User talk:Parsecboy/Archive 29



Braunschweig-class battleship
The impression is that the characteristics  in English  and German Gröner, Erich. Die deutschen Kriegsschiffe 1815-1945 Band 1: Panzerschiffe, Linienschiffe, Schlachschiffe, Flugzeugträger, Kreuzer, Kanonenboote. — Bernard & Graefe Verlag, 1982. — 180 p. — ISBN 978-3763748006 are different.
 * How much power the power plant 17,000 or 16,000 horsepower?


 * What was the thickness of the main armor belt of 225 mm or 250 mm?--Inctructor (talk) 16:24, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

USS Nevada
I have made some edits to the USS Nevada page and you have reversed them. First off, the USS Nevada has four (4) main gun turrets and this has not changed since her launching. There has been a comment included in her description following her modifications about how she now resembles the South Dakota Class of Battleships, which in the whole scheme of things is based on a "hasty observation." You changed this edit because you state that it is not really relevant. An observer is trained to look at both overhead and profile attributes of the target in question, to state that the difference between the USS Nevada that has four (4) main gun turrets and the South Dakota Class that has only three (3) gun turrets as irrelevant in light of the comment that the Nevada now bears resemblance to the South Dakota class is not irrelevant. In fact, the only attributes that make the Nevada resemble the South Dakota class (externally)is the replacement of her previous secondary battery by the 5"/38 twin gun turrets. Now even the South Dakota bears a resemblance to her siblings because she has the same three (3) main gun turrets, however; she is dissimilar by the fact that she only has eight (8) twin 5"/38 gun turrets as oppose to her siblings which has ten (10) of them. So the statement that the Nevada bears a resemblance to a class of battleships is in of itself incorrect as a single ship does not in and of itself make a class when it has siblings. You do not compare the innards of a ship and say that it resembles another ship. you make comparisons base on external physical attributes. If you disagree with my line of thinking, please enlighten me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joedumlao (talk • contribs) 06:40, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, she has 4 gun turrets, but that is not all that relevant. The point is, after the 1942 rebuild, she resembled the SoDak class. Does that mean they were identical? No.
 * And no, the secondary guns are not the only similar features - the new superstructure, both forward and aft, on Nevada increases the resemblance, as does the new funnel. Take ONI's word for it: here. Friedman, a naval expert surely more knowledgeable than you, also makes the claim. Parsecboy (talk) 13:13, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, she does have a new funnel, and if you notice, it is quite larger than that of the South Dakota class and it is partially obscured by the tripod mainmast which is not present on the South Dakota class.


 * What you see or think is irrelevant. The bottom line is, people who are more of an expert than you have determined that the two ships bore some degree of visual similarity. If you want to contradict them, you need to provide a reliable source that says Friedman and the USN are wrong. Parsecboy (talk) 17:38, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Pushing Nazi POV
May I ask you on your opinion on this discussion? I am being accused and threatened with ban from Wikipedia by other German Wikipedians on the grounds of pushing a Nazi POV. MisterBee1966 (talk) 17:43, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Fusō-class battleship
You were asking in the FAC for a footnote along these lines, I think: "The impact of the revolutionary battleship HMS Dreadnought (1906) was such that all ships of her type became known as "dreadnoughts"." At first I was okay with it ... but I feel like that's going to get really distracting if it's popping up in every battleship article; we don't have etymological footnotes in Milhist FACs, generally. Perhaps if we're careful to say "dreadnought battleships" a few times, and link it, people can read up if they need to, and they'll at least know that it was a battleship if they don't click. Does that work for you? - Dank (push to talk) 01:31, 20 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Oh, I wasn't asking for a footnote, I was thinking an in-text explanation would work better. For example, "...Dreadnought rendered all existing battleships obsolete by comparison and lent her name to a new "all-big-gun" battleship type." It's not that big of a deal, your option would work too. Parsecboy (talk) 12:13, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, now I get it, thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 12:25, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXIV, March 2013
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 Nick-D (talk) 03:49, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Cleanup on aisle 9
I screwed up the move of O class battlecruiser to O-class battlecruiser and did O-class-battlecruiser instead. Can you ungefuck this whenever you get this chance?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:40, 31 March 2013 (UTC)


 * It's all ungefucked now ;) Parsecboy (talk) 12:33, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, man.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:41, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Naval History
Aye there, 'Parsecboy', I'm a member of WikiProject Ships. To help naval historians here at Wikipedia in the effort of writing and citing naval history articles sometime ago I created the List of ships captured in the 19th century and Bibliography of early American naval history pages. Over the last year(+) I have been tracking down and including names of captured ships and naval history texts for inclusion in either of these articles. I like to think that I have included most captured ships (19th century) and most naval history texts (covering the 1700s-1800s) for inclusion in these articles, so if you know of any captured ships or naval history texts that are not included would you kindly include them, either on the page or the talk page of the appropriate article? Any help would be a big help and feedback is always welcomed. Thanx! -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:52, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

K-Verband, Kleinkampfverbände, Midget Assault Units
I need a second opinion here. I don't think the current name of the article "K-Verband" is a very good English representation. Would "Midget Assault Units" be a better and more suited English name? Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:20, 4 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't know - it does seem to be used in English sources (see here, here, and here, along with the Tarrant book cited in the article). It might be the case that the semi-abbreviated German is how it's best known in English sources. Parsecboy (talk) 13:09, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Eduard von Capelle
PanydThe muffin is not subtle 08:32, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Main Page appearance: SMS Blücher
This is a note to let the main editors of SMS Blücher know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on April 11, 2013. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director or one of his delegates (,, and ), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. You can view the TFA blurb at Today's featured article/April 11, 2013. If it needs tweaking, or if it needs rewording to match improvements to the article between now and its main page appearance, please edit it, following the instructions at Today's featured article/requests/instructions. The blurb as it stands now is below:

SMS Blücher was the last armored cruiser built by the Imperial German Navy. She was designed to match what German intelligence incorrectly believed to be the specifications of the British Invincible-class battlecruisers. Blücher was larger than earlier armored cruisers and carried more heavy guns, but was unable to match the size and armament of the new battlecruisers. The ship was named for Gebhard von Blücher, commander of Prussian forces at the Battle of Waterloo. After being commissioned in 1909, Blücher served in the I Scouting Group for most of her career, including World War I. She took part in the bombardment of Yarmouth and the raid on Scarborough, Hartlepool and Whitby in 1914. At the Battle of Dogger Bank in 1915, she was slowed significantly after being hit by British gunfire. Franz von Hipper, the German commander, decided to abandon Blücher to the pursuing enemy ships in order to save his more valuable battlecruisers. She was sunk and British destroyers began recovering the survivors, although they were forced to withdraw when a German zeppelin began bombing them, mistaking Blücher for a British ship. Estimates of the number of casualties range from 747 to around 1,000. UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Re: Littorio-class_battleship
You may also want to see the Dutch interest in the Littorio's underwater protection for their Design 1047 battlecruisers. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:27, 8 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Ahh, good tip. Thanks Ed! Parsecboy (talk) 23:43, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Eduard von Capelle
Hi, he received Germany's highest military award the Pour le Mérit. This is not even mentioned in the article. Do you know why he received it? MisterBee1966 (talk) 11:31, 9 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Hmm, I had overlooked that. I'll look into it, but given the award date (9 January 1918), I'd presume it was for the early success in the 2nd unrestricted submarine campaign, and the fact that the senior leadership (i.e. Ludendorff and Hindenburg) thought they'd have it in the bag once the Spring offensives kicked off. Just a guess though. Parsecboy (talk) 21:08, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Notice of WP:AN discussion
Hello Parsecboy, this is notification of a WP:AN discussion regarding an editor you have dealt with. The thread is: WP:AN. Appreciate your input, thanks! 18:07, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

SMS Blücher
Congratulation for having the article as featured article of the day. Two comments if I may, I can't resist. Chistened by Gräfin Blücher von Wahlstatt, great granddaughter of Blücher, speech by Colmar Freiherr von der Goltz. HRS volume 2 page 99. Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:34, 11 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Of course, you must have been on holiday when this article went through FAC or something :) Thanks for these. Parsecboy (talk) 19:28, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Greetings!
If you still have an interest in critiquing the Mahan-class destroyer article, I’m ready when and if you are able. But right now, though, I have an immediate problem I could sure use your help with. Problem: I’d like to delete a section of unnecessary text (my own) that contains a number of inline citations without fouling the respective notes, which I have not been able to do. It’s the Design section of the USS Mahan (DD-364)] article, and the text I refer to pertain more to the Mahan-class article than to the (364) article. I’m still trying to bring the (364) article up to speed, thankfully doing it with the help of some other busy editors like you. In any case, thanks! Pendright (talk) 23:33, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure, I'd be happy to take a look at the article. I'm in the midst of the end of the semester crunch, but by Monday I should be done. Parsecboy (talk) 13:41, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Pendright (talk) 20:41, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * If time permits, would you take a quick look at (DD-364), including the Design section. Your feedback would be most appreciated. Thanks again! Pendright (talk) 23:56, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Right, I had forgotten. I'll look at it in the morning, thanks for reminding me. Parsecboy (talk) 00:04, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I made a few tweaks to the article (mostly substituting the USS template for the basic links, and adding a few links to battles and such), hopefully that's all ok. I have one idea for the long quote at the end: you might want to put it in a box like I did here. Just a thought anyway. Also, you can add some of these photos to the article (and there are more here we can upload to Wikipedia and then use in the article if you like any of them more - I for one like this one - you don't usually get to see the guns from the breech side). The article has certainly come a long way since you took up the challenge. Keep up the great work! Parsecboy (talk) 11:35, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for tweaking the Mahan class article and your tips. I like your box idea; what photo or photos would one use–the Cassin, Downes, or a Brazilian ship? The link for the Mahan photo you like, which won’t Link-up for me, is, I believe, also shown in Destroyer Weapons Of World War 2–Hodges and Friedman.  They indicate it’s (June 24, 1944) when Mahan (DD-364) was refitted, but are skimpy on details.  I like it as well, because I was a member of the crew at the time and it is unique by comparison.  How important are photos to an article?  I notice your Wichita article has a lot of photography.  Can you give me a quick primmer on inserting photos?  And thank you for your kind words about the article and your help with it as well.  Last question: what would it yet take to make it a better article, one that would enjoy a higher article classification? Pendright (talk) 23:39, 22 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Not a problem at all, I'm glad to be of help. Photos are important, because most people won't know what a given ship looks like (or even could tell the difference between a battleship and a destroyer). If the photo is already uploaded to Wikipedia, all you have to do is link it like you would for anything else, but there are a few extra steps. For photos in the text, you want to make them show up as a thumbnail, so you can add a caption. Basically, the way to do it is like this: USS Mahan (DD-364)-Tarn.jpg . That will make it automatically display on the right side - to move it to the left, you just add "left" to the image markup like this: USS Mahan (DD-364)-Tarn.jpg . Now, for photos that aren't already uploaded, like the one of Mahan showing the rear of the 5" guns, you have to save the photo to your computer, and then upload it. There's a button on the left side of the Wikipedia screen in the toolbox that says "Upload file" - that will get you to a series of prompts for information. But I prefer the old form (here), probably because I'm an old-timer stuck in my ways ;) I went ahead and uploaded the one photo here, so we can add that to the article.
 * Hmm, I think for the class article, some of the other ships in the class would be good. I usually like to mix them up, or try for unusual types of photos if at all possible. I kind of like this one too, since its an overhead shot of Mahan (you can tell it was directly after the collision with South Dakota from the mangled bow). If you look through the Commons category, you can see all of the photos we currently have uploaded, and there are a number of very high-resolution photos from the National Archives that would be good. For instance, this one is a good profile shot of Downes. And this one is a pretty good color photo - a rare find for most of these ships. Of course, this photo is iconic and would be a good choice too. Parsecboy (talk) 17:02, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll get to work - thanks! Pendright (talk) 01:25, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXV, April 2013
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 Nick-D (talk) 15:14, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks
For your review and helpful comments at Adam Mickiewicz. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:33, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 30
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited German cruiser Leipzig, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Hela and Boiler room (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) 11:58, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Photos
I added four pictures to the Mahan-class destroyer article. If you have the time, I’d be interested to know what you think. I’m just getting started with 364. Many thanks for your how-to on photos. Pendright (talk) 23:47, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I saw this the other day and then forgot to reply. I think the pictures are all good - they all have different perspectives on the ships, which helps people understand them. The thing I like about the photo in Pearl Harbor is you can see a crewman walking on the deck, which really shows how small these ships were. It can be hard to visualize from the usual photos of ships you see, where you see the whole ship from some distance. Parsecboy (talk) 20:34, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Much obliged! Now for the $64 question: where do I go from here?  Pendright (talk) 00:26, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * As far as the class article in general is concerned or just photos? Parsecboy (talk) 00:34, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The class article in general! Pendright (talk) 01:49, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Alright, as far as big things go, the biggest thing you're missing there is a short summary of the ships of the class. Take a look at one of Sturmvogel's articles: C and D-class destroyer. Basically, you don't need nearly as much detail as you'd put in the articles on each of the ships, but you want the broad strokes. You might summarize which ships were in the Atlantic and Pacific Fleets before the war, that Cassin and Downes were destroyed at Pearl Harbor but rebuilt, what battles the ships took part in, that kind of thing.
 * Also, have you seen anything on why the ships were built? Or what design requirements the Navy gave the shipyards? For instance, in Friedman's book on pages 86 and 87, he talks about the discussion over whether the ships should be armed with dual-purpose guns or not, how many torpedo tubes, etc.
 * One other thing - the class article makes it sound like Cassin and Downes were a total loss, and that their machinery was just installed in new hulls, but the articles USS Cassin (DD-372) and USS Downes (DD-375) makes it sound like the ships were just rebuilt (though the Downes article seems to contradict itself, since it says they were rebuilt, but that their machinery and other salvageable parts were shipped to Mare Island). I'm guessing what you have in the class article is correct, and the people who wrote the Cassin and Downes articles were just confused.
 * As for little things, there are some formatting things the article needs. The one that stands out most to me is that not all of the ship names are italicized. Also, you want to watch out for duplicate links - we usually only link to something once in the article. For instance, you have Gibbs and Cox linked three times in the design section. There's a handy tool I just discovered (actually Sturm showed it to me last night) here that shows you all of the duplicate links in an article.
 * The infobox might be a bit too long - we don't normally put the disposition of the guns there, for instance. I don't usually put anything besides the original armament either, since in most ships, their weaponry changed so much as to make it difficult to track clearly.
 * I appreicate your help - I'll get to work! Pendright (talk) 01:41, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 8
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited USS Wyoming (BB-32), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Canal Zone (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) 11:09, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Question
If I create accounts, do administrators know my ip address? How to know my ip address if I create accounts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fceefyahoo.ca (talk • contribs) 23:02, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * As a rule, no, administrators can't see your IP address if you're signed in to your account. That information is reserved for checkusers. If you're logged in with an account and want to find out what IP you're on, you can find out by logging out and looking where your username would be on the top right. I hope that answers your question. Let me know if there's anything else you need. Parsecboy (talk) 00:09, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Do you know what Nadira31 is doing to all Wikipedia article related to Army?
Here is his contributions. I think he is spamming by adding links to all of them army articles.Thanks for rolling back his actions. Rovine - User Page? - What do I think? 12:40, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I warned him as well. Hopefully he'll stop and we won't need to take further action. Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 12:45, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I gave him another warning but he is still going so I have reported him at Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism, although he is spamming. Thanks for your help. Rovine - User Page? - What do I think? 12:49, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Looks like he's been blocked for a day. I've rolled back th last of his edits, so it's all taken care of for now. We'll see if be starts again tomorrow. Parsecboy (talk) 12:57, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Pennsylvania class
Hey Parsec, I've [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pennsylvania-class_battleship&diff=555702219&oldid=555661141 moved] the specifications section per your suggestion. What do you think? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:22, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * That looks good to me. It just makes more sense to me to keep the design requirements and such and the finished design together. Hey, I stumbled across this photo of Pennsy in drydock - it might be worth trying to fit into the article, given the relatively uncommon nature of the photo (both the drydock shot and the fact that its in color). Just a thought. Parsecboy (talk) 22:51, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello!
Ya, it’s me again! I’ve covered much of the ground you set out in your last critique of the 364 class, except for this: “you’re missing a short summary of the ships of the class.” I take this to mean that an individual summary is needed for each ship of the class. The C and D-class destroyer article appears to me to follow a similar format; the difference is that many of their ships can and are discussed in groups -which is not the case here, as I see it. If my assumption were correct, then I would need 18 individual summaries because grouping would not be an option. Forgive my thick-headedness, but I hate to look at this number without some kind of acceptable approach. Your help is always appreciated. Pendright (talk) 21:58, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * You could do it either way, really. Since you're not going to be writing detailed histories of each ship, you could write more of a basic narrative of the campaigns the destroyers participated in. If you went that route, could either do a straight chronological narrative that goes back and forth between the Atlantic and Pacific, or you could split it in two sections. The Gazelle-class cruiser article is one I wrote that follows this sort of pattern.
 * You could also do eighteen short sections on each ship individually. I've done that in some articles as well (for instance, Admiral Hipper-class cruiser). That's a more straightforward approach, but the only problem is that it's split into eighteen sections, and it will probably be more work than doing the other way (and truth be told, I much prefer the former, because I'm a little lazy ;).
 * Oh, and by the way, I made a few tweaks to the Mahan class article, mostly formatting stuff. Parsecboy (talk) 00:16, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It’s just what I need, thank you. Thanks too for the tweaking. Pendright (talk) 17:01, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

 * Thanks for reminding me, I'll stop over shortly. Parsecboy (talk) 16:19, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

WP:TFAR
Japanese aircraft carrier Akagi has been nominated for June 4 (71st anniversary of loss) but I notice that it's the 100th anniversary of the launch of SMS Markgraf the same day, which is one of your FAs. Were you thinking of it running then, or saving it for another date? I've left a note for Sturmvogel 66 as well. BencherliteTalk 10:21, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Since Sturm is ok with it, that sounds fine to me too. Thanks Bencherlite. Parsecboy (talk) 16:26, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Congraualtions!

 * Best, HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  18:12, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks HJ! Parsecboy (talk) 16:26, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXVI, May 2013
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 Nick-D (talk) 13:07, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Mahan class service history section
I’ve been pondering your suggestions, but without much success. I don’t see any shortcuts here, regardless of approach. The eighteen ships will require a ton of digging to out the information one needs or wants, however one presents the information. I’ve looked at the examples you referred too. But in this case, grouping seems like as much or more effort than the individual approach. My lack of experience suggests using the straightforward approach: “do eighteen short sections on each ship individually. “ Can I take this to mean:  focus on the major stuff and keep the verbiage within a certain word count, yet tell each ship’s essential service history? Beached in the boondocks! Pendright (talk) 23:48, 26 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Yeah, if you want to go the individual route, you should just write up a paragraph or two on each ship that highlights the main points. It might be easiest to use the DANFS entries on each ship for the majority of each of the ship histories and supplement with other sources where necessary. Parsecboy (talk) 00:20, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and set up a structure for the individual entries, and did the one on Cummings for an example for you. Feel free to change it as you see fit, it's mostly just a quick example you can use as a sort of template. Parsecboy (talk) 01:09, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you has all but become a cliché, and it hardly seems enough for this and all the other help you have given me. But until I can stretch my vocabulary, thank you.Pendright (talk) 16:10, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Not a problem at all, I'm glad I can help. Parsecboy (talk) 12:01, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

SMS Schlesien
I had left a comment on the A-class review. Could you have a look please I think there is a problem with the text regarding who and where Schlesien was built. I had also left a few other comments based on HRS which you may want to add. MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:31, 27 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Oh right, I had lost track of that at the time. Thanks for reminding me. Parsecboy (talk) 11:46, 27 May 2013 (UTC)


 * You may want to read up on Admiral Max Bastian, commander of Schlesien for one year starting on 1 October 1928. Admiral Bastian was the president of the Reichskriegsgericht and thus responsible for many death sentences. MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:37, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Question
"UrbanNerd" - have had a few encounters and talks about this editor over the past 2 years - most recent talk about him can be seen here - one of my first negative encounters with this person can be seen  here. To the question I have ... - At a wikimeetup in march there was talk about a proposal to make editors with multiple blocks be they for behavior or original research, uploading  copyright material etc... to have to be mentored for a period of time upon there return. Are you aware of this type of proposal ever being proposed?Moxy (talk) 04:32, 30 May 2013 (UTC)


 * No, I don't recall ever hearing about a proposal like that, but I generally stay away from the drama boards and such. It wouldn't be a half bad idea though - I guess it'd be probation in lieu of an indefinite block or a ban. Parsecboy (talk) 11:48, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * There has to be something we can do about children like this...reverting with a bold face lie. Its hard to get anything done when editors simply lie and dont care about the consensus of others.Moxy (talk) 22:21, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I thought we were discussing the idea of putting an asterisks with a note. So no we didn't have a consensus. If we did, someone would have changed it by now. Instead Phead128 went right back to edit warring. I'd like to revert this again until we have a clear consensus and the discussion is over, but I won't. UrbanNerd (talk) 02:07, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't see that someone else had already started a discussion about this user before starting my own section (now merged in here). I wanted to contact you because I noted that you recently blocked User:UrbanNerd for disruptive editing and chided him on incivility. I have had many interactions with that user over quite a while and have been subject to my fair share of personal attacks from him, but I normally don't report it or bring it up to anyone besides, from time to time, him. However, given that he's just come off the 24 hour block you placed on him and has proceeded resume editing disruptively at Canada Day, making abbrasive, personal comments--"Use talk if you want to ruin another article your bias british rhetoric", "Even more Monarchist crap... i've removed yet more monarchist rhetoric by everyones favorite monarchist editor"--and reverting again at Template:WW2InfoBox, I felt it might be time to raise his behaviour with a wider audience. The not-so-passive aggressive attacks I quote above are tame compared to much of his prior commentary; a few examples being:. ,, , , and etc. This is an ongoing pattern; what do you think is the appropriate course of action? -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  23:11, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, Miesenacal. I am trying to be civil here, but your constant bias addition of monarchist tones to EVERY article you edit is very damaging to Wikipedia as whole. I'm not trying to personally attack you, but you are really damaging articles. It is not 1890, and Canada is not a british colony that obeys the Queen anymore, however you edit articles as if this were reality. It's very frustrating to see so much bias editing and damage to articles done constantly and consistently. UrbanNerd (talk) 02:17, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Aviso
Have a look here please. HRS also lists these ships as avisos. Should they be added to the template? SMY Hohenzollern is listed here as a Royal Yacht, correct? MisterBee1966 (talk) 20:35, 30 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I guess so. Groener calls them all avisos (except for the Hohenzollerns - they're not in the 1st volume either), though Conway's 1860-1905 calls Loreley a "steam paddle frigate" and Grille an "armed steam yacht". Parsecboy (talk) 12:07, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Rollback request
Hi Parsecboy, I selected your name from a list (Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to grant rollback requests) and am requesting Rollback as I do a fair share of reviewing, watching articles and correcting various issues, esp naval and ship related articles. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:02, 2 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Sure, no problem. And I'm sure you know the drill - don't use it to edit war and whatnot. Regards, Parsecboy (talk) 18:14, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Wow, that was quick. Thanks! Yes, if I do get into an 'edit dispute' I will not use the rollback feature. Again, much thanks. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:33, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * You happened to catch me when I was around is all ;) Parsecboy (talk) 18:42, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Main Page appearance: SMS Markgraf
This is a note to let the main editors of SMS Markgraf know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on June 4, 2013. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director or one of his delegates (,, and ), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. You can view the TFA blurb at Today's featured article/June 4, 2013. If it needs tweaking, or if it needs rewording to match improvements to the article between now and its main page appearance, please edit it, following the instructions at Today's featured article/requests/instructions. The blurb as it stands now is below:

SMS Markgraf was the third battleship of the four-ship König-class battleship and served in the German Imperial Navy during World War I. The battleshiP was launched on 4 June 1913 and commissioned into the Imperial Navy on 1 October 1914, just over two months after the outbreak of war in Europe. Armed with ten 30.5 cm guns in five twin turrets, she could steam at a top speed of 21 kn. Markgraf was named in honor of the royal family of Baden; the name Markgraf is a rank of German nobility. She took part in most of the fleet actions during the war, including the Battle of Jutland in 1916 and Operation Albion, the conquest of the Gulf of Riga, in late 1917. After Germany's defeat, Markgraf was one of the ships interned by the Royal Navy in Scapa Flow while the Allied powers negotiated the final version of the Treaty of Versailles. On 21 June 1919, days before the treaty was signed, the commander of the interned fleet ordered the fleet to be scuttled to ensure that the British would not be able to seize the ships. Unlike most of the scuttled ships, Markgraf was never raised for scrapping; the wreck is still sitting on the bottom of the bay. UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles Recruitment Centre
{||}

A cup of coffee for you!

 * Thanks, and no problem - you can find a lot of decent photos in those old journals. Parsecboy (talk) 21:50, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Tosa-class article
I was thinking about replacing the background section of the Tosa-class article with that from the Nagato-class battleship. The former goes into a bit much detail, IMO, on the evolution of the 8-8 Fleet, but the latter is more focused on the more recent decision making and more succinct. What do you think?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:24, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I was actually in the process of responding to your and Ed's email this afternoon when I got distracted with other stuff - the background section was actually one of the things I think is the weakest section in the article. I don't think it reads particularly clearly, and there are some confusing parts - i.e., if Dreadnought was a disaster for the 8-8 plan, what was particularly problematic about Fuso? I think either way, it needs to be reworked in some way or another. Parsecboy (talk) 23:55, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll copy it over and we can tweak it as necessary.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:06, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Regina Elena Class
I noticed you nominated several ships of said class for GA-review. May I point out, that the displacement given in the info-box is identical for all ships of the class, when it actually only applies to Vittorio Emanuele? Alas, I might be wrong in my reading of Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships, 1922-46 p.284. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 18:00, 21 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Hmm, that's odd. I was using the 1960-1905 volume. More curiously, the 1906-1921 volume gives another set of figures, between 13,992 and 14,137 for the four ships. Though 14,137 - given in the 1906 volume for Vittorio Emanuele - converts to 13,914 long tons, if one assumes the former is metric tons. Why they'd switch between the two is beyond me. I'll correct the figures per the 1922 volume - thanks for bringing this up. Parsecboy (talk) 18:55, 21 June 2013 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. It's one of those Royale with cheese moments, I guess. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 19:58, 21 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I guess so. And the oddest part of all, Aldo Fraccaroli wrote both the 1860 and 1906 volumes, so why did he use long tons in one and metric tons in the other? Parsecboy (talk) 22:27, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXVII, June 2013
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 Nick-D (talk) 08:44, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks
It's a relief to do reviews that easy. - Dank (push to talk) 23:43, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Map of Sunken Battlecruisers
File:Map of Sunken Battlecruisers version 2.png seems to be missing a lot of ships, especially in the Pacific. Can you update it before I send the list to FLC?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:27, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Updated, and even with a fancy color scheme to tell the difference between BCs and BCs converted into CVs or BBs. Parsecboy (talk) 19:55, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Many thanks!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:08, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Jetwave Dave's return?
Hi, if you have time please look at the big sock farm Sockpuppet investigations/Ctway. Accounts focused on firearms, and with editing problems described there. Thanks. Someone not using his real name (talk) 01:24, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 6
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ammiraglio di Saint Bon-class battleship, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Freeboard (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) 11:01, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Espana-class reviews
I quote from all three infoboxes: "Turrets: 203 mm". This needs to be converted. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 19:03, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, that. The same figure is converted 2 lines above - per the MoS numbers only need to be converted once in an area. Parsecboy (talk) 21:05, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I was under the assumption that content within the infobox doesn't apply to the article's body. I know that sounds antithetical, but I thought I remember reading it someplace. Anyway, the articles pass! QatarStarsLeague (talk) 01:30, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, no, the belt armor is the same thickness, and is converted 2 lines up in the infobox. In any case, thanks for reviewing the articles! Parsecboy (talk) 11:08, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

ARA Almirante Brown (1880)
Hi! Just letting you know the ARA Almirante Brown (1880) passed GAR and to apologize about single and double barred pound symbol mixup - and in fact to ask how do I add ARA Almirante Brown (1880) to WP:GAN/I since there are no Argentinian Warships listed right now. Could you advise on that one?--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:48, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * No worries on the pound mixup. I guess we should just add a new section for Argentina - there are already a few sections with just one article in them, and I'm sure this won't be the last GA about an Argentine warship. Parsecboy (talk) 16:54, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Section added. Cheers.--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:58, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:26, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * You know, Ed, it's your job to populate that section ;) When are you going to get around to doing Bahia's sister? Parsecboy (talk) 22:32, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Writing it would require the notes from the Brazilian Navy's archives, whose website is down for the third time in the last four or five years... rather frustrating. I've been checking it every month or so since I noticed it went down. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:45, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * That's too bad. Hopefully they'll be back up soon enough. Although, you could probably cobble together a half-way decent B-class article from the available sources, and just work the archival material in once they bring it back online. Just sayin'. Parsecboy (talk) 19:57, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Possibly. ;-) First up is User:The ed17/Sandbox/South Carolina class battleship, if you have the time to take a look. At the least, I probably need something on Tsushima. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:20, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 13
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.


 * España-class battleship (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Cartagena


 * Spanish battleship Alfonso XIII (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Santander

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:45, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Shame on you, Parsec. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 17:18, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * What, how was I to know that those aren't the primary topics? I have articles to write, damn it, I can't be bothered checking links! Parsecboy (talk) 18:00, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of España-class battleship
Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article España-class battleship you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by GA bot, on behalf of Dank -- 00:47, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of España-class battleship
The article España-class battleship you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:España-class battleship for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by GA bot, on behalf of Dank -- 08:41, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

137th Illinois Infantry Regiment
Parsecboy,

I was wondering if you would nice enough to add the section where the 137th Illinois was during the Second Battle of Memphis? It would be appreciated. It would only take you a few minutes of your time and hopefully, you would be able to continue the referencing and bibliography already in the article. It would be greatly appreciated if this was done and the article upto "B-class" criteria. Adamdaley (talk) 04:41, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll see what I can do, though I don't have a ton of time at the moment. Parsecboy (talk) 19:53, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXVIII, July 2013
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 Nick-D (talk) 15:19, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

FYI
Re [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=German_battleship_Bismarck&diff=566980209&oldid=566978829], note that there aren't any hidden notes when using the VisualEditor. You're going to have to modify the edit notice. ;-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:05, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, they're fixing that. So many problems with VE... Parsecboy (talk) 09:56, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * But VE must be good! After all, they're dissapointed with editors who "choose...to degrade their experience" by disabling it...sigh! - The Bushranger One ping only 10:03, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Eh, I've got an 'edit source' button, so I'm not overly worried ;-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 14:04, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of List of battleships of Spain
Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article List of battleships of Spain you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by GA bot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- 21:47, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Posen
I am currently travelling. I will have a look in about two weeks. Sorry MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:43, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Hopefully on holiday, and not for work? And no problem, I figured you were away at the moment. Whenever you have the time to get to it is fine. Parsecboy (talk) 09:25, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 9
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited German cruiser Nürnberg, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Memel (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) 11:02, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

ANI
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Snowman (talk) 19:40, 9 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Funny, I was planning on starting the thread. Parsecboy (talk) 19:44, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 16
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited SMS Dresden (1907), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages River Plate and Coronel (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) 11:06, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Hildebrand, Hans H.; Röhr, Albert; Steinmetz, Hans-Otto
Send me your mailing address by email if you want. I will get you the volumes of HRS as an early christmas present. Not that I mind looking up the info for you. :-) MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:59, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I left you an email with the shipping details. You should receive the books within the next two to three weeks, so DHL tells me. Enjoy MisterBee1966 (talk) 11:17, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Many thanks, I greatly appreciate this. I may not have to hassle you so much in the future :) Parsecboy (talk) 13:55, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXIX, August 2013
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 Nick-D (talk) 23:55, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of German cruiser Nürnberg
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article German cruiser Nürnberg you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by GA bot, on behalf of Peacemaker67 -- 10:16, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of List of battleships of Spain
The article List of battleships of Spain you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:List of battleships of Spain for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by GA bot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- 13:58, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

move problem
I seem to have moved a page from my sandbox to User:List of aircraft maintenance carriers of the Royal Navy and now it won't let me delete the user part. Dunno how that happened, but I'd appreciate it if you could fix it for me.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:02, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It's the new page move function - there's a dropdown to the left of the title box where you have to choose what namespace you want it in (it defaults to whatever namespace the page is currently in). Because, you know, typing in "User:/Wikipedia:/Template:" in front of the title is way too hard. Parsecboy (talk) 14:06, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Obviously, I hadn't noticed. I'll to remember in the future. Thanks for fixing it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:52, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of SMS Dresden (1907)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article SMS Dresden (1907) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by GA bot, on behalf of Zawed -- 23:55, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of German cruiser Nürnberg
The article German cruiser Nürnberg you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:German cruiser Nürnberg for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by GA bot, on behalf of Peacemaker67 -- 03:36, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

In recognition of your outstanding contributions

 * Many thanks, Nick, I greatly appreciate this award :) Parsecboy (talk) 12:29, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Request
Greetings: could you find the time to take another look at the Mahan-class destroyer article? Pendright (talk) 23:50, 29 August 2013 (UTC)


 * It looks much improved from the last time I saw it, great work! I think at this point, the heavy lifting is just about done. You might consider requesting a copy-editor take a look at the article and help you iron out the prose (you can make a request here - I've seen generally good results from them in the past). You could also request a peer review to get input from non-specialists. I'm sure there are things in the article that you and I understand with no trouble, but people who have little familiarity with warships would be confused about. It's always helpful to get some outside eyes on very technical subjects like this. You can also list it here to have it evaluated against the B-class criteria. If the editor who does the review sees anything that could be improved, he or she will let you know.
 * I made a handful of minor changes to formatting - mostly substituting the USS template so ship names are formatted correctly. One rule of thumb I follow is to always tell the reader what type a ship is the first time you mention it, that way there's no question. You should check to see whether I caught them all, since I probably missed a few. One other thing I like to do in articles like this is use the main template in each of the ship history sections (see for instance here). It's a highly-visible way for a reader to get to the individual ship articles if they want to read more about a specific ship in the class. Parsecboy (talk) 00:54, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Pendright (talk) 02:25, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of German cruiser Nürnberg
The article German cruiser Nürnberg you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:German cruiser Nürnberg for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by GA bot, on behalf of Peacemaker67 -- 23:57, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of SMS Dresden (1907)
The article SMS Dresden (1907) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:SMS Dresden (1907) for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by GA bot, on behalf of Zawed -- 21:47, 30 August 2013 (UTC)