User talk:Parsecboy/Archive 25



GA Reviews
Hi! Just dropping by to let you know that I've reviewed the articles on the SMS Kaiser, the SMS Deutschland, the SMS Bayern, and the SMS Württemberg, which you wrote and nominated for GA. There are only a couple comments between all of them. Good (and impressive) work! :) --Starstriker7 - public(talk) 08:54, 15 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for reviewing those! I have replied on the review pages and made the fixes you recommended. Regards, Parsecboy (talk) 11:33, 15 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I've also done the review for the SMS Friedrich der Grosse. Keep up the good work. :) --Starstriker7 - public(talk) 07:30, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Preussen class article
You've forgotten to fix the Preussen class ironclad article as per our discussion on the GAN of SMS Preussen.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:03, 16 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for reminding me, it's fixed now. Parsecboy (talk) 13:29, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Good Article promotion

 * Strictly speaking, these ships were all built long before Tirpitz's time as State Secretary of the Imperial Navy Office :p Parsecboy (talk) 22:31, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXIV, June 2011
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. BrownBot (talk) 23:43, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit war ongoing
Hi! There's an edit war going on at Battle of Cortenuova. A recent user is endlessly reverting my recent expansion of what was a mere stub, to a version based on 19th century, non-Italian sources, full of some strange features such as unjustified capitalization, wrong naming of Italian cities and titles etc. Can you help? --&#39;&#39;&#39;Attilios&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 12:59, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * See also his nice behaviour in this new edit. --&#39;&#39;&#39;Attilios&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 13:15, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * He's also missing to follow any invitation to give a mere check to WP:Manual of Style at least... the result is that his version starts with a "Prelude" section without any lead introduction. --&#39;&#39;&#39;Attilios&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 13:35, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Tirpitz
Hello ParsecBoy. I see you reverted my recent copyedit at Tirpitz. I made the edit because the sentence construction was clumsy - '...thrown by concussion...' - thrown where? I did not delete the important information that the planes were destroyed. Orenburg1 (talk) 14:50, 20 July 2011 (UTC)


 * If you feel the sentence construction is clumsy, then change it. Your edit removed valid information (i.e., how specifically the aircraft were destroyed - it is not abundantly clear why striking a naval mine would destroy aircraft on the ship's deck) and inadvertently reduced the line to a sentence fragment. Parsecboy (talk) 15:15, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Notable last occurrences
A lot of editors feel that the page was deleted before everyone got a chance to weigh in. I contributed substantially to that page, but I came back from a couple of days vacation and found it had been deleted. What is the process for requested a deleted page get a retry? Czolgolz (talk) 03:59, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You can bring it to WP:DRV, but seriously speaking, you're not going to find that there is consensus to reverse the closure of the relatively recent AFD. See #Principal purpose – challenging deletion decisions. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 07:20, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The best option for you would be to create sub lists that have clear inclusion criteria (like List of deaths of last members of extinct species), as was suggested in the AfD. Many of the items in the list will not be suitable for this kind of treatment, but it's really the only way for you to keep at least some of the information. FWIW, some of these lists are already created (see for instance List of last living war veterans). Parsecboy (talk) 11:41, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree Czo, Too bad parsecboy doesnt feel the same way. Goldblooded (talk) 15:44, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Endymion
The List of frigate classes of the Royal Navy states that Endymion was an Ister-class frigate, and the only one of five actually built. Does Conway mention this? Mjroots (talk) 05:48, 22 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Conway's says Endymion was a unique vessel, but that "It was was intended to build five frigates to Endymion's design, and, in fact, names had already been allocated - Astraea, Blond, Dartmouth, and Ister - when this programme was cancelled." So if there were to be a class article, it should be at Endymion-class frigate. Parsecboy (talk) 11:02, 22 July 2011 (UTC)


 * That class of ships refers to the previous Endymion. Mjroots (talk) 20:46, 22 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh, well in that case, it should be Endymion class frigate (1860). I didn't even notice the link was blue when I saved it... Parsecboy (talk) 22:28, 22 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I think we should stick to Ister-class. Have generally finished with the article until the GAR gets done. What is your opinion on the chances of a FA? Mjroots (talk) 09:30, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The Warships International article confirms the class names and provides launch dates and shipyards as well as cancellation dates. I think that I'll go ahead and lay out a stub-worthy class article now.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:02, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

12"/50 caliber Mark 7 gun
Parsecboy - no real fight here. I was trying to use the discussion of Mark 7 details, found on the Mark 8 page, to provide information about the Mark 7 gun to the Wyoming page.

You are correct - that is not the way to sort this out. Real solution (I'm just too tired right now) is to create an independent Mark 7 page.

Would you mind creating a Mark 7 page and creating the proper links? Thanks.

Jmg38 (talk) 06:28, 22 July 2011 (UTC)


 * No worries. You're right, the obvious solution is to create the Mk 7 page. Unfortunately, I'm going to be short on time today until probably later tonight, so I won't be able to get to in until at least then. If you have time before that, feel free to start it. I see you know about navweaps.com - I also have Campbell's Naval Weapons of World War II, which should also be useful. Regards, Parsecboy (talk) 11:24, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

...
Your like a bloody stalker,

I saw you somewhere else reverting and deleting my edits/articles,

Why did you delete the list of last occurences? Leave it, let their be a vote at least; it has as much right to be on here as a list of characters in _____ or list of last living war veterans etc , if not more! Goldblooded (talk) 11:43, 22 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The article was deleted previously via WP:AfD&mdash;recreation of a page largely identical to one deleted via AfD is automatically subject to speedy deletion. If I had not done it, another admin would have.
 * There are a few things you need to understand. First, Wikipedia is not a democracy; we don't vote on anything. We discuss things and attempt to reach a consensus. Bolding Support/Oppose/Keep/Delete, etc. is simply a way to identify the major point of someone's comment in a discussion. Second, articles are judged on their own merit; citing other similar articles is never a good tactic.
 * And another thing: writing things like this are completely unacceptable. Parsecboy (talk) 13:25, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Firstly what gives you the right to bully me about my own talkpage? Its true! You just went ahead without a care in the world and deleted it, Besides on an article i recreated a while back it was deleted EVEN though he had more KEEP votes than Delete. And even more annoyingly some of the people who deleted it said they were going to redirect it and they didnt want they went ahead and deleted the image as well, talk about adding insult to injury. You lot are a bunch of morons, you never do anything! And its ironic on several articles its only me whos actually editing on them while everyone else seems to criticise me, annoy me ,revert my just edits and so on, on purpose and usually without reasoning. Goldblooded (talk) 13:31, 22 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Please read WP:USERPAGE - while there is generally a great deal of wiggle room for your own user page, you don't own it and you can't do whatever you like. Insulting other editors is prohibited anywhere, and if you keep it up, you'll find yourself blocked. It's not up for debate.
 * Like I said above, Wikipedia is not a democracy (and regardless, the Siegfried Marseille AfD had more editors in favor of deleting/merging than keeping). I don't know why I need to keep telling you that continuing to insult other editors will result in a block. If I see it again, you'll be blocked. This is your last warning. Parsecboy (talk) 13:37, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Response

Doggone it i have to type it again since the chap below me added a section.

What i was saying was that even if the SM article had more delete AND merge votes than keep, Noone has merged it and even more annoyingly they deleted the photo which i uploaded from the archives , That could of been used in his sons bio. All that article needed was some clean up and it would of been pretty decent. Oh well. If you want to go and deprive wikipedia of decent articles than go ahead, And if you are stupid enough to block me then it would ultimately your loss and the whole of the wikipedia community since on many articles it only me who actually does anything, Even though i dont really have the time i dedicate myself to this site. And who are you reffering to that im insulting? Anyway i cant really be bothered to argue over some articles that dont exist anymore. But i wish you well Goldblooded (talk) 14:12, 22 July 2011 (UTC)


 * It was deleted and not merged because that's what the closing admin decided was the result. Frankly, the document with Siegfried Marseille's signature doesn't really have any encyclopedic value, and it doesn't really add anything to Hans-Joachim's biography.
 * As to who you were insulting, in the link I posted above, you were insulting me (by insinuating that I lack commonsense or good faith). Parsecboy (talk) 22:33, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Bismarck
Hi Nate, It's been a while. Well done on your rewrite of the above and I'm sorry that a new job has stopped me being online as much as normal recently. I must comment, though, that while your use of Garzke & Dulin is understandable, their unreliability is shown by ref. no. 91 - that the ultimately fatal torpedo attack hit the port side of the ship when it was actually from starboard. Those guys are not credible authors, but I'm making no criticism of you in this context. I'm sure I can find publised refs that will say a hit on the starboard side but what happens this, as G&D won't go away? All the best, bigpad (talk) 14:07, 22 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I wondered why you didn't get involved with the rewrite. I hope your new job is an improvement, regardless. Yeah, I know Garzke & Dulin aren't the best (for instance, they contradict themselves repeatedly on the number of ships sunk by Scharnhorst and Gneisenau during Operation Berlin) so I was mainly using them to balance out the other sources a bit. What we can do is go through the refs to Garzke & Dulin and see if the information jives with other books, and if there are other problems we can fix them as we find them. Parsecboy (talk) 22:47, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Good Article promotion

 * Thanks Quadell! Parsecboy (talk) 22:47, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 2 week-old Female Sphynx (Suki).jpg One more creeps in... SMS Friedrich der Grosse (1874).
 * I'm all right, Honest!.jpg And another, even if this ship never quite made it... German aircraft carrier I (1942)

Why....
Why are you running around, stalking what i do and posting really smug ,threating and totally unessarary comments on wherever i post? Do you like making peoples lifes a misery? Goldblooded (talk) 15:29, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps some of the things were a little controversial, But it seems that everyone here wants to make my life a misery by stalking me , threatning me , bullying me, deleting my articles without reasonsing and reverting my edits (Some are just i admit , However others are not) So why should i be "nice" to everybody else if i always get trodden on? Im not a bad person at all. Goldblooded (talk) 15:39, 22 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm following your actions because you have demonstrated time and time again that you are not behaving in accordance with simple rules (i.e., don't insult people). If you can demonstrate to me that you don't need to be watched, then I won't watch you, it's as simple as that. I don't keep an eye on people who don't need an eye kept on them. As to why you should be "nice" to everybody, there are a couple of things to consider. Wikipedia is only personal if you make it personal. Also, you should be the bigger person. Your attitude and how you handle situations are entirely your choice. No one is saying you're a bad person, but I am telling you that your behavior needs improvement. Parsecboy (talk) 22:39, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you
And sorry for removing your nice comments when I removed the pa. Take care. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 16:44, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah suck up to him why dont you.

And DR.K tell me something, Why were you reverting my edits even though i was saying sorry to you and then politely asking you why you deleted my article ? Goldblooded (talk) 16:45, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

GA reviews
Hi Nate, I was wondering if you're willing to review some of my GANs (again!). In return, I'll review some of yours :D. Wait, why don't we ping each other whenever we have a GAN, so we can promptly review each other's work? Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 00:48, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to say that this is a bad idea, because it really isn't. Just be careful that you guys don't review so much of each other's work that you can be accused of gaming the GAN system. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:15, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

German submarine U-27 (1936)
Hello

Some user translate German submarine U-27 (1936) to pl.wiki. He move to GA. But problem is that article on en.wiki is not so good.

No information about Spanish War, no information about torpedo what explode and show submarine position, no info about how its possible to all people from sub are live when they are attacked by deep charges.

And obivous errors like "Complement: 	42–46 officers & ratings" in infobox and U-27 had 38 crew members and officers in text.

Can you look at this article? I can give you information from pl.wiki when we will find other errors.

There are also problems with German submarine U-64 (1939) - also GA on en.wiki but information about sinking ship when you read Blair are in my opinion not good. PMG (talk) 15:21, 26 July 2011 (UTC)


 * U-boats aren't really my area of expertise, but I'll see what I can dig up for you. I can at least get accurate technical specifications from either Conway's or The Encyclopedia of U-boats, but it'll have to wait until tomorrow at the earliest. Regards, Parsecboy (talk) 15:26, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Commons:National Archives and Records Administration/Error reporting
By popular demand, error reporting is here! I'm just letting you know personally since you've been involved in one of the threads related to errors encountered in the NARA catalog. If you can add error reports to that page from now on, we'll have an easier time relaying them to the NARA digital description staff, and we'll be able to track our progress. Let me know if you have any problems using the page; I already added one report as an example. Providing corrections for mistakes in the online catalog is one of the best ways we can show demonstrable benefits to the institution, and you'll be helping all the other users of the archives, so it's really useful. Thanks! Dominic·t 23:40, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

National Maritime Museum Warship Histories project is go!
Hello! I'm very pleased to say that the collaboration with the National Maritime Museum which I mentioned earlier in the year is going ahead. They have put a load of their data on Royal Navy warships up on their website. Please do drop by GLAM/NMM to find out more, start work, and/or help suggest ways of moving forward. :-) The Land (talk) 12:27, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Ref templates ... maybe not
Going back to something I recommended earlier (the sfn template) ... Wikipedia has been slow recently, especially on articles with lots of templates, such as cite, so maybe sfn isn't such a good idea after all. TCO posted this before vanishing: "The lag is on the Wiki side and is often 20-30 seconds for pages with 200 cite template references. Direct, with and without testing showed it was not on the user side or related to the pictures. Taking the cite templates out cut the times down to 5 seconds or so. This is totally uncontroversial, was hashed over, people like "gadget" (super cite template expert) all agreed. If you want more, go look at the trials." - Dank (push to talk) 10:57, 1 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Hmm, I hadn't thought of that, but it makes sense. I have noticed pages have been loading slowly lately - maybe I'll try to keep an eye on the number of templates in articles I write. Thanks for pointing this out. Parsecboy (talk) 12:12, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

July Contest
Hi mate, thought I saw your light on, if you feel like verifying my entries I can tally everything and hand out your well-deserved gong! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:25, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * P.S. I may also need your help delivering the Writer's Barnstar if my arithmatic is correct... ;-)


 * Sure thing, looks like you edged out Djmaschek by a single point :) Parsecboy (talk) 12:32, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Tks for taking care of that, although being my usual pedantic self I think it was only 5 entries... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:13, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Oops! Must have been thinking you had an average of 7 points per article :) Parsecboy (talk) 13:49, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Ulster Volunteer Force
Hi Nate, I was browsing this page Ulster Volunteer Force (1966) {formerly - and correctly in my opinion Ulster Volunteer Force) and see that a user has moved a load of pages without discussing it or, now that it's in discussion, getting a consensus (it's 1-3 against that person and I would make it 1-4 if I posted). As an admin., can you revert that and the disambiguation pages or tell me who to ask I'll post a note on that talk page and a regular editor can do so. Hope this is no trouble. Regards, bigpad (talk) 19:51, 1 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Hmm, another user has come and commented in support of the move, and seems to indicate there should be a third article at Ulster Volunteer Force (1913), which would require a dab page. I'll keep an eye on the discussion, and if consensus ends up that the article should be moved back, I'll make it happen. Parsecboy (talk) 02:59, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you
==

Your GA nomination of German cruiser Prinz Eugen
The article German cruiser Prinz Eugen you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:German cruiser Prinz Eugen for comments about the article. Well done! ==

Canpark (talk) 15:20, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

==

Your GA nomination of German cruiser Lützow (1939)
The article German cruiser Lützow (1939) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:German cruiser Lützow (1939) for comments about the article. Well done!

Canpark (talk) 09:19, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of German cruiser Seydlitz
The article German cruiser Seydlitz you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:German cruiser Seydlitz for comments about the article. Well done!

Enjoyed reading your articles on the Admiral Hipper class cruisers, mate.Canpark (talk) 09:52, 5 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you sir! Parsecboy (talk) 12:11, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Reply
I replied to you at my page, and I would hope you aren't taking things personally, because I'm not at all and I'm not trying to make them personal. Thanks. -- Avanu (talk) 02:38, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Media Review for your FAC
This is rather embarrassing, but I completely botched the media review for SMS Grosser Kurfürst (1913). I should not have given it the all clear. I just wanted to let you know that there are issues, two minor ones and one major one, that need addressing. Sorry to have you double back like this.  S ven M anguard  Wha?  22:32, 8 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Not a problem at all, sometimes we all miss things. Looks like Ed has taken care of the issues. Thanks for checking so thoroughly on this. Parsecboy (talk) 12:14, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXV, July 2011
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. BrownBot (talk) 22:50, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

talkback
- Dank (push to talk) 19:29, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:Military History and WP: Espionage Merge?
On the WikiProject Military History disucussion page there is talk about a merge and eliminating WP:Espionage altogether. Would like your feedback there. It would be appreciated. Adamdaley (talk) 08:22, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

GA on pl.wiki
Hello

I want thank you for your work on Mackensen-class battlecruiser, Amagi class battlecruiser, Tosa class battleship, O-class battlecruiser. I translated them to pl.wiki and get GA. They are probably best source of information in Polish language.

Thanks for your work.

PMG (talk) 11:18, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Congrats
My congratulations to you for your magnificent efforts in bringing this beast to GT. Hopefully one day, it will be join the elite group. - DSachan (talk) 08:41, 25 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks! It currently has 14 of the necessary 31 FAs for 50% of the topic (and a 15th is at FAC now), so maybe a year and a half from now it'll be ready for the upgrade to FT. Parsecboy (talk) 12:40, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit war over the term "major warship"
Hi Parsecboy. I'm afraid I have become embroiled in something of a revert-undo circle over at Norwegian Campaign. There's an IP user there insisting on removing mention of the German cruiser Königsberg as a major warship sunk in action by aircraft. The sentence in question has a source, which I view as reliable as it's written by naval historian Eric Grove, yet still the IP user (using his work and home computers) is adamant to remove the sentence, and the citation (which btw covers more than the sentence in question. The only thing the IP user has said in this context is "light cruisers are not major warships", in various versions, other than accusing me of having "deepseated patriotic norwegian thing goin on". The IP user (answering a comment on his work IP address from his home computer) also states in one edit summary that he "dont care what the guy said light cruisers are not major warships", that guy being Eric Grove. I would appreciate your input on this matter, what should I do? Is Eric Grove wrong? I see other sources also calling Königsberg the same thing. Manxruler (talk) 07:16, 26 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Grove is certainly authoritative enough to support Königsberg being a major warship. Generally, anything over destroyer size is considered to be a major warship (and modern destroyers, many of which are actually cruiser-size vessels). Perhaps the IP thinks we're talking about capital ships, but the two terms are not synonymous. I'll keep an eye on the page. Parsecboy (talk) 12:27, 26 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I'd like to thank you for your intervention, it is truly appreciated. It got quite stressful for a bit there. On another note, great work on the various German battleships and cruisers, they're really getting along very well. Manxruler (talk) 20:15, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Not a problem at all. I added the page to my watchlist, so I should be able to keep an eye on it, but in a month or so, I'll be starting grad school, so I doubt I'll be around as much. If he returns and I don't catch it right away, drop me a line here, and either I or one of my stalkers will take care of it.
 * And thanks :) After I finish German cruiser Deutschland and Deutschland class cruiser, I'll have written every single article on German armored, heavy, and battlecruisers, battleships, and ironclads - the only major warships left will be the late 19th century coastal defense ships light cruisers, the Graf Zeppelin, and the destroyers (though Sturmvogel has done a number of the WWII destroyers). We'll see how much I get done before school starts. Parsecboy (talk) 04:08, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Sounds great. Nice you have stalkers. Good luck at grad school, I remember when I started work on my Master's degree, years ago. Regarding your warship work, it makes me glad that every time I come across an article on a major warship, I can feel assured that you or one of the other Majestic Titan contributors will deal with it at some not too distant point in the future. Great work. Manxruler (talk) 09:05, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Kaiserin Review
I am still out for another week. I am reading from an iPhone. I get back to you when I am back. I hope this is Not blocking anythingMisterBee1966 (talk) 08:37, 27 August 2011 (UTC)


 * No worries, enjoy your vacation! Parsecboy (talk) 13:37, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

6th Arkansas Infantry Regiment
Parsecboy,

I've been helping Damon.cluck with some Arkansas "American Civil War" articles helping to improve them because he approached me and kindly asked. On the 6th Arkansas Infantry Regiment there is a copyright note on one of the images (in the Infobox image), would you be able to see if you can work it out and put the right template for the image? It would be appreciated. Adamdaley (talk) 23:56, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The template is just a note to show that the image would be a suitable candidate to be transferred to Commons (where the requirements are that it has to be public domain in the US and country of origin - in this case one in the same). There are a number of editors that operate bots on Commons to transfer these images, so there isn't really anything you need to do. They'll upload it to Commons under the same name so it won't need any updating in the article here at en.wiki (or if they change the name, there's a bot that tracks down usage on the local wiki and fixes it automatically). Parsecboy (talk) 14:47, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Blücher
Sorry, I cannot see Tamerlander & Zetterling any other place. KjellG (talk) 21:17, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * "Aircraft carried:	3 aircraft"
 * "...to recover one of Blücher's two Arado 196 aircraft. "
 * Any comment to this discrepancy? (Blücher could carry 3: two in hangar and one on catapult. En route to Oslo she was only carrying two as far as I know. KjellG (talk) 22:41, 3 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Found some references. There are scores of references to the Blücher insident, some are contradictiv. The best I have found until now are: Binder (First German ed, last German ed, only Norw ed., read them all), Koop and a brand new in Norwegian  (but I still find errors in them.)  Please check my wording and spelling. Regards KjellG (talk) 00:15, 4 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm betting the discrepancy is that the Admiral Hipper class cruisers could carry three aircraft, but Blücher only had two aboard during the operation. I prefer to give the designed/as built statistics in the infobox, as warships generally underwent a series of modifications during their service career (for instance, Prinz Eugen's anti-aircraft battery was repeatedly enlarged over the course of her career). I'll take a look at your changes and make sure they work grammatically, etc. Thanks for helping out with the article - I don't have access to many of the German-language sources on this ship. Parsecboy (talk) 14:17, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Alright, I've gone through your edits and made a few wording changes and such - there are a couple of lines you added that need a citation - can you take a look and see if you can add them? Thanks again. Parsecboy (talk) 16:34, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Supporting that. Thank you for your impressing work on WP. KjellG (talk) 09:07, 5 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks guys! Parsecboy (talk) 14:12, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Deutschland & Lützow
MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:44, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Admiral Scheer
I left some coments here MisterBee1966 (talk) 22:05, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Admiral Graf Spee
We have the same Reichsmarine/Kriegsmarine problem on this article. You may want to have a look. MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:41, 8 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Fixed - thanks for pointing that out. Parsecboy (talk) 10:05, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

rm
Ill copy what i told your buddy Since i couldnt type it all in the history box in the page ill say it here

I was clearly helping out that guy out and directing him to the relevant pages, something that you and many admins do praticially everyday. Besides i found it unfair that everyone is moaning at dapi to come back, hes probably having a hard time; something that i know all to well.

Removing posts like this is totally bad faith on your part, tell me what is wrong with this?

Im afriad people move on see VOLUNTEER and Retiring From what i gather/believe Dapi had a dispute with one or more administrators which eventually led to him being banned for a week or so. Banning_policy Although at any rate, he decided to retire due to personal problems/stress. It happens. We'll all experience it from time to time. Theres plenty of other editors anyway, if you want some advice or any quieries/questions regarding modern history (i.e ,1900-1982 although i do know a fair bit about the Napoleonic wars and the german and italian unifcation wars in the 1800s) Then im the guy to ask. Goldblooded (talk) 01:28, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I was helping the guy who wanted him to come back (i dont think english is his fist languge anyway) so i'd thought id just point out a few links and he seemed to wanted to question dapi about history or something along that lines so i put myself forward instead. Whats wrong with that? I was helpfull, assumed good faith and i offered myself foward.

Removing edits like that, as ive said is completely bad faith, perhaps the other thing i said to that other guy was a bit more heated -

- Give the guy a break, See WP:VOLUNTEER If he doesn't want to come back then he wont, If he does then he'll come back of his own accord; by the sounds of things he seemed rather stressed and worn out and moaning at him isn't going to help. Goldblooded (talk) 01:31, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

All i was saying was that if hes gunna come back he'll do it if not he wont, moaning at him wont help. And it wont.

So anyway i've seen you around before and ive noticed that you seem to have some sort of alliance with certain members on wikipedia and as i said theres no reason at all to remove my posts when im talking to them, Paticulary when im trying to help out. Give the newbies a chance. No wonder 100s of possible new wikipedians get scared away by admins. You should be greatfull that i actually decided to stay on wikipedia. Goldblooded (talk) 17:56, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

On a side note its a shame that we dont get on as i too share an interest in the kaiserliche marine and WW1. (And any modern history 1900-1982 for that matter.) Goldblooded (talk) 18:02, 8 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I saw your comment on Ed's page, you don't need to copy the whole thing here. I told you during your previous dispute with Dapi to stop messing with his talk page. The comments you made were to editors who have been on Wikipedia for several years; they know how things work. Surely you have better things to do than hassle month-old comments on a retired user's page. Parsecboy (talk) 18:06, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Well you still havent listened and im sorry that isnt a valid statement, you accused me of personal attacks and then youve changed your tune and said that im hassling month old comments (Which isnt really that long and the guy probably has him watched anyway so he'll read it regardless) This is ridiculous you cant possibly treat me like this. I was sticking up for Dapi and offering my help, if you must the first edit could be heated (Despite the fact that i just pointed out that groaning at him wont help the situation but ill give you that) However the second edit i did was completely in my good faith and it would be bad faith on your part to delete it. Goldblooded (talk) 18:11, 8 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Where did I say you were making personal attacks? I'd like you to show me where I did. Here's a bit of advice: leave Dapi's talk page alone. He's gone. You have nothing possible to gain by posting there. Like I said above, I'm sure you have better things to be doing. Parsecboy (talk) 18:15, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Not you -- that would have been me in a poor choice of words. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:15, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Well that was annoying i have to type again due to edit conflict.

Anyway Ed said it and you backed him up with what came across as a rather smirky remark telling me to politely get lost.

At any rate i do have something to gain, its called good faith and helping out in the community- and indeed i do have better things to do such as college and writing my novels/books among other things. Leave the page as it is, if you must ive removed the first thing since you were grumbling about that. It really isnt no Sudetenland ; stop making it into a big deal. Goldblooded (talk) 18:20, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

And it wasnt even a month old, it was barely 2 weeks. Goldblooded (talk) 18:22, 8 September 2011 (UTC)


 * There are better places and ways to "help out." You don't need to be hanging around the talk page of an editor you had a conflict with in the past, especially when said editor retired and you were needling him at the time. You said you have better things to do. Go do them.
 * Regardless, MisterBee's comment was made in June. It's September. Parsecboy (talk) 18:27, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd like a reply here at the very least. You still havent explained yourself either. And MisterBee's comment was the one i agreed to delete. But you know what i was genuinelly trying to help and you kept stopping me and threatened me with a block? Thats exactly what caused Dapi to leave Wikipedia; Absolutely pathetic admins trying to get the better of him. Either explain yourself on here and give me a true answer why you removed my edit not some petty exscuse or dont bother me again. Just because your an Admin doesnt make you superior to anyone else, and with that; Im Out. Goldblooded (talk) 18:31, 8 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I saw your comments on Dapi's talk page and I thought they were completely unnecessary, out of line, with too much of the flavor of dancing on the grave after a victory over an opponent. I disagree 100% with your recommendation that people seek you out instead of Dapi. I agree with the removal by Parsecboy. Binksternet (talk) 21:42, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

So was your comment here. Anyway of course your going to agree with him because from what ive observed. Your his best buddy.

Anyway ive already discussed with some people and i was in the right and i put a message on his talk page instead but on regards to WP:STICK I will leave this matter here. And of coruse you would disagree because you dont even know me, dont be so narrow minded and actually a smirky comment like that could be taken as abuse but anyway theres no point seeking out dapi since hes left, So it would be completely illogical on your part to recommend a retired user over me because as i told the other people (whos comments you removed) he probably isnt coming back so take your unessarary comments elsewhere please. Goldblooded (talk) 08:04, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

And how is it possibly "dancing on the grave" of my opponent i didnt even win. I was genuinelly trying to help and redirect that guy, but anywho as ive already stated this matter is resolved. You win. congratulations. Goldblooded (talk) 08:05, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

And actually your comment is rather contradictory since thats practically what your doing. See WP:DEADHORSE Goldblooded (talk) 08:19, 9 September 2011 (UTC)


 * No, I saw this lengthy conversation and I felt that you were not 'getting it' so I jumped in to reinforce the message. I can see the futility now. Binksternet (talk) 12:23, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah i bet you did. Who do you think i am? Im not stupid even if your all seem to think i am. I got the message long ago and long before you commented. Did you not read what i said? I said i understand in accordance to WP:STICK ill back off and then i said two words "Im out" which basicially means conversation over so there was no need to add to this debacle.

As Parsecboy said to me and i think it should apply to you as well, Leave the page alone, Binksternet - theres's nothing for you to gain here. Goldblooded (talk) 13:29, 9 September 2011 (UTC)