User talk:Parsecboy/Archive 5



S.M.S. Emden
Dear Mr. Nate, Permit me to thank you for rectifying an unwitting error that I had committed and had tried to rectify unsuccessfully for three quarters of an hour. I also thank you for your pointers towards better editing and am very glad to note that I share a most profound interest of German military history, amidst a general preference for European military history, with you. I have the honour to be, A. C. Sandilya Voltigeur (talk) 17:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Otis F-94C Disappearance Proof?
Well I hit the jackpot in the book that you said you found concerning the page. Apparently it was on Google Books this whole time. Look on the top of page 191 and tell me what you think of the argument. Although it really does not help that the reference for the investigation is not available online. Kevin Rutherford 02:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC) http://books.google.com/books?id=Tqu7764c2cQC&pg=PA450&vq=otis&dq=Otis+AFB+UFO&source=gbs_search_s&cad=4&sig=lY1ydowaK8hox_kbOrGve7EcFqg#PPA191,M1
 * What do you think about it?Kevin Rutherford 19:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ktr101 (talk • contribs)

Much belated
Unfortunately I am running a little behind this week and missed the successfully close of your RfA. WikiProject Ships could not ask for a finer deck swab admin aboard! Congratulations, good luck with the mop, and feel free to drop me a line if you have any questions or if there is anything I can help you with. --Kralizec! (talk) 12:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Also, since no one has given you your janitor's badge yet, I went ahead and added it to your user and talk pages. Please feel free to revert my presumptuousness or switch to one of the other administrator variants.  --Kralizec! (talk) 12:55, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Solo28
Please check my talk page. He has vandlised it again harrassing and generally abusive. Please consider a longer ban. Thanks Hammer1980 ·talk 21:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
For finding the new spoofer! :) Acalamari 22:41, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * No problemo :) I stumbled across your spoof page, and thought I'd check to see if there were any new ones. Turns out there was :) Parsecboy (talk) 22:42, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

WW1 and WW2 maps
Parsecboy, thanks for letting me know about the WW1 map. But I think its current colors are fine - the reason I recolored the WW2 map was for the specific orange/light green pair (hex values F6AC2A and 25F04B), which were fairly hard to tell apart, even between neighboring regions like Manchuria and Mongolia, or Ethiopia and Saudi Arabia. The bulk of the map however used the dark green 4EB763, which provides enough of a hue and brightness difference to be distinguishable. Since the WW1 counterpart uses only the dark green and orange pair (the gray is a neutral color anyway), it doesn't need to be recolored. By the way, I did not mean to cause offense by recoloring your version. Please feel free to recolor my version. A good test for colorblind-safe images would be to see how it looks in grayscale, and whether there's a sufficient brightness difference. If so, then the specific hues don't matter. If the brightness is largely the same, and there is no pattern difference (plain/hatched etc), then generally it's safe to make one of the colors much bluer than the other, as blue-yellow colorblindness is extremely rare compared to red-green colorblindness. -- Brhaspati\talk/contribs 23:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Domain Name System
WP:RM indicates that Talk:Domain name system was moved to Talk:Domain Name System, but this doesn't seem to be the case. Perhaps I am simply too impatient :) Andareed (talk) 20:23, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi. I thought I had moved the talk page after you posted the second notice, but for some reason, the talk page didn't actually move. It's been fixed. Thanks for catching that. Parsecboy (talk) 20:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Korean War RVs
Hey, good job on keeping the article in good standards. I don't know what to make of those IP Edits...maybe the guy was trying to be funny. Still, keep up. TheAsianGURU (talk) 21:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Yeah, he might've been joking, but he sounded pretty serious on the talk page at least. That's the double-edged sword about Wikipedia, everyone can edit, but sometimes they aren't familiar with/don't understand core policies like WP:NPOV and WP:V. All we can do is undo their likely good-faith but still erroneous changes, and explain why. Parsecboy (talk) 21:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think I said anything wrong. However, I admit that I was kinda pissed when I wrote those lines. Therefore, I self - censored my statement. Thanks for pointing it out. TheAsianGURU (talk) 04:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * No problem. It's generally considered to be incivil to swear at other users, even if it's not directly at them. I've found that when you do get angry, it's best to do something else for a while until you've calmed down. Parsecboy (talk) 13:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIV (February 2008)
The February 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 07:53, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Coen brothers
Just popping in from WP:RM, to let you know that for uncontroversial moves like this, which bring article titles in accordance with the naming policy, you can make a simple uncontroversial proposal. That will help to ensure the move is done more quickly. In any case, I'll move this page now. Parsecboy (talk) 12:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I did not know if it would be uncontroversial or not --- in fact, I expected that it would be.  I assumed that there was some "reason" out there (that I was unaware of) for the capital "B" ... and I assumed that some die-hard Coen fan would make a big stink about it.  Thanks.   (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC))


 * Yes, generally, moves that are in accordance with Wiki naming conventions are uncontroversial. The only exception to a situation such as this one, would be, for example, the Smothers Brothers, because that's the name of their comedy-music group. Of course, if anyone finds the move controversial, the listing can always be moved to the contested moves section of WP:RM. Parsecboy (talk) 16:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Great. Thanks.  I have a question.  Is there any "easy way" (in one fell swoop) to edit all the articles with a "Coen Brothers" wiki link to a "Coen brothers" wiki link ... or do you have to go into every single article, one by one, and make these edits?  Please reply at my Talk Page --- not at the Coen brothers Talk Page.  Thanks.  I understand how a redirect works, but that's not what I am asking here.  Thanks.   (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC))


 * Usually, all that has to be done when a page is moved is correct the major double redirects, and a bot that's programmed to skip single redirects will do the rest. I fixed the two major double redirects when I moved the page, so the bot should take care of the rest. If it hasn't gotten to the Coen Brothers redirects yet, you can always do it yourself, but it is a fairly tedious task. Given that there's between 200-250 redirects that would need to be fixed, you might want to wait for the bot. Parsecboy (talk) 17:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. This is all new to me.  So is this what you are saying?  After the bot has done its job ... any article that had the link Coen Brothers in it, will automatically be changed (by the computer bot) to read Coen brothers instead?  And, if so, does that also hold true for links that are formatted as follows: those guys who won an Oscar last week ...?  And, finally, how long does this take to happen ... a few days, weeks, hours, what?  Thanks.    (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC))


 * Yes, after the bot has finished with its job, all of the articles that have "B" right now will use the "b", including the articles with the piped links. I really can't say how long it takes for the bot to do the redirects for a specific article, but it's not really a time-sensitive issue, given that the redirects will still get the reader to the correct article. Parsecboy (talk) 17:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * OK. Great.  Thanks for the info.   (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:27, 5 March 2008 (UTC))

Quotes
Hi. I wanted to give you a few more quotes that you might like:

"If there was no God, then there would be no atheists." --Unknown

"If I have to tell you the truth, then I'd have to lie to you." --Isiah Thomas

"I live in a sane world and I'm about to bring you into it. --Judge Marilyn Milian

"OK then." --Me (lol)

"I don't particularly like it when people put words in my mouth, either, by the way, unless I say it." --George W. Bush (here is a link to a list of Bushisms: )

And my favorite Bushism: "Al Qaeda is doing everything they can to try to destroy our country, and so are we." (wording may not be exact)

Just some quotes that you might find interesting. Powerful mind talk  edits  22:12, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I do like the 2nd Bushism. I can't seem to find the exact wording, but I know it was something fairly close to what you have. Parsecboy (talk) 18:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

IP block
Hi, could you please unblock the IP I was talking to? They seemed a little frustrated because they couldn't find the sandbox. If they continue vandalising, reblock as necessary. Thanks. Seraphim&hearts; Whipp 14:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, did mean it to go here :). Seraphim&hearts;   Whipp 14:21, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


 * No problem, I'll unblock the IP and let you see if you can help him/her. Parsecboy (talk) 14:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you kindly :). Seraphim&hearts;   Whipp 14:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Yup. The IP has been unblocked, so feel free to point him/her in the right direction. Parsecboy (talk) 14:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Moving Grand Place / Grote Markt
There's more input into the discussion at Talk:Grand Place / Grote Markt, and I think that about wraps it up. Thanks in advance! - Oreo Priest  13:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Yassy-Kishinev Strategic Offensive Operation
Just so you don't think I am advocating this from sheer stubbornness, my position is that good article research should discriminate between good and bad original research, even when it is the source for the article. I don't think reference work editors should compromise on article quality in any way as a proof of our integrity expected by users--mrg3105 (comms) ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ 01:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

SS Ina Mactavish
Ensign was large because I made it that way!  Is there a set size for these things? Mjroots (talk) 20:40, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, somewhere, there's a guideline at WP:Ships, but I can't seem to find it at the moment. The flags are supposed to be rather small, for example, USS Enterprise (CV-6) or HMS Hood (51), generally around 60px. Another example, the USN flag template defaults to 60px. Regards, Parsecboy (talk) 23:04, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Lion of Babylon tank
Hi, Parsecboy. Thanx for your work on the article about the Iraqi T-72, I welcome the clean-up you have performed on it. You're right about some misrepresentations (in good faith) of references in the Armor section, I've counted near-misses as hits. Good work. I will later debate with you some other details in depth at the talk page of the article. Best regards. DagosNavy 00:58, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * No problem on the clean-up, just happened to come across the article and see that some copyediting needed to be done. I'll keep an eye on the talk page there for any future comments you'll make there. Regards, Parsecboy (talk) 00:00, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Lauren Burk, etc.
You deletionists harm wikipedia with your inside-the-box thinking. If people conclude that wikipedia is an unreliable or absent source of information, they will look elsewhere. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 00:39, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Your "don't blame me" attitude is the same response I got from the guy that blindly deleted the article. Both of you chose to delete the materials in question, no one forced you to do it. You are thus part of the problem and are fair game for criticism. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 00:46, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You are part of the problem. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 00:53, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I apologize for appearing to make a personal attack. Let me put it a different way: Your actions are part of the problem. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 00:58, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not your fault, I'm just venting. What's really exasperating is that there are no real rules on this subject. It keeps coming up over and over, and whether a current news event stays or goes depends entirely on the whims of whoever happens to be editing it. There is one editor trying to craft a guideline. I hope he succeeds. I am not necessarily optimistic. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 01:04, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for understanding. I think this is it: User talk:Fritzpoll/Notability (criminal acts) About that tennis player, the guideline should be how the name is normally reported in English, I would think, this being the English wikipedia. And the "proper" spelling could redirect. But that's a topic I have not studied much about. I'll take a look at it. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 01:30, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Having now read the Use English guideline, it's perfectly clear that the tennis player's English name should be the main name used for the article, and it's fair to have the Serbian letters be the title of a redirect page, as there are no strict rules on redirects that I know of, as they are not actually articles. Has that been tried in this case? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 03:14, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Back to the original topic, check this out: That's trolling, and it's of no help. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 03:16, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Spouting off is subjective. It's also a passive-aggressive attack. Perhaps the reason you had to shut down your page is a reflection of your character in that you like to insinuate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.105.210.167 (talk) 04:38, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, now I'm sorry I dragged you into this. >:( However, you do have the trump card. >:)Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 04:48, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikisource transcription done
Hi, After action report for the M1A1 Abrams tank B-23 has been created with the document you uploaded onto Wikisource. The text can be found at s:Page:Summary for B-23.gif and it does need someone (yourself probably) to proofread it - when you edit that page, you will see an option to mark it as proofread. A final proofread will need to be done by a third person before the text of the page is considered fully-proofread.

btw, in future, could you upload the images to Commons. John Vandenberg (talk) 04:06, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll take a look at it and proofread it. It was my first and thus far only foray into Wikisource, so I apologize if I unintentionally created more work for someone else. And yes, I'll be sure to upload the images to Commons. Thanks for the note. Parsecboy (talk) 04:14, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I've proofread the text and made corrections to the text. It's ready for someone else to do the second proofreading. Thanks again. Parsecboy (talk) 04:34, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Excellent. As you saw, I didnt put a lot of effort into doing a good job &mdash; I was just setting it up for you, so you can see how it is done.  I look forward to seeing more in the future!  :-) John Vandenberg (talk) 06:07, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Sounds good. A little tutorial never hurts anyone :) I think I've stumbled across some more documents here on Wikipedia that will need the same treatment, so when I get around to it, I'll transfer them to Commons and Wikisource. Thanks for your help :) Parsecboy (talk) 14:09, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Notifying of move to Notability (criminal acts)
Per comments on the talk page, I have moved the guideline into project space for wider discussion. Just letting you know as a contributor to this page - your comments did inspire an extenion to the "notability of criminal acts" section Fritzpoll (talk) 16:18, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Raffaele Cadorna, Jr.
An article that you have been involved in editing, Raffaele Cadorna, Jr., has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/Raffaele Cadorna, Jr.. Thank you. — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 02:36, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Airbourne

 * See User talk:Anthony Appleyard. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 17:48, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I've been listening
Because your last post indicated you are no longer watching my page I want to make sure you understand that I have been listening (It's because I've been listening that I disagree with your interpretation and asked for some kind of outside source beyond your word to back these assertions.)
 * You're not listening to what I've been saying. I said if a ship is sunk (in the barest sense of the word) during wartime, and it is due to something other than combat, it is almost universally clarified to explain exactly what happened. Hence, the reason we have Mutsu as being "Sunk, by internal explosion", and not just "Sunk". If you're not going to read what I say, I see no point in continuing this discussion here. Parsecboy (talk) 04:15, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I promise you I do understand exactly what your saying; saying sunk during wartime implies enemy action unless otherwise specified right? Sunk, cause disputed does exactly that; My point is for every sinking there is a cause which may or may not be listed. If you were listening to what I said you'd note that saying Sunk cause disputed implies that either German scuttling efforts OR British shells have been argued to be the cause depending on the source.


 * For crying out loud the section which discusses these possibilities in detail is called German battleship Bismarck# Controversy surrounding the sinking, in case you missed it the last word was sinking meaning that either the Germans succeeded in scuttling (and the purpose of scuttling, is to sink one's ship) it or British shells/torpedoes did. No matter who was responsible the ship sunk as a result of either parties actions.


 * I've spent quite a bit of time explaining how this solution both works in relation to other articles AND fits into your arbitrary rule about being specific regarding any ship sinking not caused by enemy action (even though it would be extremely short sided to think the Germans scuttled for reasons besides the pounding handed them by the British don't you think?). Anynobody 07:39, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Korean War article
The Korean War was just heavily edited last night. I'm not comfortable with a lot of the edits, as it seems most of the POV now is UN/American. It still was before, but at least we had some 'stuff' in there for the China/NK POV. Some of the edits removed sourced statements, some of the new edits aren't sourced, and it was all done by an IP editor. In short, it was a pretty substantial series of edits which I 'think' wound up giving the article more of an American POV.

I really leaning towards a revert to the last non-IP edit with a comment to discuss the changes on the talk page first. Some edits are okay, but I don't like some of the others. The way they were done is in accordance with the 'Be Bold' policy, but should have been discussed, and I'd feel more comforatble with them if the editor had an account, I'm just always leery of IP editors. As it is, getting some of the deleted 'stuff' back in looks like it's going to take another major rewrite to keep the proper flow.

Ideas or opinions on this? Thanks. wbfergus undefinedTalk 11:04, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I was actually just looking at it, thinking the exact same thing. I'm leaning towards reverting it as well. Really, changes that remove a good chunk of information should be discussed on the talk page first. Do you want to revert or do you want me to do it? Parsecboy (talk) 11:07, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I went ahead and reverted it, with an edit summary to discuss the changes on the talk page first. Parsecboy (talk) 11:21, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I didn't think you'd be up this early, so I was working on a program for work. When I checked back here, I saw you'd already done the revert. Thanks and if it comes to it, I'll support you. I'll go ahead and start a discussion on the talk page, if it's not already done by the time I get there. wbfergus undefinedTalk 11:35, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, normally I'm not up that early, but I was home for the weekend for Easter, so my schedule was a little out of whack. The IP editor hasn't yet returned, but I'll keep an eye on any further developments there. Parsecboy (talk) 00:47, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Nevermore
Thanks for moving the talk page to match the article.--E tac (talk) 18:51, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * No problem, just doin' my job :) Parsecboy (talk) 19:27, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing
The one comment had gotten reverted, and somehow the other one was missed. Why somebody would compare me to a cigarette, I have no idea. I guess you have to play rajloball, or whatever it is, to fully get it. :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 16:01, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * No problem :) Sometimes vandalism like that can get hidden by a series of edits in a short period of time. Yeah, some people are just strange, aren't they? Parsecboy (talk) 16:08, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * If it weren't for those college-dropouts' SPA's, that game's nomination for deletion would be nearly unanimous. I'm waiting for the kids to nominate it for Featured Article status. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 16:14, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Hey, here's an idea - In contrast to Featured Article, maybe wikipedia needs another newsletter called the Top Ten Stupidest Articles? Unless the AFD page already kind of serves that purpose. :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 16:14, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, the SPAs are probably all socks anyways, and their comments will be ignored, so it essentially is unanimous. With all the nonsense, spam, vandalism, and attack pages created on a daily basis, it would probably be pretty hard to pick the "bottom 10". I suppose the AfD page is the catch-all list :) Parsecboy (talk) 16:25, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Gross value added
Thanks for fixing the caps! JimmyGuano (talk) 17:42, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * No problem, those are the easy types of move requests, the kind I like to see :) Parsecboy (talk) 17:43, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

U.S. Military Rank Badges
Why did you delete my links to the rank user badges? Unless you can give me a lucid, well-pondered reason why you did so, and unless you have a better option, I'm going to put them back on. My main goal is to have those be easy to find for those who want to use them. If you have a better plan for making those easy to find, I'd love to hear it. And one more thing, if you're going to take away something I've done, I'd appreciate a heads up first, so we can discuss it and come up with a better plan. Work with me here... Nickersonl (talk) 19:06, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Got your comment on my page about this. I'll take a look at your suggestion (the US Military Portal) and come up with something. Nickersonl (talk) 23:52, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Concerning your comment on my Al Faw picture - I was over there in 2004. Nickersonl (talk) 13:52, 30 March 2008 (UTC)