User talk:Parsecboy/Archive 27



Coln
Hello

I just translated SMS Dresden (1917) to my notepad file, and want to go to Cöln class cruiser. But there is problem:

Dresden: Dresden began to sink at 13:50. Her wreck lies to this day at the bottom of Scapa Flow to the south east of the island of Cava, in a depth of between 38 and 27 meters. She is a very popular wreck with scuba divers.

Coln class:

Dresden was boarded by British sailors who managed to beach her before she sank. She was eventually broken up for scrap in 1920

Can you check this? PMG (talk) 19:43, 10 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Gröner apparently made an error about the ship being broken up in 1920, but I haven't gotten around to fixing it yet. The ship is still in Scapa. Parsecboy (talk) 11:30, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * So can you fix this? My English is not so good to change articles. PMG (talk) 19:33, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I can take care of it, though I'm fairly busy at the moment, so it'll probably have to wait a while. Parsecboy (talk) 20:20, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

P class cruiser
Hello

P class cruiser

The armored belt was 120 mm (4.7 in) thick over the vital areas of the ship, and tapered down to 40 mm (1.6 in) in less critical areas, and had a depth of 14.2 m (47 ft).

Unit`s draft was 7,2 meters. So belt armor was from bottom to 7 meters up of waterline? It will give you seaborne box? :)

Or I read this incorrectly or there is error. PMG (talk) 21:49, 10 February 2012 (UTC)


 * No, it was a typo on my part - the depth was for the barbettes, not the main belt. Parsecboy (talk) 11:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Alfred Schulze-Hinrichs
Have you ever come across his name? I recently ran into his name. Schulze-Hinrichs after World War II worked for the Bundesmarine as an instructor in the naval history department. He wrote a number of books, none of which I own. Searching the internet I came across snippets of his work. In one context he refers to a "SMS Hessen" test. If my understanding is correct the test was to test steering behavior and solutions in case of a damaged rudder system, similar to what had happened to Bismarck. I am not sure to what extend Schulze-Hinrichs addressed or evaluated the decisions taken by the Bismarck crew. But apparently, at least in theory, it would have been possible to steer Bismarck given the damage sustained by the torpedo hit. I will try to get access to his works and maybe it adds a certain twist to Bismarck's last hours. MisterBee1966 (talk) 11:07, 12 February 2012 (UTC)


 * He's mentioned briefly in Zetterling & Tamelander (see the article for the ref), first as the commander of the destroyers that escorted Bismarck in the Baltic (see here), and again on page 250 (which is not available in google books) - "After the war, Captain Schulze-Hinrichs suggested that the Bismarck might have attempted to travel to France in reverse. It is unclear whether this idea would have worked, or what speed the battleship might have attained in the attempt." No mention of the Hessen test, but there's a citation to a seven page chunk of Brennecke's Schlachtschiff Bismarck, which might talk about it. I'll be interested to hear what he says if you can get the books. Parsecboy (talk) 11:24, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Congratulations

 * Talk about consistency -- a difference of 2 points and 1 article from last month...! Now I know QPQ is frowned upon in some areas but if you'd be able to verify the scores on the main contest page and, assuming all correct, hand out the requisite award to the (distant) second place getter, that'd be great... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:42, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

MSU Interview
Dear Parsecboy,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, where it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.

So a few things about the interviews:
 * Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
 * Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
 * All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
 * All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
 * The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.

Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) 07:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Young June Sah --Yjune.sah (talk) 02:53, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Sure, I can help out - I added my name to the interview list. Parsecboy (talk) 13:05, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
--Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 07:55, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

SMS Pommern
I have been working on an article on Pommern (horse), the winner of the 1915 Epsom Derby. When looking through the sources I found many references to a German "battleship" called the Pommern being sunk in the Baltic by torpedoes from a British submarine in July 1915, for example. Even at the time, however, there appears to have been confusion about the identity of the ship, and it obviously wasn't the SMS Pommern which was at Jutland in 1916. It wasn't particularly important to the article, other than as an illustration of the fact that Pommern was a rather unfortunate name for a British racehorse at the time, but I thought that it might be of interest to you and that you might be able to shed some light on the matter.  Tigerboy1966  01:56, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi, Tigerboy. It's a pretty typical case of the fog of war. The ship Max Horton, in HMS E9, torpedoed on 2 July 1915 was the armored cruiser SMS Prinz Adalbert, though he didn't sink her. The submarine HMS E8 actually sank Prinz Adalbert a few months later in October. Parsecboy (talk) 12:38, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the help. One of the good things about Wikipedia is that regardless of the subject, you can usually find an expert.  Tigerboy1966  14:19, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Not a problem at all, glad to be of help. Parsecboy (talk) 19:49, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXI, February 2012
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 10:18, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Bretagne class battleship
Hi Parsecboy. My edit, on « Bretagne class battleship » about the Free French Naval Forces, that the French battleship Lorraine would have joined after the Allied landings in North Africa, did not mean that I wanted to omit mention of these forces.

But the Free French Naval Forces are specifically the members of the French Navy, who decided to join General de Gaulle, to continue to fight the Germans, since 1940, mainly from Great-Britain. They were involved in various operations in which they fought the French naval forces which remained under the orders of the Vichy Regime (mainly Operation Menace, at Dakar in 1940, or the Syria-Lebanon campaign, in 1941). They were considered as «dissidents» by the Vichy authorities, and treated as such, as the Free Frenchs considered the leaders of Vichy Regime as traitors.

After the Allied landings in North Africa, the French naval forces remaining in Algeria and Morocco which had fought fiercely, in Oran or in Casablanca, against the Allied forces, and which stayed under orders of Flag Officers who had remained obedient to the last moment, to the orders of the Vichy authorities, did not joined the Free French Forces, who had been renamed, in 1942, Forces of the Fighting France, but they followed Admiral Darlan, as French Commander-in-Chief, North Africa, whom President Roosevelt called dedaignously a «provisionnal expedient», knowing his former pro-German attitude in 1941-1942. The French Naval Forces in French West Africa joined the Allies in December 1942, after the scuttling of the French fleet in Toulon, as the French highest administrative authority in Dakar, Governor General Pierre Boisson had good relations with the U.S. Consulate in Dakar.

In the late days of 1942, Admiral Darlan was assassinated, and General Giraud succeeded him as Civil and Military Commander-in-Chief, as was beginning a six-month fierce fight between General de Gaulle and General Giraud, for the presidency of the French Commitee of National Liberation. I suppose that you know very well all these facts.

But Admiral Godefroy, Flag Officer of French Force X, to which Lorraine was attached, in Alexandria, resolved to stay strictly obedient to Marshal Petain, and refused to join even the French Naval Forces in Africa, of which the most important warships, as the battleship Richelieu and the light cruisers staying in Dakar, left for the U.S.A. in early 1943, to be refitted and resume fight against the Axis forces.

It is only after five months of contacts with the French authorities from Algiers, and considerable pressure from the British authorities in Alexandria, that he announced, on May 17,1943, that he had decided to lead the Force X French warships to Dakar, « harbour of out great West Africa colony, free from every foreign occupation » (in Masson, Philippe (1991) (in fr). La marine française et la guerre 1939-1945. Paris: Éditions Taillandier. ISBN 2-235-020410, p.405-407 and p.516-517). The reference of this book is in the bibliography of « Richelieu class battleship » in Wikipedia.

I let you appreciate how you can integrate these elements, but you will understand that I consider that «Lorraine was disarmed in Alexandria until December 1942, when she joined the Free French Naval Forces » is not exact.Paul-Pierre Valli (talk) 00:05, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

H class battleship proposals
Hello

We have proposition for Dobry Artykuł (pl.wiki GA). One user find in some source information that the aborted Plan Z (1939) envisioned 10 (some sources say six) super-Bismarcks of 56,000 tons. Do you have any info about that? There was 10 or 6 proposed ships? I asked what`s the name of source. PMG (talk) 14:41, 6 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Only 6 H-class ships were ordered from the original design, and none were ever ordered from the subsequent design studies. What the person might be confused about is that Plan Z called for 10 battleships, but this number includes the two Scharnhorst and two Bismarck class ships. Parsecboy (talk) 15:13, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Stanley Sandler: Battleships. An Illustrated History of Their Impact. Santa Barbara, California: ABC-CLIO Inc., 2004, p. 127. ISBN 1-85109-410-5. PMG (talk) 19:32, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Sandler unfortunately doesn't provide any footnotes, and based on his rather unsophisticated commentary, I don't think he's all that reliable on this question. It seems he's confused about the issue I pointed out above. Only 6 H-class ships were ever ordered, which is what all reliable histories confirm (Gröner, Garzke & Dulin, Breyer, etc.). The other four ships provided for in Plan Z were already built. Parsecboy (talk) 23:58, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

My talk page
Please don't post your personal observations and criticisms on my talk page again. I've been here for over seven years, and don't need your opinions on my editing. If you really think I've done something wrong, report me to the correct venue. However, as I have not done anything wrong, you are requested to "butt out".

In point of fact, the uncited addition included names and information about living people. BLP issues are not just found in biographical articles. All information about living people must be cited, regardless of what article it is in. Yworo (talk) 23:45, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and FYI, WP:NOCITE is not a policy, it is a guideline. The actual policy is WP:V, which clearly states that "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. You may remove any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source." I've been editing this way for years and yours is the first general complaint about my "behavior" in removing uncited material. That the material was clearly added by someone with a conflict of interest, had uncited material about living persons, and was promotional in tone and content was sufficient reason to remove it immediately. Adding a "cite tag" is for small, uncontroversial edits, not massive uncited additions (in my opinion). Yworo (talk) 00:00, 9 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Fair enough, I won't post on your talk page again. I will, however, keep an eye on the situation. I don't care how long you've been an editor, that doesn't give you the right to treat newbies poorly.
 * While we're quoting policy, allow me to direct your attention to the section directly above that: the bit on "any material challenged or likely to be challenged" - this is talking about factual challenges, not CoI/promotional issues. Where there are BLP concerns, use a scalpel, not a sledgehammer. This should be common sense. Again, the idea is to not alienate new contributors. If they make a mistake, correct them, politely. Parsecboy (talk) 12:27, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Mr. "Light cruisers are not major warships" is back.
140.90.233.67 is back in business. Same statement as before. How can this kind of disruptive editing be dealt with? Manxruler (talk) 13:27, 10 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for pointing it out - I've blocked the IP again, and it looks like it has since been identified as a US government owned IP - you could file an abuse report with the owner, which could solve the problem on their end. Parsecboy (talk) 20:08, 10 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks. It's appreciated. We'll see if there's a need, I hope he'll just disappear from WP once he sees that he isn't getting anywhere. Manxruler (talk) 14:33, 11 March 2012 (UTC)


 * We can hope, though I had to put up with this IP-hopping idiot for a couple of years. I guess all we can do is keep an eye on the situation. Parsecboy (talk) 11:18, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

i'll never go away — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.241.150.21 (talk) 03:32, 25 March 2012 (UTC)


 * You do realize we have the IP you used at work, right? How do you think your employer would react if I informed them you're screwing around here while you're at work? Parsecboy (talk) 11:30, 25 March 2012 (UTC)


 * It looks more and more like this character won't go away. How would we go about such a report? Manxruler (talk) 19:53, 25 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, I've contacted the person who handles abuse on the network (you can get this information from Whois, a tool at the bottom of the IP contrib page). We'll see what happens now. Parsecboy (talk) 12:58, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Let's hope that sorts things out. Manxruler (talk) 19:15, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Here we go again... Manxruler (talk) 07:14, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Good times, right? Parsecboy (talk) 11:28, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yep. Happy days indeed. Manxruler (talk) 21:31, 6 May 2012 (UTC)


 * What a terrible waste of an IP. Again. Took him four days after the last block ended to get back to it. Constructive fellow. Manxruler (talk) 23:25, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I guess we'll see him in September, then. Some people need to get a life. Parsecboy (talk) 23:41, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Thank you. Manxruler (talk) 06:47, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

SMS König Albert ACR
G'day, mate, not sure if you've seen my comments on the SMS König Albert ACR, or if you are in a position to address them, but I'd be happy to support for promotion to A-class if you they are actioned. I'm also happy to discuss anything you disagree with in regards to my suggestions. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:12, 12 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I've seen them, it's just been a really busy week. It was the last week of the quarter at OSU, so not only did I have a few papers of my own to write, but I got 50-some-odd papers on Tuesday to grade by Thursday. I'll get to the ACR this morning (before I go proctor the final this afternoon). Parsecboy (talk) 11:06, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

SMS Braunschweig
I took some pictures of SMS Braunschweig morse equipment on display at Bundeswehr Military History Museum in Dresden. I don't want to mess up your article so if you want I can upload them for you to include in the article. MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:30, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Douz skirmish
The WP:OWNer of the Douz skirmish "article" reanimated it without consensus in February. I have reverted it back to a redirect; you may want to "take care of it" further.... Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 01:59, 20 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for letting me know - I've protected the page for three months and added it to my watchlist. If s/he comes back, I'll see it. If the page should pop up at another location, drop me a line and I'll handle it. Parsecboy (talk) 11:47, 20 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Will do. Thank you. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 14:23, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Prinz Eugen
"Two days later, while steaming off the Trondheimsfjord, the British submarine Trident torpedoed Prinz Eugen." Do you see the problem with this sentence? I'm pretty sure it was the cruiser that was steaming, not the submarine. But the subject is the submarine. That's what I was trying to correct. True, passive voice is not ideal, but neither is ambiguity.

SelectSplat (talk) 01:14, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXII, March 2012
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:31, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Best practice
I am trying to collect what I would call best practices related to German military articles here. Maybe you are interested in the topic and would like to participate. You have written so many articles on German battleships it maybe good to share your thoughts MisterBee1966 (talk) 17:36, 24 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Just to let you know, I haven't forgotten about this, I've just been busy. I'll come have a look soon. Parsecboy (talk) 18:37, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Kolberg class cruiser/GA1
You know the drill - comments on the review page, it was just a few niggles. Let me know when you're ready for me to look at it again. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:29, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Discussion at WP:DRN
Hi, You probably should have been notified when Dispute resolution noticeboard was started, and I've mentioned you in my post. regards, Nick-D (talk) 01:23, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Talk:SMS Nürnberg (1916)/GA2
The review for your GAN was started by User:Sturmvogel 66 on March 21, about two weeks ago. Since there haven't been any edits to the article since the review was posted, I thought you might not have noticed that the article was being addressed, and some points had been raised that need your attention. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:19, 4 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for reminding me, I had lost track of it during finals week last quarter. Parsecboy (talk) 18:25, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Greenfield
Hello, Parsecboy; I am asking on the Greenfield talk page why you undid the redirection of greefield to greenfield land in 2009. Did the greefield to "greenfield land" redirect get replaced by a WP:Article fork (unintended recreation) of the greenfield disambiguation page, or something like that? Esetzer (talk) 17:30, 4 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Replied on the article talk page. Parsecboy (talk) 18:20, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia
Hi. :) I see that on 29 March you split Pallada into two articles: Pallada (tallship), Russian frigate Pallada. I just wanted to drop you a note that when spitting articles, you must at minimum provide a link to the source article to meet our terms of use. I've repaired the attribution in the edit history and another user placed the copied template at the talk page, but please be sure to provide this information in future. Copying within Wikipedia has more information about the hows and whys, as does Splitting. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:51, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

GA template being copied when starting Battle squadron articles
Hi Parsecboy. You have accidentally copied the good article template when creating the !, II and III Battle squadron articles. AIR corn (talk) 00:47, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

FLC or GAN
Sorry, obviously you decided midway through this afternoon to opt for GAN? I'm not clear on your direction now, I've restarted the FLC, but it's inadvisable to have both an FLC and GAN running on the same article. Perhaps you could let me know how you wish to proceed when convenient to you? Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:41, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I have neither the time or inclination to continue splitting hairs. Please archive the nomination, I want nothing more to do with it. Parsecboy (talk) 11:41, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I've read the nom page and its talk page, and I'm disappointed in what seems to be a fault in the process. Parsec, what are the odds that the list will pass GAN? If it won't, should we get a conversation started there about problems at FLC, and how we may need GAN as a fall-back venue for some short lists? - Dank (push to talk) 12:47, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I guess it depends on who reviews it at GAN. I'd hope the FLC people will use this as the impetus to figure out how short lists should be handled, and create a clear guideline explaining it. Parsecboy (talk) 13:28, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I see two problems with their suggestion that you can't have a featured list because your list could conceivably be merged with a list of decommissioned ships. 1. Suppose there are only 4 notable "Slobovian"-American actors. How would the Slobovians feel about it when they're told that no one at Wikipedia is willing to review and promote a list of Slobovian-American actors, not at GAN because the GAN people gave up on lists entirely, and not at FLC because the FLC people insist that you merge that page with a list of dead Slobovians? 2. The language used by at least one of the reviewers reflects the same skepticism they'd have for someone trying for their first featured content covering marginally notable popular culture.  How do they justify applying that level of skepticism to this article and this nominator? - Dank (push to talk) 15:34, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, plenty of articles which are mainly prose with a few tables get reviewed and passed at GAN. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:38, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * If we could get some consensus at WT:GAN to take articles like this one, that would work for me, and I'd be happy to put the question to Milhist. But I understand that GAN reviewers got worn out with lists ... that wasn't anything Milhist did, but we're suffering the consequences. Parsec, any thoughts on trying to push to get A-class lists accepted for Good Topics? - Dank (push to talk) 15:54, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Battle of Jutland
Of course you're right about she, and I'm happy to see that being used to refer to ships. But I take the paragraph in question to refer to submarines, which are not ships, and in any case, WP:MOS says there must be a consistent style throughout the article. I think there are probably more "she" than "it" references in the article text, but still some inconsistencies (I haven't checked closely yet but I might do later). Anyway, thanks for linking the templates for the German ships. Slac speak up! 15:25, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Jänisjärvi or Yanisyarvi?
Please, look at my comment here. --WPK (talk) 19:52, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

French battleship Dunkerque
I am very pleased to see French Dunkerque battleship article nominee for GA, in the English Wiki. I consider that the 1930 French battleships, from the Dunkerque to the Gascogne, are interesting warships, well balanced, with a specific main artillery arrangement, which allowed to combine an equivalent protection, and a better speed, for the same displacement as their well known contemporaries (Littorio, Bismarck, King George V, Wahington or South Dakota).

You asked, when you clean up the refsection, why numerous irrelevant books were included: it's because they referred to the former parts of the article, «cut out for duplication with the class article».

There are some points that I want to notice, but I observed that they corresponded to citations from US books, that are not in my library, as Rowher's, Whitley's or Gardiner & Chesneau's books, which were in contradiction mainly with Jordan & Dumas's, or Dumas's or Le Masson's books.


 * After the Washington Naval Conference, standard displacement in the French Navy was generally given in long tons, the other displacements were given in metric tonnes, thus the standard displacement of the Dunkerque was 26,500 tons, not 26,500 t(Jordan & Dumas 2009, p. 38, Le Masson 1969,p.75). However, for the fully loaded displacement, Jordan & Dumas and Le Masson differred, as Jordan & Dumas indicate 35,500 tonnes, and Henri Le Masson indicates 35,500 LT.
 * About the aviation facilities, dont forget the aviation hangar, «for the first time in battleship design»(Breyer 1973,p. 433).
 * The first 37 mm AA guns were in single mountings (registered, in the French Navy, CAS Modèle 1925, «CA» meaning «Anti-Aircraft» and «S» for «single»). They were replaced by anti-aircraft double mountings (CAD Model 1933), as the automatic anti-aircraft double mountings (ACAD Modèle 1935) were yet in trials in 1940 (Jordan & Dumas 2009, p. 168-169). There never was a 37 mm Modèle 1937 mounting, but a 100 mm Modèle 1937 mounting, never intented to be fitted  on Dunkerque. A fifth semi-automatic twin 37 mm mounting (CAD Modèle 1933) was added to the  short range anti aircraft battery, in August 1939, on Dunkerque only, just between the 130 mm quad centerline turret and the aft tower (Jordan & Dumas 2009, p. 41-42).
 * One new range finder was installed, in January-February 1940, in the lower fire control director of the fore tower. Its base was 14 m, not 15 m (Dumas 2001, p.60). The largest range finders fitted on French battleships (postwar, in the Jean Bart's main turrets) were only 14.2 m (Jordan & Dumas 2009, p. 212). I found nothing similar about a replacement of the two 12 m main turret range finders.
 * I did not find, in Jordan & Dumas's or Dumas's books, any indication that the Force de Raid was officially formed before September 1939, or that Bearn, which was a particularly slow aircraft carrier, was assigned to this fast task force. Jordan & Dumas talk of «exercises with the Bearn»(p.62), of «elements of the Atlantic Squadron» covering the return of Jeanne d'Arc during the Sudetenland crisis (p. 65), or of the «future Force de Raid» visiting British harbours in May-June 1939 (p. 66). Otherwise talking seems to me rather anachronistic.
 * At Mers-el-Kebir, on July 3,1940, «Dunkerque and Provence opened fire immediately on the British Squadron» (Jordan & Dumas 2009, p. 77), however without any accuracy neither efficiency.
 * On July 6, one torpedo, from port, sunk the trawler Esterel, without damage for the Dunkerque. A first torpedo, from starboard, sunk the trawler Terre Neuve, with little damage for the Dunkerque. The second starboard torpedo caused the explosion of the Terre Neuve's deep charges, and very severely damaged the hull of the battleship, in the F and G compartiments (in the official report of damages supported by Dunkerque at Mers el-Kebir in Dumas 2001, p.81). I think that the citation from  Whitley, p.52, is redudant with the citation from Dumas 2001, p. 70 and 72.
 * The drydock space was not limited in Mers-el-Kebir port, it was non-existent (Jordan & Dumas 2009, p. 74).
 * The second fire, during Dunkerque repairs, occured on 25 January 1942 (not 1941, Jordan & Dumas 2009, p. 88).
 * I am very suspicious about the contact between the Commanding Officer Dunkerque and the Commanding Officer La Galissonière, the day the French fleet scuttled in Toulon, because, on the map of the Toulon Arsenal, in Jordan & Dumas 2009, p.91, the La Galissonière cruiser, in the «Missiessy dock», was not «nearby» the Dunkerque battleship, in the west «Vauban dock». This was added by User:Rama, in September 2006, before I did my first edit. The citation of Dumas 2001, p. 75, refers to the scuttling of the ship, not to the contact between the two Commanding Officers. I asked Rama whether he could give a reference.

All in all, cheer for your massive overhaul of French battleship Dunkerque and sorry for the grammar, style, cohesion, tone, or spelling of my edits.Paul-Pierre Valli (talk) 23:27, 20 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks, and no worries on the grammar and such, it's certainly much better than I could do on the French Wiki :) You did a good job with the article before I did my work - would you be interested in working with me on the rest of the French battleships of World War II? I've been trying to work on some of the French battleship articles (like Bretagne class battleship, Normandie class battleship etc.) and I think between the two of us, we can write some excellent articles on these ships.
 * This is a common problem in articles like this, there are usually a lot of disagreements between sources on specific figures, when units were formed, when modifications were made, and the like. The only real option is to note in the article that there are some disagreements over specific cases, though in some instances one source may be more reliable (for instance, on the formation of the Force de Raid). I'm fairly busy at the moment (see my reply to Nick below) so it will be a few days before I can work these issues out. Parsecboy (talk) 00:26, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I completely agree with your proposal. Dont worry, I perfectly understand that you might be busy. It's no longer my problem : I am a retired civil servant of nearly 70, and I never had before enough time to enjoy with this hobby, beyond collecting a few books about modern naval history.Paul-Pierre Valli (talk) 16:11, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

French battleship Dunkerque GA nomination
Hi, I've started the GA review of this article, and left comments at Talk:French battleship Dunkerque/GA1. I hadn't seen the above message before adding these comments, however, so they may also need to be taken into account. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 23:52, 21 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Nick - I'm currently in the middle of grading a stack of exams, so it might be a couple of days before I'll have time to get to it. Parsecboy (talk) 00:21, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Lyon class battleship
Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:03, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

List of armored cruisers of Germany
Unfortunalty I can't find a better way to place it (using stacking puts it and the image side-by-side - !), but the German Navy ship types template on List of armored cruisers of Germany looks absolutely horrible at 1440x700 screen resolutions. =/ - The Bushranger One ping only 21:15, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I found stack, which appears to work. Does it look better for you? I can only do 1440x900 on this monitor, which looks fine to me. Parsecboy (talk) 00:58, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I meant 1440x900, d'oh. And yeah, that looks much better now! - The Bushranger One ping only 01:44, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Main page appearance: SMS König
This is a note to let the main editors of SMS König know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on April 28, 2012. You can view the TFA blurb at Today's featured article/April 28, 2012. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director or his delegate, or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions at Today's featured article/requests/instructions. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. The blurb as it stands now is below:



SMS König was the first of four König class dreadnought battleships of the German Imperial Navy during World War I. König (Eng: "King") was named in honor of Kaiser Wilhelm II of Germany. Laid down in October 1911, the ship was launched on 1 March 1913. Construction on König finished shortly after the outbreak of World War I; she was commissioned into the High Seas Fleet on 9 August 1914. Along with her three sister ships, SMS Grosser Kurfürst (1913), SMS Markgraf, and SMS Kronprinz (1914), König took part in most of the fleet actions during the war. As the leading ship in the German line on 31 May 1916 in the Battle of Jutland, König was heavily engaged by several British battleships and suffered ten large-caliber shell hits. In October 1917, she forced the Russian pre-dreadnought battleship Slava to scuttle itself during Operation Albion. König was interned, along with the majority of the High Seas Fleet, in Scapa Flow in November 1918 following the Armistice. On 21 June 1919, Rear Admiral Ludwig von Reuter gave the order to scuttle the fleet while the British guard ships were out of the harbor on exercises. König slipped beneath the waters of Scapa Flow at 14:00. Unlike most of the other scuttled ships, König was never raised for scrapping; the wreck is still sitting on the bottom of the bay. (more...) UcuchaBot (talk) 23:03, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Talk:German aircraft carrier II/GA1
It didn't seem to be working when I set it up, just showed the code for the template, looks OK now I will have a look at it.Petebutt (talk) 17:48, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * perhaps you'd better do it. and I can see what you do.Petebutt (talk) 17:50, 24 April 2012 (UTC)


 * (ec) Yeah, I don't know what happened to it, but I fixed it the other day.
 * Well, it's my article, so it wouldn't be proper for me to review it ;) If you'd like, I can put in the standard review formatting, and you can fill it out as necessary. Parsecboy (talk) 17:52, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Featured topic candidates/Music of the Sun /archive1
Hey. Would you be able to leave a comment at this GT candidate? It seems to have stalled and I'm unable to close it as is, so a comment either in support or opposition would definitely help. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 05:22, 27 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Sure, I can take a look at it. Parsecboy (talk) 12:02, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 27
Hi. When you recently edited German FK cruiser designs, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Diesel (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:49, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXIII, April 2012
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:32, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Talk:German aircraft carrier II/GA1
The original reviewer hasn't done anything with the review in the last couple of weeks so would it be alright if I hijacked the review and GA it? Thurgate (talk) 12:47, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't think so, it seems he has forgotten about it. See the conversation we had about it above and on his talk page. Parsecboy (talk) 12:54, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah k, seeing as he hasnt done anything with it i'll go ahead and GA it. Thurgate (talk) 15:22, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks
For looking into the situation in regards to the War in Afghanistan (2001–present)‎ article. Nick-D (talk) 08:26, 9 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Not a problem at all. Good luck resolving the dispute. Parsecboy (talk) 11:43, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

SPI case
Hi, If you a) have time and b) are comfortable doing so, could you please look into Sockpuppet investigations/X Nilloc X? (disclaimer: I lodged this report). Thanks, Nick-D (talk) 08:28, 14 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Not a problem at all. I've blocked the IP for a day, hopefully he'll get the message that his behavior will not be tolerated. If he resumes, let me know. Parsecboy (talk) 11:53, 14 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks again. Nick-D (talk) 11:53, 14 May 2012 (UTC)


 * New X Nilloc X sock continuing his edit war: 208.54.35.248 --Guy Macon (talk) 06:06, 15 May 2012 (UTC)


 * IP Blocked by ‎Alison. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:42, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

"However"
I saw your edit summary "don't start sentences with "however"" and was intrigued. What is it about the practice that concerned you? Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 12:10, 16 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I just realized I never responded to this. I've always been told (at least as far back as high school English classes) that starting a sentence with "however" is poor grammar. Parsecboy (talk) 18:34, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * There are numerous examples of simple rules that are taught to students of English to simplify learning of the language, but are subsequently ignored when those rules stand in the way of concise and efficient communication. “Don’t split an infinitive” is one.  It sounds like “Don’t begin a sentence with however” is another.  William Shakespeare never let such rules slow him down.  I frequently begin a sentence with however when it is an efficient way of conveying the desired meaning.  I would object if a User amended one such sentence purely to conform to some simple rule.  Unless WP:MOS says something specific against beginning sentences with however Users should feel free to do so.  Dolphin  ( t ) 22:42, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I have to say this is something I’m prone to do, but “not starting a sentence with a preposition” is good grammar. The reason, presumably, is that “however”, or “also”, or “but” generally introduce a counter-point in a train of thought, so it should be in the same sentence as the original proposition. Otherwise it just looks like an afterthought, as if it hasn’t been thought through properly.
 * OTOH if your thinking is a bit disorganized (like mine) lot of thoughts will be afterthoughts.
 * And The whole point of MOS, and WP:Cleanup, and having a language-and-grammar helpdesk (I’d have thought) is that good English should win out over bad English; but if there’s a specific guideline on using “however” needed it’d be here. Xyl 54 (talk) 23:54, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

More edit warring in relation to the War in Afghanistan (2001–present) infobox
Hi Parsecboy, If you have time and are comfortable doing so, could you please look into: WP:AN3. It appears to the same issue you followed up on a few weeks ago. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:16, 24 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Sure. I warned Stumink to stop edit-warring and attempted to explain the problem with using Wikipedia mirrors. He also re-created List of Taliban fatality reports in Afghanistan, which I have also deleted and warned him against repeating. I'll keep an eye on the situation and take appropriate measures if they become necessary. Hopefully this can be resolved without blocks. Parsecboy (talk) 15:28, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Why did you delete the List of Taliban fatality reports in Afghanistan i made. Sure there was a consensus to delete the list of taliban fatality page but the new page i made was completely different to that one, the consensus agreed upon was to delete the original different page. The page which was agreed to be deleted was full of individual daily fatality reports, whereas the page i made had only yearly figures, so it would be just like the pakistan taliban fatality page. You deleted my page because i recreated the page but it was a completely different page to the one that was originally deleted so you have to a better reason to delete becuase there was no consensus to delete the page i made as it was completely different and separate to the original. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stumink (talk • contribs) 17:15, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The consensus to delete was that the page, regardless of whether it is daily or yearly, is not encyclopedic material, at least in its own page. I've pointed you to WP:DRV as the place this should be discussed if you believe the page is needed (note for Parsec: previous discussion), your re-creating the page in a "it's different, really!" fashion is WP:POINTY. Please drop the stick. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:17, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I know there was a consensus thats why i didn't recreate the same page. "it's different, really!", the page I made was completely differnet to the original, but you deleted it based on a consensus for a vastly different page. Why would i go to this page WP:DRV, i wasn't trying to get the old page back. I was trying to make a new different page more like the pakistan taliban page. You just deleted the page because it was under the same name but it was differnet, therefore it shouldn't have been deleted. I guess i will just make a new page under a different name and then there will be no way to apply that consensus to it. Also why would i drop the stick when you havn't given me a good argument and also don't avoid adressing my points. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stumink (talk • contribs) 21:41, 24 May 2012 (UTC)


 * No, I deleted it because it suffered from the same fundamental problems identified in the deletion discussion. You have to address those issues (and indeed you can't, because of the very nature of the article you want to create) if you want to recreate content that has been deleted in this manner. If you create it elsewhere, I will delete it again. Parsecboy (talk) 21:44, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Tell me why the consensus for that page should apply to the very different in content page i made and before you say it, the page i made was completely different. How did it suffer from the same fundamental problems as the old page. On the deletion page the problems were that the page was like a news reel and should belong on wiki news. How does that apply to my page which only has yearly totals. If i create a new page for yearly Taliban fatalities as i did which was completely different as a complete new page then to delete it you will have to reach consensus on that separate talk page, judging by wiki rules. Basically it was a completely different page so i think there should of been a new consensus and new different reasons. Also address my points if you are so right and prove to me why my points aren't valid. Each one of them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stumink (talk • contribs) 22:29, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * because it suffered from the same fundamental problems identified in the deletion discussion. Q.E.D. Your refusal to listen does not change facts. - The Bushranger One ping only 07:11, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Great agrument bushranger, i understand everything he has said. I am just saying a new census should have been made as my page was completely different. I read this deletion page and the only reason it the original page  was deleted was that it was like a news feed. To say that that my page suffered from the same fundamental problems identified in the deletion discussion is absurd becuase how are yearly totals on my page like a news feed, so what are you guys on about. If you guys are so correct and i'm so wrong, why don't you actually give me good reasons for once and not avoid my points like always. I make an argument, so you guys are supposed to attempt to argue my points but you just say the same old over and over. I read all your reasons and i countered them. If i'm so wrong adress my counter arguments for once. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stumink (talk • contribs)
 * The list, and particularly any attempt to draw totals from individual reports, is inherently original research. The version you created was simply a condensed version of the original list, based almost entirely on the mirrored version of that list. I don't know why I have to explain why you can't do that.
 * As for using the mirror for anything else, please read this, specifically the line "Thus Wikipedia articles (or Wikipedia mirrors) are not reliable sources for any purpose." Parsecboy (talk) 11:59, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

First of all you should probably mentioned that. That was never cited reason for deletion from any of you including on the deletion page, so you should of mentioned this earlier as your reason instead of going on about the consensus or saying it suffered from the same problems as the original page. Anyway half the yearly totals came from external sources like the afghan government. It is not an exact wiki mirror because all the yearly totals were created by the website and also the intro at the top. How is an independent website adding up sourced reports to create yearly totals count as original research on wikepedia. I'm pretty sure all yearly totals are made up from added individual figures. Whats wrong with a website taking sourced reports and adding it up themselves. Do You not source websites which do there own adding up. How do you think the afghan government or any other source get there totals, by adding just like this website did. To be fair why was this page deleted in the first place, it is just like all the multiple timeline pages that exist for most modern conflicts like the syrian or libyan uprising. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stumink (talk • contribs) 14:30, 25 May 2012 (UTC) :
 * I wasn't involved in the deletion discussion, it's not my responsibility to ensure they raised all of the appropriate points. Nevertheless, it is one reason the original list should have been deleted.
 * As for the mirror, yes, the hoster of the page added to it, but the additions are merely the sums of the content of the article. It doesn't matter if the original research is done here or on some unreliable website, it's still not permitted. We only base articles on reliable sources (read the link, I haven't been posting it for my health) such as newspapers, government sources, or established experts in a given field. Some random website that is 99% duplication of Wiki content is in no way a reliable source.
 * The problem is, military operations aren't always reported in the press, and the government and military frequently have a clearer picture of the events in question that doesn't make it to the press, and so relying solely on press reports to come up with a total figure is inherently problematic. Parsecboy (talk) 12:11, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Just to jump in, the Wikimedia mirror appears to have been copied in about February this year. At that time the Wikipedia article did include those dodgy total figures (for instance, see this version of the article). There's no new/original content in the mirror - it's an exact copy of the Wikipedia article. Nick-D (talk) 12:25, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I had a feeling that was the case, I just didn't bother searching too far back in the article history to confirm it. Thanks Nick. Parsecboy (talk) 12:41, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. You said the website is unreliable, but is it less reliable than a random historian estimating the fatalities in the future. Most war estimates are like that. You say reliable sources like newspapers, government sources, or established experts are what you want. The totals are sourced from newspapers, governments and established experts, so the info on this website is quite reliable. You say wiki mirrors are a problem but this is a unique situation where the page was deleted. In usual circumstances the info on a wiki mirror would already be on wiki so to source you would just get original source from that wiki page. Has there been a situation like this regarding wiki mirrors? Regardless of whether or not you think the website is reliable, how does a website doing original research violate wiki rules. Websites don't follow wiki rules. All figures are created by adding up. If you say this violates wiki rules then all websites violate wiki rules by doing there own original research. If your best reason against me is that the actual totals were on the wiki page. But what if they were not on the original and the website had done the adding up themselves, your point would not be valid, so it just a technicality. How was I supposed to know that the website did not add up the figures themselves. It is logical to assume that the totals would of not have been allowed on wiki. Nick you say that this is an exact copy of an earlier page but as the totals should of never been on the wiki page according to original research rulings, it doesn't make a difference if the figures were on wiki. They shouldn't of been there. If original research on Wikipedia that violates rules were to appear on another website, it no longer violates wiki rules, as that only applies to wiki editors, not random websites. Also the original page shouldn't have been deleted in the first place for being like a news reel. Daily timeline pages are all over wikepedia.

Also it is Interesting how your arguments have changed overtime from consensus and it suffering from the same flaws as the previous page to the reliability of the source. I was never planning on remaking the page if you were worried about that. All I wanted was a good explanation but this has gone long enough, so I would like to end this dispute now. I am not completely satisfied with your reasons. I do understand all your points and i addressed them but nearly all my counter points were left unchallenged until your last paragraph. Stumink


 * No, the website is unreliable, end of story. Did you read the link I keep linking? Look, I and others have tried to explain why simply adding up news reports of casualties is highly problematic. That someone who is not an established expert on the subject only increases the problems with the approach you want to use. That the content was deleted from Wikipedia does not in any way make it somehow reliable. It was still the product of random, mostly anonymous editors. I don't know why you think there is some kind of magic transformation of the material into something you can use, or that the rules for sources don't apply, simply because a mirror copied the text 100% verbatim from Wikipedia. Trust me, there's no difference.
 * No, our arguments haven't changed, we have simply tried different methods to explain why what you want to do is problematic. It seems as though you don't understand the problems, though, because you seem to think that material copied directly from Wikipedia is somehow fundamentally different from its source. It isn't. Parsecboy (talk) 17:28, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

All the 400 sources on the website were good enough for Wikipedia before, just saying the page was never deleted for unreliable sources. The individual reports on the website are reliable. I'm not saying there is a magic transformation, all I'm saying is that the original research argument doesn't work when it's on another website. That only applies to wiki editors. If the website choses to use wiki info and add up the totals themselves, it's not original research. Regardless of whether the website added the figures or the figures were originally on wiki doesn't matter. The page is still the same as if the website did add it up. It is just a technicality. Also what if the page had added up the figures themselves instead the totals being on the wiki page a while ago. Nick's point would be invalid. As i said it is just a technicality. You say you seem to think that material copied directly from Wikipedia is somehow fundamentally different from its source, it is different from it's source because the only problem was that the added up figures were made by wiki editors on wiki. This would count as original research, but if the info were to turn up on a website, the website can add up the totals because that's how all totals are created. There is nothing wrong with a website adding up sourced info to create a minimum. It is not original research on another website. I do understand everything you have said and i countered all your points the best I could. You say your arguments haven't changed but when I countered your original arguments you chose not counter my points and instead chose a different argument and then I countered them. Your arguments at the start were different to what they are now. You could not back your original arguments well enough or you chose not to back them up so you tried different arguments, so yes your arguments have changed.

Any way, thanks for reply but I would like to end this. I wasn't planning on remaking my article. As I said all I wanted was an explanation and you've tried to explain it to me and I appreciate it. I understand why you personally deleted it. I may not agree with you completely but I cannot be bothered with this discussion any more. Stumink —Preceding undated comment added 00:57, 27 May 2012 (UTC).
 * If you want to end the discussion, that's fine. It would be a great benefit to you if you actually read the policy page on sources I keep pointing to (here it is again: WP:RS). Random mirror websites are not reliable sources. The work was done by Wikipedia editors, who are not reliable sources for anything. It doesn't matte that it's mirrored onto another website, it's still original research by Wikipedians, which is strictly forbidden. The section on primary, secondary, and tertiary sources makes this crystal clear. It doesn't stop being OR simply because another website basically took a screenshot of our content. Parsecboy (talk) 01:54, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

BTW I did read your links. When I say the website is reliable, i am saying that the hundreds of reports are reliable because they were good enough for wiki. Your saying that because the totals were copied from wikepedia it is still original research but what if the copied wiki info on the website did not originally contain the totals and the website had in fact done the adding up themselves by using all the source then that would definitely not be original research, so it is just a technicality because those original research totals should've not been on wiki and it is basically like if the website took 400 sourced reports and then added the sources up themselves and this would be original research by the website and in noway violate wiki original research rules. What if the website had just added up the sources themselves then that point would not work and the website source would be no different to what it is now but would not violate your original research rules.

Thanks for the reply but I would like to end this. Stumink —Preceding undated comment added 09:35, 27 May 2012 (UTC).

HMS Formidable (67)
I have a question about the airstrike which damaged HMS Formidable in March/May 1941, maybe you can clarify??? According to my German sources an attack by III./KG 30 under the command of Arved Crüger which damaged (so the claim) Formidable occured on the afternoon of 29 March 1941. The Wiki article here states 26 May 1941. Do you happen to know what date is correct? Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 19:21, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I can't say for sure, but I'm fairly certain that she wasn't damaged until May. I'll know more when I get home at the end of the month.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:54, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Could you also check if an attack on the British task force was flown on the 29 March? Or maybe a different carrier was targeted?? MisterBee1966 (talk) 05:03, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Please remind me in about a week on my talk page. I have plenty of sources at home that should be able to answer your questions.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 11:54, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

About Arkansas...
Thanks for plopping that Campbell source in there; I merged it with my next edit. As you probably know, I work on referencing mechanisms a lot. This often uncovers issues in them. Most common is duplicate named references, which cause the subsequent definitions to simply not appear to readers; they're in the editbox only.

It seems you have a lot of the usual sources for teh Majestic Titans. I've worked on at least fifty of them. I'd like to be able to pester you for source details when I encounter an ambiguity or omission. I'd also be interested in wading into the Imperial German Navy, which seems to mostly be your work. I've done this for Wehwalt's FA; almost all of them. He's sold on my approach to refs; finds it supports verifiability and speeds his work down the road. Cheers, Br&#39;er Rabbit (talk) 22:29, 24 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Not a problem - I had gotten about halfway through rewriting the article and then got busy and sort of forgot about it. I guess I forgot to add the reference after I added the line from it.
 * Yeah, Sturmvogel or I have just about everything used in these articles, so between the two of us we should be able to clear anything up or fix mistakes. And yes, I've written all of the FAs on German warships (and all of the other decently developed articles on ships larger than a destroyer - the tin cans are Sturm's work) - I don't love the citation templates, mainly because typing the is muscle memory and I don't want to have to teach my fingers something new. I suppose since you'll be doing it, not me, it doesn't really matter, so go ahead. Parsecboy (talk) 12:03, 26 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Terima kasih (thanks you in bahasa Indonesia). I'll look around for a few interesting articles and get back to you. There are real advantages to the carious template based referencing techniques. And there are real pitfalls to the ref tag method. Named refs are extremely error prone. Inadvertent duplication of names silently omits the subsequent definitions; what they read is not what you meant. The {sfn} approach automates the collation, so you're free to adjust the page number or ranges without the bother or risks of naming and reusing a citation. I've other pleased customers ;) And it's the future (and I know the future will change, but it will be in this vein). Cheers, Br&#39;er Rabbit (talk) 12:39, 26 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I got back to SMS Goeben;, although if you step through individual edits it will be a lot clearer; I made sure that each diff is clear. This is pretty much the full arc of what I do to referencing structure on works sourced primarily to books and journals (paginated works). This would not be apt for an article primarily sourced to websites (non-paginated). I also cleaned up the navbox for the ship class. I'm thinking Moltke and the class next, then the next class (or prior). Let me know what you think, please. Cheers, Br&#39;er Rabbit (talk) 11:25, 2 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Br&#39;er Rabbit (talk) 02:45, 3 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi. Could you please look at this?
 * There's another named ref higher up that defines name="G55" as "Gröner, p. 55". This was causing the two I just renamed to appear as p.55 instead of the obviously intended p. 57. Not only is sfn /better/ in its own right, named refs are extremely error prone. I see this sort of problem all the time. Even experienced editors fall into this trap. Br&#39;er Rabbit (talk) 04:21, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * There's another named ref higher up that defines name="G55" as "Gröner, p. 55". This was causing the two I just renamed to appear as p.55 instead of the obviously intended p. 57. Not only is sfn /better/ in its own right, named refs are extremely error prone. I see this sort of problem all the time. Even experienced editors fall into this trap. Br&#39;er Rabbit (talk) 04:21, 3 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I guess I'm sold on your approach, that all looks fine to me. Let me know if you come across any other problems in the references for any of the articles. Thanks again for all of your hard work on this. Parsecboy (talk) 17:19, 3 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Glad to hear it. I'll plod along through the rest of the battlecruisers; SMS Seydlitz is begun, and I did light passes on a bunch of others and kicked some navboxes in the right direction. I see regular use of ship and sclass templates in these so you're certainly used to seeing the {} inline rather <>.
 * Did I point you at User:Ucucha/HarvErrors.js (User:Ucucha/HarvErrors 4 doc)? You should install it (or the test version: User:Ucucha/HarvErrors2.js). It's really useful at spotting syntax issues with the sfn/harv suite of tools. Better would be to take a fair chunk of User:Br'er Rabbit/common.js.
 * (fyi, I linked to some of this work on WT:AC; teh Jack thread;)
 * Cheers, Br&#39;er Rabbit (talk) 23:21, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Herwig
Hi. I ran into a referencing question. In SMS Derfflinger, I found this ref and comment: I'm going to leave the ISBNs and OCLCs as I find them. I'm thinking someone else left this note, but have not gone looking for who and when. This work is use in many of these battlecruiser articles, and I hope the pagination is the same. It may be that the source you used is the later one, and what's needed is |year=1998 and |origyear=1980. Derfflinger class battlecruiser has the later ISBN and original year. Above, the publisher info is for the 1998 edition. Mostly thinking that's what you have. Groans, Br&#39;er Rabbit (talk) 06:36, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Looks like it's used in most of a hundred articles. The was added by The ed17, and. Br&#39;er Rabbit (talk) 07:46, 4 June 2012 (UTC)


 * ...please don't ask me why I'd change the isbn to a different edition without being sure it was right, because I don't remember. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 08:00, 4 June 2012 (UTC)


 * ok. I just want to determine the edition/year/isbn/oclc that should be there and probably in the others. I'm thinking we're looking at |year=1998|origyear=1980 and the 1998 isbn/oclc. They have nearly the same number of pages, so the pagination of the editions may be in sync for the body of the books. This is in at least three article that I've editing in the last few days. Cheers, Br&#39;er Rabbit (talk) 08:19, 4 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Yeah, it's the 1998 edition - I think the pages are somewhat off from revisions made to the first edition, so it should be 1998 to be clear. Thanks for catching this. Parsecboy (talk) 10:38, 4 June 2012 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. I'll fix the ones I'm working on and get to. There are about 92 that should be considered. Many will be yours, but some not. I'll do the origyear thing on ones using the 1998 ISBN, but saying 1980. Br&#39;er Rabbit (talk) 11:39, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Bennett
Bennett was omitted, so I added one; seems quite likely the right one. Cheers, Br&#39;er Rabbit (talk) 09:47, 4 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Yup, that's it. Good catch. Parsecboy (talk) 10:40, 4 June 2012 (UTC)


 * No worries; part of the process. Br&#39;er Rabbit (talk) 11:39, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Gröner, in Ersatz Yorck class battlecruiser


Hi. In the above diff, I exposed a lost ref: (just above "Armament"). There was another, higher up: (just above "Machinery"). If you look at, they all appear as p. 59, with pp. 58–59 "lost". When I {sfn}'d them all, I kept the one as pp. 58–59, but there were five that may need checking against the sources. With sfn, you just change the p/pp parameter to what you like and the collating just happens automagically.

This is almost the last of the Battlecruisers of Germany. I'm thinking battleships, next. Br&#39;er Rabbit (talk) 01:10, 5 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Those refs are all good - the only use of p. 58 was in reference to the Mackensen's speed and the engine/boiler arrangements, which were copied from the Mackensen design.
 * Good luck with the battleships, there are a lot of them :) Parsecboy (talk) 11:02, 5 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm just leaving diffs here so things can be double checked. Have a few more:, . The first is to refs that were buried by duplicate names, the second is a bit of prose that was lost in a bit of mangled ref syntax. . The " <ref name she was one of the last capital ships to be successfully scuttled&mdash;only the battlecruiser SMS Hindenburg sank afterwards, at 17:00. " has been hiding "She was...17:00." all along. I assume the prose is fine to have restored. I also just did SMS König, and expect I've flooded your watchlist. Mostly that was light prep work and watching them myself. I pasted Herwig 1998 in where it was needful.
 * /Ya/, there are a lot of battleships. And the Royal Navy was rather larger. I'm going to finish the light pass through the first war era ships and then focus on the dreadnought classes as they seem further along. Terima kasih, Br&#39;er Rabbit (talk) 11:41, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Brown
"Brown" is undefined in this article. I stubbed it, but it needs full details. Possibly Br&#39;er Rabbit (talk) 03:02, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXIV, May 2012
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 15:12, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

HMS Royal Sovereign (05)
Hi, I was wondering if you were planning on taking this article on to A-class review or higher as I intend to work on the other class articles this summer and it would be nice to make the six articles into a featured topic. Thurgate (talk) 17:56, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Dreadnought Article
Misleading & unintelligible organization in the "SUPERFIRING" theme

Italian Dante Alighieri and Russian Sclass|Gangut battleships haven't superfiring layouts (check board planes photos or videos) but they have triple turrets. Therefore I moved them to another section. The section talks about mainly the superfiring instead of the number of the guns. They Don't fit in the theme. Therefore Italian Dante Alighieri and Russian Sclass|Gangut battleships have no place in the "superfiring" category.

Go to the talkpage of the article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dreadnought#Misleading_unintelligible_organization_in_the_.22SUPERFIRING.22_theme
 * See my reply there. Parsecboy (talk) 14:35, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Notification: ANI
Notification: please, visit to [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Wrong_source_usage_in_German_battleship_Tirpitz_page:_incorrect_details. ANI] --Zh.Mike (talk) 14:15, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Have we done this before...?

 * Nope, not ever - thanks Ian :) Parsecboy (talk) 16:15, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Capitán Prat GAN
Hi, Parsecboy. I've completed the review of the Chilean battleship Capitán Prat. For the most part, the article's fixes involve information gaps, but it should not be too much to handle. Let me know if you have any questions or objections. --Starstriker7(Talk) 04:43, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Re:USCGC Point Ledge (WPB-82334), et al
Thank you for yor offer of help and words of encouragement. I had a meltdown this morning with the assessment of one of my articles on the MILHIST Project Assessment Request page and in a hissy fit removed everything from the page and my contest entries for this month. It was childish I know, but also cathartic. It has taken months to get Coast Guard Squadron One to the point of where it is now and I take some pride in knowing that it covers the subject well with the resources I have at my disposal. I hesitate to move it to main space because I'm not sure I can take the criticism (or indifference) that MILHIST Project editors can inflict on it. As a sculptor and artist, one of the really big questions in my mind as a work nears completion is that of when to stop messing with it. Is a work of art (or Wikpedia article) ever really finished? And I dither on that point... Words of advice please, Oh Wise One...and thanks, again. Cuprum17 (talk) 17:25, 21 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Not a problem at all. I think we all have moments like that sometimes :) I got pretty frustrated over this stupidity a couple of months ago and seriously considered abandoning the FLC process altogether. I'd say the article looks pretty good, where it's complete, of course. I wrote a paper on the US Navy in Vietnam in a graduate seminar I took last year - the only source I used that I don't see here is an article by Clarence Wunderlin titled "Paradox of Power: Infiltration, Coastal Surveillance, and the United States Navy in Vietnam" from the Journal of Military History, which may be of some use to you. If you like, I can email the article to you. Merle Pribbenow's translation of the official North Vietnamese history, Victory in Vietnam, might be useful for the NVA side of things, though you should use it with caution, as it does have some highly problematic passages (such as claiming to have done serious damage to the battleship New Jersey in 1968, when they in fact missed entirely).


 * I know how frustrating being overlooked can be. A while back I filed my first (and last) request for a peer-review (see here), mainly because I had never written a biography up til that point and I wanted to make sure I had done a halfway decent job of it. It was up for at least a month and all I got was one fairly limited comment on the article. Suffice to say I haven't bothered with the process since. I've found that the MILHIST A-class review process to be much better, but even then you're dependent on peoples' availability and willingness to do the reviews. See for instance WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Iraq War in Anbar Province, which has been up for a month and a half and has only two reviews; sometimes these things just happen.


 * It took me quite a long time to get the first article I really improved (SMS Von der Tann) up to snuff (it was over a year between when I started working on it and when I got it to WP:FA. And a couple years later, I was still making fairly significant improvements, so I can't say that anything here is ever really finished. Parsecboy (talk) 18:51, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The Wunderlin article sounds like it would be a help in finishing my sandbox article. I have taken the step of joining The Society for Military History so that I can gain access to the article. Thank you for the tip and offer to email a copy. It is nice to know that I'm not alone in the frustrations of getting an article "bulletproofed" for publication. I really do appreciate your help; you have given me some encouragement. Thank you from an old Army Sergeant and retired Coast Guard Chief Petty Officer. Your help has meant a lot. Keep your powder dry... Cuprum17 (talk) 19:25, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm glad that I've been able to lend some help. Yeah, I think most people run into roadblocks every now and then. It helps to have someone you can vent to (I'll always be here for that, if you like). As for the article, unfortunately it's from the late 1980s, and it's not available online, so you'd have to order a copy (I think the cost of a single article is $10) from the Journal. Alternatively, if you have access to Jstor, you can get it there (which is where I found it - I have access through OSU). Thanks for your many years of service, I only served a bit under 4 years and made it to E-4 before I went and hurt myself on a jump and got medically discharged. Parsecboy (talk) 20:22, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Wrong source usage in German battleship Tirpitz page: incorrect details". Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zh.Mike (talk • contribs) 08:19, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

SMS Nürnberg
Have you seen this picture? Memorial in Berlin of KzS Karl von Schönberg, last Commander of SMS Nürnberg. MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:23, 22 June 2012 (UTC)


 * No, I hadn't seen it before. I added it to the end of the article. Thanks! Parsecboy (talk) 12:04, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Rollback request
Hello, I saw your name in the rollback request category, and recognized it from the military project. Would you be willing to give me access to the rollback button? I tried my hand at the recent changes page, and found it difficult to keep up. Maybe it's just a slow internet connection though too. Thanks for your consideration! Otto Tanaka (talk) 20:28, 22 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't see why not - it doesn't look like you've ever edit-warred or anything problematic. It's pretty straightforward, just an extra button next to the "undo" button. Let me know if you have any questions. Parsecboy (talk) 20:37, 22 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks a lot! I'll try to not screw anything up too badly. Otto Tanaka (talk) 20:41, 22 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh hey, I've seen all the good work you've been doing with battleships and stuff. Is there a way I can help out with that? Otto Tanaka (talk) 20:46, 22 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks, and yes, we're always glad to have another editor interested in battleships. I see you've found the WP:OMT page, which was where I was going to point you. Let me know if you want some help on an article or something. Parsecboy (talk) 21:05, 22 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh, and you may already know this, but a number of good sources for warships can be found on Google books - Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships 1906-1921 (and the 1922-1946 volume as well), Whitley's Battleships of World War II, and many others. Parsecboy (talk) 14:57, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

GOCE July 2012 Copy Edit Drive
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:19, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of HMS Prince George (1895)
After thoroughly reviewing this article, I have decided that it meets the good article criteria and have passed it. Keep up the good work you are doing for Wikipedia! Rp0211 ( talk2me ) 20:42, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of French battlecruiser proposals
After thoroughly reviewing this article, I have determined that this article meets the good article criteria. Keep up the good work you are doing! Rp0211 ( talk2me ) 00:05, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Many thanks for both of these reviews! Parsecboy (talk) 02:11, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

HMS Victorious (1895)
Hi, I have reviewed HMS Victorious (1895) and placed it on hold for up to seven days with some concerns. You can see my review here: Talk:HMS Victorious (1895)/GA1. Canadian  Paul  14:18, 25 June 2012 (UTC)