User talk:Sturmvogel 66/Archive 1

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or ask your question and then place  before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! -- Menti  fisto  18:07, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

10 cm Gebirgshaubitze M 99
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of 10 cm Gebirgshaubitze M 99, and it appears to be very similar to another wikipedia page: 10 cm Feldhaubitze M 99. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page&mdash; you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 20:15, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Creating Pages
Please stop ceating new articles for ones that already exist, like you did above, and with the article 9 cm FK M. 75/96, a recreation of 9 cm Feldkanone M 75/96. Use the "#REDIRECT " to create redirects. For help on this, see WP:REDIRECT. smooth0707 (talk) 17:38, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

List of artillery
Thank you for your contribution to this list. It is particularly appreciated because I understand how confusing the naming of articles can be with respect to artillery equipment--mrg3105 (comms) ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ 05:45, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Morser Karl
Great content additions, thanks!

I am not sure if your noticed that your edits have introduced an error in the images, which no longer line up with the rest of the article and which partly obscure the template. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 13:25, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

What error do you mean? The infoboxes aren't obscured at all on my Mac using Firefox and Safari and the pictures line up just fine with the infobox. The picture from Kubinka is sized differently from those in the infoboxes, but I'd be happy to accept advice on where to put it so that the page looks better graphically. I've more content to add on the combat history of the Karl-Gerät for the rest of the war, just need to get the time to write it up. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:59, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * In IE 6.x the images do not line up properly in the infobox any more. I think your edits are terrific, don't get me wrong, I am just saying the image lineup is not giving an error in IE. DMorpheus (talk) 21:22, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

How does it look now? I took out the thumb command.Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 09:26, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Looks great, nice edits. Thanks DMorpheus (talk) 15:41, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Copyright problem: Type 60 Self-propelled 106 mm Recoilless Gun
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Type 60 Self-propelled 106 mm Recoilless Gun, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to be a copy from http://www.janes.com/articles/Janes-Armour-and-Artillery/Komatsu-Type-60-twin-106-mm-self-propelled-recoilless-gun-Japan.html, and therefore a copyright violation. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL), versions 1.3 or later then you should do one of the following:


 * If you have permission from the author leave a message explaining the details at Talk:Type 60 Self-propelled 106 mm Recoilless Gun and send an email with confirmation of permission to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". See Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
 * If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted under the GFDL or that the material is released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:Type 60 Self-propelled 106 mm Recoilless Gun with a link to where we can find that note.
 * If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the GFDL, and note that you have done so on Talk:Type 60 Self-propelled 106 mm Recoilless Gun.

It may also be necessary for the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at [ this temporary page]. Leave a note at Talk:Type 60 Self-propelled 106 mm Recoilless Gun saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved. Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:11, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Part of the article Type 73 Armored Personnel Carrier also duplicated another source, specifically http://www.janes.com/articles/Janes-Armour-and-Artillery/Mitsubishi-Type-73-armoured-personnel-carrier-Japan.html. Infringing material has been removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a license compatible with GFDL. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:30, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Welcome!
 Hi, and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.

A few features that you might find helpful:


 * Our navigation box points to most of the useful pages within the project.
 * The announcement and open task box is updated very frequently. You can [ watchlist it] if you are interested, or you can add it directly to your user page by copying the following: WPMILHIST Announcements.
 * Important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you [ watchlist it].
 * The project has several departments, which handle article quality assessment, detailed article and content review, writing contests, article logistics, and other tasks.
 * We have a number of task forces that focus on specific topics, nations, periods, and conflicts.
 * We've developed a style guide that covers article structure and content, template use, categorization, and many other issues of interest.
 * If you're looking for something to work on, there are many articles that need attention, as well as a number of review alerts and copy-editing alerts.
 * The project has a stress hotline available for your use.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask any of the project coordinators or any other experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome, and we are looking forward to seeing you around! Kirill [pf] 00:11, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVI (February 2009)
The February 2009 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) 23:50, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Nominations for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election
The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 13 March! This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:23, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election
The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. We will be selecting coordinators from a pool of eighteen to serve for the next six months. Please vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on Saturday, 28 March! Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 07:08, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVII (March 2009)
The March 2009 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) 03:45, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Fountain of Time
I have moved your Talk:Fountain of Time discussion to Featured article candidates/Fountain of Time. Please comment there.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:36, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Langer Max (38 cm SKL/45) = 380-mm-Geschütz Max E ?
Hi there, can you say whether these are the same gun ? DE Wiki has a separate article for each. I understand in 380-mm-Geschütz Max E, E stands for Eisenbahngeschutz - so is this Langer Max on a rail mount ? I think Langer Max is just a slang term and we should be using the correct name in EN Wiki. regards, Rod. Rcbutcher (talk) 08:38, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sure that it is a nickname, but I'm not exactly sure what its proper name is. I'm also not sure if I want to have one article for all three versions, railroad, coast defense and naval, although I suppose we could have subpages for each version.

38 cm SK C/34 naval gun
Hello again, I'm interested to know why you removed the photograph of the gun at Hanstholm.. is it incorrectly identified ? regards, Rod. Rcbutcher (talk) 09:56, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Rod, I thought that a contemporary picture of the gun turret was more suitable for the infobox picture. I'm going to be massively revising the article and can add your picture somwhere in the body of the article if you'd like. Just give me a week or so as I'm working on a couple of other articles at the moment. Jason Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:18, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No worries, I was only interested in finding out whether the Hanstholm gun had been incorrectly identified. Sounds like it isn't. Use whatever image you think works best. regards. Rod. Rcbutcher (talk) 21:44, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

"SK" in German gun nomenclature
Hi, Sturmvogel. I know you had once told me that in German gun nomenclature of the WWI period, "SK" (as in, say, an 28cm SKL/45) stood for Schiffskanone. A few days ago, a new editor changed all instances of that to Schnelladekanone. My question is: which one is correct? Thanks for any help you can provide. Parsecboy (talk) 11:20, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, my sources on hand disagree. In post-1920 designations it definitely stands for Schiffskanone, but I'm not sure about the earlier period. My sources differ between Schnelladungskanone or Schnellfeuerkanone. I've requested a book on German WW I naval guns from ILL that will hopefully answer that question whenever it arrives. So I'm not going to revert the guy's changes until I know for sure. And I've added a sentence about the confusion to all my articles referencing naval guns. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:33, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, let me know what the book says, so I can keep the articles I keep my eye on correct. Regards, Parsecboy (talk) 15:47, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Will do. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:01, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately ILL says that no one will load the book out, but I did find a contemporary jargon dictionary that lists it as Schnelladungs kanone One further note: it seems that the KM's designation system changed in the early 1890s from a simple Kanone L/x to SK L/x so be careful on the really old guns, some of which ended up on coast defense or railroad mounts. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:27, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi again. I just looked through Alex Grießmer's Großen Kreuzer der Kaiserlichen Marine 1906-1919, and it does indeed say the guns of those ships were "Schnellfeuerkanone". It does appear that some of the earlier weapons were simply "Kanone" as you state (Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships 1906-1921 has a table of German guns of the period, and some of the older guns are simply K L/x). It looks that we've figured this out at least for the ship guns of this period. Regards, Parsecboy (talk) 16:30, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Also, this book would probably have more information. It's unfortunately not viewable on Google Books. Parsecboy (talk) 16:31, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That's the one I tried to get from ILL, dammit. I'd already changed all of my articles to show Schnelladungskanone based on my earlier find and I'm not going to change them back since I think that the jury's still out until we get the book specifically on their guns or contemporary documents spelling out the abbreviation. And I'm certainly not going to change anybody else's article if they use Schnellfeuerkanone. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:49, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Belgian Coast Defenses
I'm toying with writing up an article on the German coast defenses of Belgium, but my scans from Miller's report are kinda marginal in legibility. Your scans seem to be higher quality than mine, judging from some of the pictures that you uploaded. I'd be appreciative if you could give the diagrams on pp. 758 and 759 a try. Please let me know if you upload them. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:18, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Jason, unfortunately all the books scanned by Google seem to be of a very poor scan quality. The .pdf versions seem to be slightly better than the .djv versions, but are also poor. I had to do quite a bit of cleaning up to the diagrams before I uploaded to Wiki. Ive made a start to the 2 maps here :

I suggest you erase the text place names etc. and retype the text. regards. Rod. Rcbutcher (talk) 06:49, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * http://members.optusnet.com.au/rcbutcher/images/Miller-map-page-758-clipped-quality-100.jpeg (smaller version)
 * http://members.optusnet.com.au/rcbutcher/images/Miller-map-page-758-2-clipped-quality-100.jpeg (larger version)
 * http://members.optusnet.com.au/rcbutcher/images/Miller-map-page-759-clipped-quality-100.jpeg (smaller version)
 * http://members.optusnet.com.au/rcbutcher/images/Miller-map-page-759-2-clipped-quality-100.jpeg (larger version)
 * Rod, Many thanks for these. I didn't even notice that I could download it in Dejavu. I'll have to try it and see if it's better than my .pdf scans for some of the photos I uploaded, which were really bad quality.

DYK's
If you want, you can nominate some/all of the articles you have been creating at T:TDYK. Just a thought. :) — Ed 17  (Talk /  Contribs)  05:26, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the thought; I might do just that for some of the more interesting factoids on the bigger guns. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:28, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVIII (April 2009)
The April 2009 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) 00:20, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Sd.Kfz. 10
Congratulations very nice article. Please check the citations, Nr. 12 looks out of line. Nr. 18 and 20 have a strange range of pages 34–5 50–1. I was just criticized for using the & ampersand, so you may want to change Chamberlain & Doyle to Chamberlain and Doyle. You also may want to use "ndash" instead of – for page ranges. MisterBee1966 (talk) 11:54, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * citation 12 is a full-blown book cite and will overlap if you use a narrow screen in Firefox. Is that what you mean? 18 and 20 use the same hyphen as do all the other page cites. The MOS only prescribes the ndash for dates, I'm not going to use it for pages and other stuff since the hyphen looks fine to me. Thanks for looking it over. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:37, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Question, wouldn't it be better to name the article "Sonderkraftfahrzeug 10" and have an "Sd.Kfz 10" redirect to the page? MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:48, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Considering that everybody, including the Wehrmacht, used the abbreviation rather than spelling out the whole thing I don't think so. This isn't a case like Brummbär where the Germans didn't even use the name (it was bestowed by Allied Intelligence), but used Sturmpanzer IV. I still need to move that page, but I'll get around to it one of these days. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:15, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Sturmvogel. I have reviewed this article for WP:GA (the review is here). There are only a couple of minor issues, and so I've passed it. Nice work! Parsecboy (talk) 01:00, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

references Battle Callantsoog
You rated Battle of Callantsoog (1799) start class recently, apparently because you thought a number of references lacking. It would be helpful if you indicated which citations you think need to be added, especially as I already supplied additional citations at the request of Dashiellx. A similar question concerns your rating of Convention of Alkmaar.--Ereunetes (talk) 22:50, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, I've looked again at Battle of Callantsoog and have upgraded it to B as the OB which I thought needed a citation is likely referenced in the following paragraph. The Convention of Alkmaar still needs cites; I've marked where they're needed. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:48, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I have meanwhile taken care of the Convention of Alkmaar article (see also its talkpage for an explanation).--Ereunetes (talk) 20:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

DYK nomination of LT vz. 34
Hello! there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath and respond there as soon as possible.

Thank you
I have to let you know that I really appreciated your helpful comments concerning the Battle of Hampton Roads. I am only sorry that we could not find anything about the Virginia exhibit at the Mariners Museum. Anyway, I hope that we can work together again sometime in the future. PKKloeppel (talk) 12:53, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm always happy to contribute to anything on ironclads, it's just most of my references are in storage.Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:02, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

World War I German artillery
Hi there, do you think that German guns in WWI should be put in a "World War I artillery of Germany" category to standardise it with other countries ? Rod Rcbutcher (talk) 09:03, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, actually. I built the navbox because there wasn't anything at all, but we should have both, I think. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:48, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

re: Assessments of Tančík vz. 33 and OA vz. 27 articles
Hi Sturmvogel. Yes, I agree that the articles are fully cited, however, I failed them on this criterion as they are all from the same source and it is typically accepted that for an article to reach B-Class it needs more than one source (as I stated in my edit summary). Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 04:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I can't find anywhere where multiple sources are required for B, or even GA. Neither the FAQ nor the criteria for B or GA state multiple sources, only reliable ones. Multiple source are certainly desirable, but not a formal requirement until later in the review process. Please explain why you are adding your own informal requirement to the published ones. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:58, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Sturmvogel, I'm sorry you feel ripped off on this, but it is typically accepted among most editors that an article requires more than one source for it to reach B-Class. It is not just something I have made up. A large number of seasoned editors would do the same. The same goes for you as I said to Parsecboy; if you can add just one more source to these articles asap I will regrade them as B and update your entries at the contest. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 11:40, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I find the fact that you changed Belhalla's assessment on my Tancik vz. 33 article from B to start more than a little ironic in light of your statement above unless you don't consider him a "seasoned editor". And what good does us to have, essentially, two different criteria for B or GA? I've assessed a few of each myself without knowing of your informal criteria; are you going to follow those up and downrate them if any of them lack multiple sources? Or will I go through stuff you've assessed and upgrade them if they otherwise meet the formal criteria? Informal stuff like this is not a good thing as people prize consistency, by which they can predict reactions to their behavoir, and you're denying that to them, which is not a good thing in the long run. Oh, and by the way, you really might want to look at those article a little more thoroughly this time, both have multiple citations, although that's not readily apparent because both have the same primary author. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:05, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Mate, I have th strongest respect for Bellhalla and I did not say all editors do this. However, a good argument on this issue is how can we know an article to be comprehensive (B2) if it only uses one source? Same for how do we know it is not bias due to this one source? The above articles appeared to have come all from the same source (just differing page numbers). No matter what, there is always going to be discrepancy between editors assessments. As I stated above, I'm sorry you feel hard done by this, but a B-Class article really should have more than one source. That said, I have reviewed both articles and have upgraded them to B. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 09:17, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for looking them over again. I'd appreciate it if you could update the assessments on the contest page as well. You make an interesting argument about the comprehensiveness requirement (B2) that I hadn't thought about before. I'll have to spend some time thinking about that because my articles are often limited to one main source and some surveys with specifications by their very nature. Does that mean that they should never make it past start? I don't think so, but you make an interesting point. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:42, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Whoops, sorry about that, Sturmvogel; I'll go update your tally at the contest now. If you have just one other source to cover a minor point in the article, I think that will do. Once again, I'm sorry you felt hard done by this. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:19, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XXXIX (May 2009)
The May 2009 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) 04:04, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations!

 * Congratulations on your win, and keep up the great work! — Bellhalla (talk) 12:24, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XL (June 2009)
The June 2009 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) 00:08, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

July contest entries
I see from the number of entries that you are hard at work for the July contest. As one who often scores the contest, I'd like to ask you to help us (and yourself) out a bit. When you have finished working on an article, request an assessment for it at WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Requests. Doing this will help make the contest scoring a bit easier and may increase your point total, in addition to giving you some informal feedback on the articles. — Bellhalla (talk) 12:49, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I wasn't sure if the assessor was doing his own assessment or relying on the existing one because I seem to have had it work both ways, both to my advantage and disadvantage. But I can ask for one ahead of time if somebody doesn't jump in and do it right away once I paste the project banners on the talk page. You been taking some time off recently? Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:17, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Generally what I do when I'm scoring the contest (don't know how others do it) is only closely look at and/or assess entries if the beginning and ending assessments are the same. (I hate giving someone 0 points.) I've been taking off from writing new articles, and mostly flying under the radar while working on cleaning up ship categories and the like. — Bellhalla (talk) 17:47, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Kaga
Hi, Sturmvogel. Did you see my comment here about Kagas assessment? I wanted to make sure you did, so you could add a little more to the WWII service section. Remember you've still got today and tomorrow before the July contest ends. If you can add a little more detail, I'll be happy to upgrade it to B-class. Regards, Parsecboy (talk) 16:27, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads-up. I've expanded the information on her activities in the SW Pacific, but if you were looking for more information on her actions during Midway, that will have to wait until I get a hold of Shattered Sword. If this is enough for a B that's great, if not I'll submit it next month. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:29, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Your additions look good to me so far. If you can beef up the Midway section, that'll be all it needs for B-class. Unfortunately, Shattered Sword isn't preview-able in Google books, but there are a good deal more that are. Maybe you could add another paragraph or two about the operation itself (i.e., the Japanese intended to ambush the American carriers, but the US fleet turned it against them, etc.), which should be enough for B-class, and then add more when you have access to the book, if you plan on taking the article to GA or higher. Regards, Parsecboy (talk) 17:38, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Re:Academy talk page question
Sorry for the slow response, its been busy here with summer school and all. At the moment we need content -anything- just to get this up and running. In other words, pen whatever you feel like penning and once we actually have pages to work with we will see about polishing up the content and merging and trimming and copy editing and all that other stuff. That's pretty much the reason for the content drive; we are begging people to write like the wind so we can get clear out the fog so to speak. Pen whatever you think the topic should be about and we will sort it out in October :) TomStar81 (Talk) 00:14, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * ...also, now that I think about it, the guy who wrote the book shattered sword had a role in updating the midway article to FA class. Maybe if you drop a line of his talk page he can help you with the specifics (assuming he is still here). Just a thought. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:17, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

HMS Cochrane
Just to let you know, I replied on my talk page. Regards, Parsecboy (talk) 16:02, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Request
Hi, and thanks for your GA reviews! One request: when you pass articles for GA status, such as in this edit, please use an edit summary of "GA" or "GA pass", as it makes it much easier for maintanence. Thanks! Dabomb87 (talk) 18:40, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:42, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLI (July 2009)
The July 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:08, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I Corps (United States)
Hello. I have either fixed or responded to each of your points on the I Corps GAR. Please provide further guidance as to where I should go from here. — Ed! (talk) 02:12, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Made corrections to this page and waiting for your responses, again. — Ed! (talk) 23:12, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Made more corrections to this page and waiting for your responses, again. — Ed! (talk) 15:19, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Made corrections per your final comment. — Ed! (talk) 00:52, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Soviet cruiser Molotov?
Hello, Sturmvogel 66! I have recently nominated Soviet cruiser Molotov, an article you have been editing, for Did you know, to be featured on Main Page. You can see the hook for the article here, where you can improve it if you see fit. Please, if you can, put in refs and footnotes to the article regarding [1] Molotov being the first Soviet ship to carry a radar, [2] her involvement in Operation Barbarossa, and [3] the namesake. If you like, you can propose new hooks, too. Many thanks. Happy editing. Cheers! --PFHLai (talk) 15:13, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the nom. I've added the cites that you pointed out. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:23, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for putting in the refs so quickly. Cheers! --PFHLai (talk) 03:45, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

DYK
Don't forget to nominate your new/expanded articles&mdash;like the one I just read, SOVIET CRUISER Kaganovich&mdash;at T:TDYK. Also remember that the 5x expansion rule applies to prose, so infoboxes and the like do not count; User:Dr pda/prosesize.js can be used to calculate this. Cheers friend, — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  19:50, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for thinking of me; I often tend to forget about DYK. I've uploaded the tool that you've pointed out although I hadn't understood that the 5x rule applied only to text. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:44, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem at all. It's not like it is required that you submit your articles to DYK, but personally, I like knowing that thousands of people are going to view and/or read the thing I extensively researched. I mentioned the 5x rule in case you expand a one-line stub that happens to have a long infobox; you've done nothing wrong on that point.
 * Lastly, I see that you have been doing some monstrous work on all sorts of naval-related articles; thank you very much, but leave some for me, okay? ;-) In all seriousness, great work. I've enjoyed reading many of your articles, and I hope to continue going through new ones. Cheers friend, — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  05:30, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I also took the liberty of proposing an alternate hook here. — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  05:43, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Hell, take what liberties you want ;-) Things might slow up a little bit once I exhaust my stock of Warship and Warship International articles, but that's quite a ways off. Still got lots of Soviet destroyers, French treaty cruisers and a couple of Japanese carriers and minelayers to go. Hell, I've even got material on the postwar Soviet BCs that I'll get to at some point. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:18, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. I used a Warship International article in Design 1047 battlecruiser, which was an enormous help and the only reason I was able to get it to FA, but that's it. Regarding the postwar Soviet BCs: I happen to be interested. :-) — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  06:22, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I thought you might have some small interest in the subject :-) Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:28, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe a little. ;-) I've got a little information too, mainly from Garzke and Dulin's Allied Battleships in World War II; if/when you decide to expand that article, ping me and I'll add what I have. You wouldn't happen to know anything on the pre-war Soviet BCs...would you? — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  14:50, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, a little right now, but it's not what I'd call really reliable; I could probably update the current article, but it wouldn't be anything past Start level. I need to get my copy of McLaughlin's Russian and Soviet BBs out of storage, which will provide definitive info. Hopefully that will happen by the end of the year. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:43, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

(out) - no prob. I'd love to collab sometime though. I need to email the guy at Warship International again about getting a couple articles... In other news, nice rewrite of Stalingrad so far. The problem is that I can't really help; G&D fail and only have four (that's right, four) paragraphs on these ships. — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  22:10, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, and a quick question. Was the cancellation of the '"Stalingrad'''s a decision from Khrushchev, or was in on the Navy's initiative? — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  22:12, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Formally it was the decision of the Ministry of Transport and Heavy Machinery on 18 April '53. McLaughlin sums it up nicely, only one supporter, and lots of enemies, so when the supporter died... This is way early too early for Khruschev, BTW, this was the period of Beria-Malenkov-Molotov, IIRC, that unstable triumvirate. I'm wondering how much opposition we'll face during the ACR for too few sources, considering all the flak I received for the same thing in my Sd.Kfz. 10 article which had cites from more sources, although only primarily a single one. We can list G&D in the sources, but if they don't have a cite, which I don't actually expect that they will, it's like it doesn't count or anything. One reason why I haven't pushed a lot of my railroad gun articles past B-class, though many probably qualify for A-class; I was just too pissed off when people didn't understand that sometimes you only have single decent source. Oh, why don't you go ahead and add the G&D reference since I don't have that book. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:44, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * They have a little, I'll check and add now. It's just not much. :| Conway's should also have stuff; I'll hunt down its entry on Google Books. — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  23:46, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Crikey, that was a fast response, mate! It's like you have my page watchlisted or something! ;-) Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:50, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Speaking of that...I happen to have Conway's All the World's Battleships, which would have the exact same entry as Conway's 1922-46 on the Stalingrads. I should be able to take a look and add what I can either later tonight or tomorrow sometime. Parsecboy (talk) 23:53, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Boy this is a high-traffic page >_> In all seriousness, this was at fault. Didn't even need my watchlist. ;-) Would you happen to have a cite for the info in the "Ships" section (18.8% complete etc. etc.)? Read: what can we not cite and what needs to be deleted from that section?
 * Parsec: you rock. — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  23:54, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't sweat those cites, they're in McLaughlin, plus the history of Stalingrad's center hull section. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:00, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that you'll find anything in Conway's as the '22-'46 volume only lists the Kronstadts, I just checked. But maybe they decided to get really comprehensive; I've not looked at a copy as I have access to the first three volumes of the main series. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:05, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

(out) - I'd assume that is because of the major redesigns after '46? At least, I hope it is. Also, nommed at T:TDYK for you. :-) — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  01:31, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah, I forgot they came after 46, so they'd be in the following volume. Regardless, the All the World's Battleships has an entry for them. Parsecboy (talk) 02:15, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Probably, and not least because it wasn't even laid down until '51. Thanks for the DYK, but do my cites support it yet? At least they have an entry of some kind so we can add them as a reference. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:18, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * After looking through the article, it looks like the Conway's listing doesn't have anything new to add (and in fact, it says what information it does have "should be treated with caution," as the data is unofficial). So I'd hesitate to add anything even if it wasn't already in the article. Too bad that didn't work out. Parsecboy (talk) 02:34, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I honestly didn't think that it would have anything better as it was compiled during the Cold War when information on Soviet unbuilt ship classes was really hard to get. But we can still add it as a reference as my McLaughlin reference is feeling awfully exposed and vulnerable. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:51, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I added a fairly basic line to the intro that could be safely sourced to Conway's, so now it's in the article. And the McLaughlin reference wouldn't look so lonely if Ed would add the one for Garzke & Dulin :) Parsecboy (talk) 02:59, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the cite and reference. Now what can we use for an illustration. Getting a fair use image from either McLaughlin or the web is easy enough, but is that going to be a problem if we take it up to FAR? Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:12, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I don't think so. One from a RS like McLaughlin would be nice... — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  04:53, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately I didn't expect y'all to be quite so quick on editing the article while I was working on the protection section that we had several edit conflicts. I've compared versions and think that I've incorporated all of y'all's changes. Please note, however, that the plural of bureau is bureaux and that Admiral Kuznetsov already had a link earlier in the article. Please feel free to edit as you see fit. I'll just be more careful when I write and save more often.Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:12, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Re: the bureaux, that was my mistake; I didn't know we were talking about more than one bureau. Cheers. Parsecboy (talk) 11:13, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * @ Sturm, sorry dude; have you used inuse before? That would probably help, I think. — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  11:58, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Ed, it's no big deal, don't worry about it. I haven't seen the inuse template before, but most of my stuff tends to be obscure enough that it hasn't been a danger since only me and the guy I've requested an assessment from even go there. :-) I'll try to use it when starting work, but it does require that I actually plan and add it ahead of time. Not something I'm used to doing. :-) Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:51, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Haha you make a point. Alternatively, you could stop using a fail browser and be cool&mdash;I think Firefox would save your text even after an edit conflict, but I'm not sure. ;-)
 * Also, looking at your uploaded image, does McLaughlin discuss the reason for the two DP superfiring turrets above the two also superfiring main battery turrets? I certainly have not seen that before. — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  20:09, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm a Mac guy, I only use IE when I absolutely have to. I'm not worried about losing my text, but I always overwrite other people's changes which can be a PITA. Not in detail, but I'd guess that it was a maximum-field-of-fire type of decision. Before Stalin demanded extra speed there was going to be an equivalent pair over the rear turret as well. I think I've seen "four-high" stacks elsewhere, maybe on some AA cruiser proposals. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:30, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'm mainly done; the only semi-major thing to be done is to discuss Stalin's defensive doctrine in a little bit more detail although I need to think about that a bit to decide where and how to present it. I'll do that before I submit it for GA, but I'm not in a hurry right now. So feel free to edit away and I'll post a request for an assessment. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:55, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Soviet cruiser Molotov

 * Congrats on another well-written ship DYK! You rock!  — Kralizec! (talk) 14:09, 28 August 2009 (UTC)