. ;-) Found the reference to Von der Tann while using the source to rewrite CHILEAN BATTLESHIP Almirante Latorre. Ed (talk • majestic titan) 08:54, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * At first I thought you meant an actual collision - guess that's what I get for checking wikipedia right after I got up ;) Thanks for adding that info! Parsecboy (talk) 11:42, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Hah, what did you imagine, parts of scrap from ARA Moreno coming out of nowhere to smack into the wreck of SMS Konig? ;-) No problem, hope I find more! Ed (talk • majestic titan) 04:58, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Hey, you never know :P I'm sure stranger things have happened. Parsecboy (talk) 10:49, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Interview for The Bugle?
Hi Parsecboy. As the holder of only the second ACM with swords ever awarded, would you be willing to give a short interview for the upcoming issue of The Bugle? Obviously nothing privacy-related, just a little about yourself (basically what's already on your user page), how you got into Wikipedia editing, your editing philosophy, your top tips for being such a productive content contributor etc. If not, no problem :) EyeSerene talk 07:57, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Sure, I can do that. Just let me know when and where. Parsecboy (talk) 10:58, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * That's great :) I've left some questions here for when you get the chance. Thanks! EyeSerene talk 09:03, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Alright, I filled them in. Let me know if there's anything you'd like clarified, etc. Parsecboy (talk) 12:50, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks excellent to me, thanks very much! EyeSerene talk 20:38, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

SMS Tegetthoff
We'll two of the four (five if you count the class article) ships of the Tegetthoff class are at GA. I'm now working on the Tegetthoff but I need your help in finding a source that supports the claim that the German cruiser Prinz Eugen had Tegetthoff's bell installed on her. Once I get that (and find a better image for the info box that is totally cited and cleared) I can nominate it for a GAN. There are a few more issues with the reliability of the citations but the biggest issue is with the bell of the ship being installed on the Prinz Eugen. Can you help me out?-- White Shadows Nobody said it was easy 15:35, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll see what I can do, but it'll probably take a couple of days. I'll be at work shortly and for the rest of the night, and then I'll be out of town starting tomorrow through the weekend. Parsecboy (talk) 18:23, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem. I'll wait :)-- White Shadows Nobody said it was easy 20:11, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * WS, the only book in my library that mentions Tegetthoff is Conway 1906-1921, on pp. 334-335. I skimmed it and there's no mention of what happened to the bell, sorry. - Dank (push to talk) 20:45, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll just remove it then. Can you tell me what else it says about the ship at the end of her service (being used as a war trophy by Italy) ? I need more RSs.-- White Shadows Nobody said it was easy 20:58, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure, meet you over there. - Dank (push to talk) 20:59, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks!-- White Shadows Nobody said it was easy 22:24, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

A few notes on Westfalen
Nate, I'm thinking about adding a few details to SMS Westfalen, but let me know if it's too much. For instance (Tarrant, p. 154), Westfalen wouldn't normally have been at the head of the line after they reversed course, except that Captain Redlich made the right decision to begin his turn early since II Squadron was out of position. Then again at 22:20 (p. 204), Westfalen wouldn't have been in the lead except that Scheer wanted the lead ships to have higher torpedo resistance, and the greater firepower also came into play (p. 218) in a solo kill on Tipperary (p. 218). What do you think? - Dank (push to talk) 01:03, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay I'll start adding these, feel free to revert. - Dank (push to talk) 00:14, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'm out of town at the moment, so feel free to add anything you think is useful. Parsecboy (talk) 12:07, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Tarrant had a lot to offer, and I'm done with that. Campbell was frustrating; the first 20 hits from the index didn't give much more than the relative position of Westfalen in the line.  Let me know if there's anything in particular you want from Campbell. - Dank (push to talk) 23:18, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay if I join you on Westfalen? - Dank (push to talk) 12:12, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Damn, you're quick, I was just saving the nomination page when the orange bar popped up. And by all means, add yourself as a co-nom. Parsecboy (talk) 12:17, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

←What link do we use again in place of "standard load" for pre-WNC ships? I thought it was displacement (ship). Are we saying "at load" or "at normal load"? - Dank (push to talk) 19:52, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Re: progress
Hmm, I only count 42 FAs and 3 FLs... am I missing something? Ed (talk • majestic titan) 19:10, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I was just blindly counting the count in the box. I fixed it. Parsecboy (talk) 21:49, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
Mind helping me, Ed and EyeSerene are unavailable and I'm up against a deadline. -MBK004 03:41, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LIII (July 2010)
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:48, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Hiei GAN
Hey, Nate, I think I've fixed all the issues relating to Hiei GAN. Thanks for being so incredibly quick in picking up the review! I was not looking forward to waiting several weeks on the process to get itself done. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 17:37, 19 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Certainly, not a problem. I saw you flag it for GAN on the OMT page and so I read it over. I figured since I had some suggestions I might as well review it. Everything looks good, so I'll pass the article now. Parsecboy (talk) 17:43, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Thomasomys ucucha
Thanks for your review and support for Thomasomys ucucha. The FAC was closed before I could reply, but I have now rephrased the sentence you mentioned; see Thomasomys ucucha. Ucucha 06:29, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Congratulations on the FA! The wording looks good to me, thanks for letting me know since the FAC was closed. Parsecboy (talk) 13:53, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Arado Ar E.381
Howdy&mdash;I saw that you removed the image of the three variants of the aircraft from the article. Why was that? I'd hate to guilty of the same mistake in the future and was looking for some guidance concerning the use of images. Thanks. NielsenGW (talk) 16:50, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Copyright law is a tricky beast. The problem is that there's no evidence of the copyright status of the image. The upload page claims that it's PD in the US, but it doesn't demonstrate how it's exempt from US copyright law. Since it was published after 1923, essentially the only ways for it to be PD in the US is that it was either a., released to the PD by its author, or b., a work of the US Federal government. There are some rare instances where seized Nazi images are treated as PD in the US (but not elsewhere). I hope that helps. Parsecboy (talk) 17:58, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


 * That helps a little bit. I guess just to make it a good article, we can forgo the pictures of all the variations of the aircraft. I am, however, having a bit of hard luck trying to get rid the one unreliable web page source, though. So it goes. NielsenGW (talk) 18:17, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah, thanks
for the mention in this month's Bugle, I just saw it. - Dank (push to talk) 19:42, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Prokhorovka
Hi, re: above, please see this: Dapi89 (talk) 11:36, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Goeben discrepancies
Before I make any substantive changes I thought I'd bring them up here where we can discuss them. I'm generally more inclined to follow OSN (Ottoman Steam Navy) rather than Halpern, but you may feel differently.

1915
OSN, p. 47 doesn't mention any sorties by Yavuz in Jan/Feb 1915, only that Yavuz goes into dock on 9 Feb. Yavuz and Midilli sortie for Sevastopol on 1 Apr vice 3 Apr. Mecidiye and Hamidiye were bound for Odessa, not Nikolaev. Yavuz only engages cruiser Pamiat Merkuria, but sinks two freighters. Upon return she is docked until 1 May. McLaughlin mentions no encounter with Yavuz until 9 May, vice 2 or 6 May. OSN says Y sortied 7-8 May to Sevastopol but did nothing due to a shortage of heavy ammo. The whole engagement on 9 August isn't mentioned in OSN; I think that Staff and Halpern are confusing it with the brief battle on 10 May which I just added. Nothing on 21 September either in OSN.

1916
Nothing in OSN for 8 January although engagement is confirmed by McLaughlin's book on Russian BBs. Odd. Yavuz is mentioned only once in OSN ferrying troops on 6 Feb, vice 4 Feb.

I've added stuff from OSN that doesn't contradict Halpern and Staff, but I did rewrite a paragraph on her activity at the end of the war, since I don't think that Brice is particularly reliable given that he was writing 40 years ago.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:07, 23 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree that OSN is probably more accurate for the Ottoman Navy's activities during the war. Generally more focused works are better for this type of thing than books with broader coverage.


 * Staff doesn't mention any sorties in Jan/Feb 1915 either; it goes from the mining on 26 December to being combat ready in May.
 * In regards to the early May engagement, Staff says the sortie started on 6 May and resulted in the 10 May engagement.
 * Staff doesn't mention a battle on 9 August, but there he does say there was a sortie from the 9th to the 10th.
 * Staff confirms the 8 Janary engagement with Imperatritsa Ekaterina.
 * Staff states the troop ferrying was from 4-6 Feb. So it appears both are correct. Parsecboy (talk) 12:09, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Does Halpern have any cites that might help us figure out why all the discrepancies? I'll check all this against Nekrasov's book on the Black Sea Fleet, but I don't really expect it to differ much from McLaughlin since they both use Russian-centric sources.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:07, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't have Halpern in front of me at the moment, but I should be able to check it over this afternoon after classes. Parsecboy (talk) 16:18, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Ping! Hey congrats of graduating. What's next?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:00, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I'm going to apply to some graduate programs in the fall, so we'll see where that takes me.
 * I just checked Halpern for the 8 January action. There's a footnote that says "As usual, the Russian and German accounts differ, Lorey identifying the Imperatritsa Ekaterina as the Imperatritsa Maria. See Pavlovich, The Fleet, 394-95; Lorey, Krieg in den türkischen Gewässern 1;212-16; Greger, Die Russiche Flotte, 52-53; Monasterev, La Marina Russa, 289-90. Just from looking at some other footnotes, it appears that there's some terrible inconsistencies in accounts of the Baltic operations. In other footnotes Halpern states, "The various accounts of these operations have maddening discrepancies in detail," "With the irritating inconsistency that bedevils Black Sea accounts..." "Once again, accounts differ in many details." Parsecboy (talk) 10:41, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Armament changes
I added the bit from Staff regarding the dismounting of two 15-cm guns, but Gröner and Staff don't have much of worth regarding the 88s. Do you have anything about when they were swapped for flak guns?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:34, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Groner would have been the source I'd check, but since you already did, I wouldn't know where to look. Parsecboy (talk) 02:17, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, I'm done with everything from OSN and Nekrasov. Wasn't as much different as I'd thought. Give it a read-through, make any necessary changes, and go ahead and nominate it. You don't need to wait until your current FAC is complete as it's a co-nom.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:41, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'll put her up in the morning - I'm about to sign off here shortly. Parsecboy (talk) 02:17, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the help!
 Hello Parsecboy, WikiCopter has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message. For your help in improving Arado Ar E.381 to GA. WikiCopter RadioChecklistFormerly AirplanePro 18:36, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Revenge/Royal Sovereign/R class
Hi I’ve replied to your comment, here, if you wish to reply. Xyl 54 (talk) 10:46, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Greek battleship Salamis
Hello

As a lonely part of Majestic Titan on pl.wiki i am translating Greek battleship Salamis. Problem is that according to infobox he has armor smaller than destroyer.

Belt: 3.875–9.875 in (100–250 mm) Deck: 2.875 mm (0.1132 in) Barbettes: 9.875 mm (0.3888 in) Turrets: 9.875 mm (0.3888 in)

10 mm for barbetes and turrets ? Hmmm. I know this is not american ship ("Be armored at least to be protect to your guns") but 10 mm its a "little" too small. And Germans are not stupid.

Probably this is in inch. But a am not sure. Can you look at this ?

PMG (talk) 16:45, 28 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for catching that, yeah, it was an order mistake. Inches are correct. Good luck with the translations! Parsecboy (talk) 18:27, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Other problem: in infoboks there is information that ship was lanuched. But in text there is information that the hull was complete and ready for launching by 11 November 1914. Ready for launching - not launched. Later in text there is info that he was moved to Kiel - so he must be launched. But at what date ? Or this is only language error and he was launched that day ? Also in this text there is many errors with conversion values - 6 in its 150 or 152 mm ? 14 in its 350 or 352 mm ? Really - this part for european reader is mess. PMG (talk) 17:29, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I don`t exactly understand categorisation on en wiki about ships but probably on that ship should be Category:World War I battleships of Greece. I don`t understand because for me there is no fast to see difference between Category:Battleships of Greece and Category:Battleships of the Hellenic Navy. PMG (talk) 17:50, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah, the ship was launched on 11 November 1914, I clarified the wording in the text. I forced the convert templates to stop rounding - they're programmed to round to a whole number if it's not specified.
 * As for the categories, I don't usually mess with those, so I don't know what to tell you. The Battleships of Greece and Battleships of the Hellenic Navy are redundant to me. Parsecboy (talk) 01:00, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations!
Good luck with grad school or (shudder) the real world. I hear they're different from Wikipedia. - Dank (push to talk) 12:10, 30 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Hey, I've seen the real world ;) Thanks a lot! Parsecboy (talk) 02:37, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

FAC
I've replied toy your comments at Featured article candidates/German Type UB I submarine/archive1 :)-- White Shadows Your guess is as good as mine 00:38, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll take a look at it in the morning. Parsecboy (talk) 02:37, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Arado Ar E.381
Since you have contributed so much to the sources on Arado Ar E.381 (currently undergoing an A-class review due to your hard work), I am asking you to respond to some of the concerns regarding the sources raised by some editors here. WikiCopter RadioChecklistFormerly AirplanePro 22:59, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll take a look at them in the morning. Parsecboy (talk) 02:04, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Olympia
Hi, I share your passion for naval history and am very concerned about the potential fate of the Olympia. But I'm also concerned that this article has some misleading sections, and in the case of the one on which we seem to have a dispute, an ommission seems to overstate the importance of the Olympia in SF Bay/ West Coast naval construction. I think that it is very important for WP to not fluff the articles with subtle propaganda, even for a worthy cause. I hope that my latest attempt will meet with your approval. Alternately, could you propose a fix that will satisfy my concerns? Cheers and thanks for your hard work on capital ships articles. Kevin --Kevin Murray (talk) 16:03, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

It looks as though we were writting to each other simultaneously. I'd be happy to talk ot you by phone at 925-279-1190 if that would be more expeditious. --Kevin Murray (talk) 16:06, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Your goal of achieving featured status for US Naval articles is commendable, but it is going to take much more than precise citations to reach your objective. I periodically visit these articles in my general reading and while there try to clean up the writing and logic-flow which is typically abysmal. Much of the text looks like a hodge-podge of sentences lifted verbatim from the sourced text, including a lot of jargon and military-speak.

Please don’t get me wrong, the information is typically fascinating and informative, though from time to time there are contradictions among the paste-work sentences and paragraphs, and especially among the articles. We need an even flow to the writing and some logical direction of the structures. A difficult task indeed.

There are several types of contributors we need to write great articles: researchers, writers, editors, and strong policy enforcers, but we shouldn’t get into pissing matches over nuances and throw out good information over technicalities. Please don’t chase off the people who might be your best allies in reaching your goals. --Kevin Murray (talk) 17:07, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Hey, I've written 17 FAs over the past two years, and I'm more than a half-way decent writer. I think I know what it takes to create an FA.
 * The problem with a lot of US warship articles is that they were copied directly from DANFS several years ago and were never cleaned up. I've only done a handful of those articles (Florida class battleship, Delaware class battleship, and part of Colorado class battleship and South Dakota class battleship (1939)). Parsecboy (talk) 17:20, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Easy. Congrads on the 17 FAs  Per your request, I ordered the Cooling book this morning and I'll let you know when it comes in.  I'm happy to help and add to my library.  If you ever need a bit of help, please contact me directly at kevinmurray@sbcglobal.net; I'm happy to collaborate, proof or be a sounding board.   I don't write as much for WP as I used to; I'm really involved in leadership of our yacht club and will be commodore next year finishing a three year succeession of roles.   I want to get back to more WP projects in the future -- my interests are sailing, boats, naval history and military history of the SF Bay Area.   I'm really concerned over the quality of the infromation at WP; and people like you are fighting the battle to keep the quality up -- I truly applaud your efforts.

On a side note, I see a lot of properly formatted references to very biased and junky sources (not in the naval sections). How do we combat this? I've had a bit of success by arguing that if the "source" isn't notable enough to be included in WP, he/she isn't a credible source, but that's not always valid.

Cheers for now! Kevin --Kevin Murray (talk) 17:41, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry, it sounded to me like you were implying that I don't know what I'm doing with regards to article-writing. No worries, eh?
 * You are right! You've done an excellent job on the German warship articles.   I read a couple this afternoon.  Very well written and organized.   We really need to put some effort into the US warships as time permits.
 * Thanks for getting Cooling's book, hopefully it'll be as helpful as I'm thinking it will be. And thanks for offering the help; I've made good progress the German capital ships in hand, but like you mentioned earlier, the American ships are generally in pretty bad shape. I'll be sure to drop you a line if I run into problems. If you do find more time to do more writing here, let me know if there's anything I can help you with.
 * I haven't ever been on a small boat, though I imagine it'd be something I'd like. What does the commodore position entail?
 * If you get to the SF Bay Area, I've got a 38 foot sail boat.  See  which has a lot of information on our boat.  I'b be happy to get you out on the water.  --Kevin Murray (talk) 23:22, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The Commodore is like the president or CEO of the yacht club. It is a volunteer position.  In our Club the paid staff and manager repeort to the commodore as well as the other officers.  It's not a boad year.  The preceding years are a lot of work though.   Yachting is a declining sport, so we are working really hard to build our numbers into not omly the general decline in partcipation, but also the tough economy.--Kevin Murray (talk) 23:22, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * On the sources, are you talking about Olympia specifically? Or more in general? Probably the quickest way to have a junk source discredited would be to take it to the reliable sources noticeboard. There are people there who can evaluate a source according to our guidelines, and while they don't have any binding power, they can more or less decide the issue. After that point, editors who continue to insist on using a biased source can be handled administratively. Parsecboy (talk) 17:53, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No not on Olympia or ships in general. Typically I see this in articles on social issues, or when social editorial issues spill into history articles. --Kevin Murray (talk) 23:22, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I was looking at buying a comprehensive book on US battleships; something that explains the why behind the evolution of the classes. I ran across this book:  Have you heard of it or the author? Your thoughts? Kevin --Kevin Murray (talk) 06:13, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I actually have it, and it's a pretty good choice. This is the only book of his that I've read, but I don't think I've ever heard anything negative about him. Parsecboy (talk) 11:25, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Ersatz Yorck
Hello again.

Another week - another translation :). I am doing now Ersatz Yorck class battlecruiser. Question - do you have references for shipyard numbers ? That was what I didn`t expected from your work - no sources for something like that :). I know that this is GA, but probably this is quite easy to fix. PMG (talk) 18:44, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah, they're all to Gröner, p. 59. Someone split the paragraph into three chunks, but didn't bother to replace the citations. Thanks for catching that. Parsecboy (talk) 18:58, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The Ersatz Yorcks were intended to mount two twin rudders alongside each other for steering. When i read this i was thinking that this is two ( = 2) twin ( x II) rudders = 4 rudders. I spoke with my friend and he check it in Gröner and he assume that this is 2 rudders - one on each side. Maybe i just read it wrong, but then it is confusing. PMG (talk) 13:53, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, there are just the two identical rudders side by side, rather than in tandem. Parsecboy (talk) 14:45, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Re:Olympia
LoL. I suppose the best course of action would be to merge the introductions, picking the best parts from each to stay, but as it currently stands I do not think that your version more efficiently conveys the information in the article. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:05, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I reworked Tom's information a bit. Perhaps we could let it stand a bit for discussion and further contributions. I ordered the Cooling book today with expedited shipping, so should have it within the week for providing citations. --Kevin Murray (talk) 19:25, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

A-class pass for SMS Kaiser (1911)
This is just a heads up that I've closed WikiProject Military history/Assessment/SMS Kaiser (1911) as successful. Congratulations on yet another A-class article. Happy editing, --Patar knight - chat/contributions 03:06, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Patar knight. Parsecboy (talk) 11:25, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:SMS Kaiser.jpg - we will do anything with that? Or we just wait ? PMG (talk) 13:26, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I have no idea - it's been up for a month and a half now. It seems like a clear cut close. I guess Commons admins are pretty backlogged. Parsecboy (talk) 14:07, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Good Article review SMS Elsass
I've reviewed the article SMS Elsass and left notes on the talk page. I've put the nomination on hold for seven days to allow the issues to be addressed. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, here, or on the article talk page with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on.--Jim Sweeney (talk) 18:15, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delay I have passed the article. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:36, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

You
I'll be back. You haven't seen the last of me. B-Machine (talk) 21:22, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No one is trying to get rid of you, we just want you to follow established policy. Parsecboy (talk) 01:03, 11 September 2010 (UTC)