User talk:Sturmvogel 66/Archive 3

January 2010
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. I've had to place enough unsigned templates after your entries to warrant a template even though you're a regular. -MBK004 05:47, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that. I get forgetful sometimes.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:50, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * And I got back to you at my page. You know, I have a 100% edit summary use in mainspace and 99.9% in all others: . -MBK004 07:13, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Irish Oak
Thanks for your attention to the Irish Oak. I'm going to give it a rest for a short time. Then I would rather return to the original plan of pushing Irish Mercantile Marine during World War II which I see as the 'umbrella' article, before attending to individual ships or companies. When Irish Mercantile Marine during World War II makes the grade, follow up with another ship - other than the Irish Oak - such as the MV Kerlogue, which is regarded as the 'exemplar'. An advantage of the Irish Oak is that John Clarke is still with us. However from a wikipedia pov it also introduced OR issues. He says (and I believe him, it makes sense) that the Irish Oak did warn the convoy and that the Greek deliberately sabotaged the engines - but we can't say that. I'm wikibreaking for a while. Regards ClemMcGann (talk) 13:01, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a plan; just pay attention to the structure and language used to avoid copy edit requirements, etc. when you work on the other articles. It won't be OR if you can get him to say something in public which you can then quote! ;-) --Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:15, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * An editor has agreed to copy-edit the article. Will it need to be resubmitted or are you willing to review the article once it has been copyedited. Mjroots (talk) 19:33, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll take a look at it when it's done and pass it if it meets the criteria. Or note what still needs to be done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:38, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Would you mind taking a look at the article now please? has done a lot of work copy-editing recently. Mjroots (talk) 09:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Did you miss this request? Hopefully you'll see it this time. If you had already seen it and hadn't got round to doing it please accept my apologies. Mjroots (talk) 09:12, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Iowa class battleship FAR
nominated Iowa class battleship for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:52, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I've attempted to address some of the FAR comments made concerning the article, I would appreciate it if you could update your edits accordingly so I could figure out what still needs to be worked on. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:59, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Just in case...
Ping Parsecboy (talk) 02:27, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for GA work
Thanks for giving me the time to come up with required details at Harold M. McClelland. Your insistence made me at times frustrated and huffy, but it resulted in a much better article. You rock! Binksternet (talk) 19:37, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey, no problem. I've been the beneficiary of some extended criticism myself which has torqued me on occasion, but the article has usually been better off for it. Amazing the blind spots we develop, isn't it? Now let's see if we can get the other two up to speed as they have many of the same sorts of issues.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:41, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Yermolayev Yer-2
Hi, I was wondering if you were aware that your article Yermolayev Yer-2 had been reviewed for GAN here, since you haven't responded. Regards, — mattisse (Talk) 23:44, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I responded, that's what the indented lines are; I just forgot to sign the responses. I was getting read to ping the reviewer to see if he's looked at the revisions or not.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:48, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

35th Infantry Division (United States)
Sturmvogel, you seem well connected. I wanted to know if you had heard anything about the 39th IBCT being placed under the 35th ID and 45th IBCT being moved to another division. The 2009 Kansas Adjutant General's Report (http://kansastag.ks.gov/AdvHTML_Upload/Annual%20Report%202009.pdf) reports it that way. The Previous Kansas AG (2007 and 2008)reports still had the 45th IBCT in the 35th and no 39th IBCT. Shrike6 (talk) 01:22, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Kansas should know since the HQ of the 35th is in Leavenworth. However, I'd suggest checking with the relevant AGs (Oklahoma (45th), Texas (36th ID), and Arkansas (39th)) to verify. I'm not in the division any longer so I don't know why such a change would have been made.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:28, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for looking...
... at Melbourne-Voyager collision. I should be able to get those facts cited in the next 24 hours. Would you be willing to cruise back in a day or two and see if you are satisfied enough to mark it as B class? -- saberwyn 02:02, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. Just let me know when.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:03, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

The first of many...

 * Thanks, maybe it's about time I started playing in the majors rather than down in double and triple A.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:36, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Melbourne–Voyager collision
Hi there, I noticed you rated this article as C class with a "no" for B class criteria 1 (referencing). See Talk:Melbourne–Voyager collision Could you please exlain why you think this article fails this criteria as it seems to me to be well referenced with extensive in line citations. Am I missing something? - Nick Thorne  talk  07:37, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Content on the ships wasn't cited...I was going to ping Sturmvogel in a little while to say it was now cited, and it was ready for a re-review (see discussion two headings up). -- saberwyn 07:55, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It's B-class now.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:24, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Yer-2 GA
Hi Sturmvogel. Sorry about the n00bish tackling of the GA. Can you please check the last few issues, so we can close this. Dhatfield (talk) 23:08, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It's kinda of a PITA, but not bad once you get used to it, although it can be excruciating if the article is on the border line between passing and failing.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:19, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Stovin
Thanks for the note. It's a bit of a problem, this - I've never managed to find anything. I've left a comment on the review. Shimgray | talk | 20:21, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Admin?
I've had a look at you contributions, and with the exception of a low edit summary counter I think you have the makings of a potential administrator. Would you be interested in an rfa? I'd be happy to offer a nom if you'd like. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:45, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Almost 8,500 edits is actually a lot for an RfA. The problem might be that you only write articles and don't participate much at ANI and the like, but I got through mine without many of those. Your call for if you want to or not. If so, good luck :) — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  23:50, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe, depends on what's involved. I'm not even sure that I'm pulling my weight as a coordinator. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:28, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

In general, becoming an admin involves answering a bunch of questions (civilly of course :). Folks at RFA will be interested in you edit count, what you have edited, and whether or not you can demonstrate sufficient knowledge of our policy and guideline related material to be trusted with admin tools. As an admin, I can tell you that its a do-nothing job, really, your only called upon in certain cases to help when users can not do the task. I got in on the strength of a good name and solid editing, and you've been an outstanding coordinator, so I think you've got a chance. Its ultimately your decision, so what ever you decide to do I'll honor that decision. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:44, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Having looked over the responsibilities of an admin and dealt with a few asshats in my time here, I don't think that I'll bother. I'd prefer to concentrate writing, but thanks very much for the thought. Maybe in a few years, if I stick with this long enough I might have written most of what I want to get written and might be looking for other things to do.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:09, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Alright, then. If you change your mind though I am still willing to nominate you, so don;t be shy to ask. Take care! TomStar81 (Talk) 02:29, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

The battleship Imperator Nikolai I
You've removed whole section about The battleship Imperator Nikolai I. What's incorrect with it. ThanksJo0doe (talk) 07:56, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I've started a whole new article on her at Russian battleship Imperator Nikolai I (1916) as she's really her own class, although heavily based on Imperatritsa Mariya. I still need to update the template and some other minor fixes.Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:42, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Per 23 December 1911 (old style) Order of the Naval Minister - all battleships build for Black Sea flit officially designated as Imperatritsa Mariya type. Jo0doe (talk) 19:48, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Considering that Nikolai I wasn't ordered until 1914, I don't think that that order had much relevance to the later ship.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:06, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You partially right - initially (11 February 1911 (old)) there were 3 battleships, 9 destroyers and 6 submarines. Nikolai I order was a respond to Sultan Oman and Reshad V - after 17 March 1914 report to Duma and 24 June 1914 new legislation act increased procurement budget  were for Nikolai I was allocated 42. 4 millions of gold rubles.Jo0doe (talk) 20:13, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Milhist task force reorganisation
I've now completed the merger of the Romanian military history task force into the Balkan military history task force. As you were listed as a coordinator of the Romanian task force, I've transferred your coordinatorship over; you may wish to update your watchlist accordingly. All the best, EyeSerene talk 12:07, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your work.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:43, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

WikiCup 2010 and Dermatology-related content
I noticed that you are participating in the 2010 WikiCup. I have been working on the Bolognia push which is a project to make sure Wikipedia has an article (or redirect) on every know cutaneous condition. With that being said, there are still many cutaneous condition stubs to be made, and Bolognia could be a source for a lot of DYK articles, etc. Therefore, I was thinking maybe we could help one another... a competative WikiCup that also serves to improve dermatologic content on Wikipedia. I could e-mail you the Bolognia login information if you have any interest? ---kilbad (talk) 05:03, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but I have no real interest in dermatological articles.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:00, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Cruiser Molotov/Slava
The reference, you asked for, is (in Rissian, of course): Чернышев А. А. Крейсера типа "Максим Горький" // "Морская коллекция", № 2, 2003. [Cruisers of Maksim Gorky type / Morskaya Kollektsiya magazine; (http://www.wunderwaffe.narod.ru/Magazine/MK/2003_02/index.htm, section "Молотов"). Also I've seen the same in book: Кузин В. П., Никольский В. И. Военно-морской флот СССР. 1945-1991. Санкт-Петербург, 1996. [USSR Navy, 1945-1991]. The page i'll specify. Leonid Kharitonov (talk) 17:04, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the quick response. Now all I need is the location of the book publisher and the page number.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:52, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Ekaterina II class battleship
Regarding the Ekaterina II class battleships, I would say the gun arrangement in very unusual, but not quite unique - see Siegfried class coastal defense ship and Odin class coastal defense ship for example. No hard feelings for your edit. Milesli (talk) 08:10, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That's what my source says. But you're right.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:44, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Contest
Hey, I noticed your update on the contest page. My offer to help with the contest still stands. If you'd like we can split up the score maintenance between the two of us, or some other arrangement. It'll be a lot for one person to handle, and I think splitting the work between two (or more) of us will help ensure that the contest lives on. Thoughts? (I'm watching this, so feel free to just reply here) -SidewinderX (talk) 03:55, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I have no doubt that I'll need help, especially with the stuff I'm not familiar doing. And I appreciate your offer. I'm not worried about scoring since it's not much different than assessments and we all know how many of those I do; it's more the end of the month that's a PITA to deal with. But I'm almost done with though you're welcome to jump in and finish it off at WikiProject Aviation/Contest/Newsletter/December 2009--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 07:21, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

German Type UE II submarines
Hello. Since you are a member of Wikiproject Ships and MILHIST, I was wondering if you could help me out in starting German Type UE II submarines. Every submarine in that category has been created but the class itself is still a red link.-- Coldplay Expért Let's talk  23:42, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much! What else can be put in the page?-- Coldplay Expért Let's talk  00:21, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Best thing to do for ideas is to look at the other submarine class articles. It needs a class navbox and a list of the individual subs in the class. Plus a design history and description. You need to do this sort of thing for yourself if you're going to do a lot of this, as I don't have a lot of interest in, nor references for, submarines. I'm happy to kibitz, but don't expect me to do this for you again. You got lucky today because I was taking a break between sections of one of my Russian battleship articles. Oh, and watch the name, class article names are not plural.
 * Oh. Sorry. But thanks for the help. Now I know how to start these kind of artilces. And I already have a nav box and i'm listing the ships now. Once again, thanks for the help.-- Coldplay Expért Let's talk  00:36, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't sweat it. The easiest way to do this sort of stuff is to copy an example that you like and change the data to suit. Just be consistent and willing to spend the time to do it right. That's how I learned to do navboxes and most other stuff involving templates.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:03, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I finished it. Thanks for starting the article out for me :)-- Coldplay Expért Let's talk  03:28, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Russian battleship Ekaterina II

 * Kudos to you, sir, for your great work on this article! I found it be a very enjoyable read!  Thanks, — Kralizec! (talk) 03:17, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:40, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Tad of help
I've noticed that you are part of WP:OMT. Could you help by telling me what needs to be added to User:Buggie111/ Russian battleship Sevastopol (1895) before it will be able to survive CSD?

Cheers,

Buggie111 (talk) 01:20, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * At least a semi-complete infobox with specifications, a paragraph of her history and the usual sort of navboxes and categories, I expect. I can't do a full work-up right now, but I can probably provide some information if you need it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:28, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Buggie111 (talk) 01:28, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

HMS Lion photo caption
Hi there, since you've helped to make this a GA, I'm presenting my query to you.. The caption for the photo at top of infobox reads "HMS Lion after her rebuild in 1912". There's nothing in the text about any rebuild.. seems unlikely so soon after launch. The caption is also ambiguous : is the photo dated 1912, or is it referring to a rebuild in 1912 ? regards, Rod Rcbutcher (talk) 04:19, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * She was originally designed with the mast behind the forward funnel, but was modified during construction to switch their positions to avoid funnel smoke on the bridge and gunnery spaces. I was going to put that in the class article since Princess Royal needed the same modification.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Bucklew
Sorry, Chief, just got back from SHOT Show and the Safari Club Show and am playing catch-up with real-life! I implemented most of what you asked for and will look into the rest tonight and tomorrow. My schedule was "lighter" when I first nominated it...apologies.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 19:30, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem, I just want to know if you planned to work on it further. Take as much time as you need.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:35, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

16-inch/50 range
Thanks for adding that range, and doing the armaments page too. The 42,345 yard figure is also the one at the first external link; your source looks to be better one to use. Because of the history, and because miles are sometimes used for that range, I think it should be in nautical miles, too. I don't think convert will give us both numbers starting with yards. It would do 20.907 nmi → 20.907 nmi, but that's not acceptable. But no problem;we can still add the conversions without using a template: 42,345 yards (38.72 km; 20.91 nmi).

Now, for my curiousity, do you have any idea why this numbers would be expressed to such an implausible precision in the first place? Nobody's really going to know the maximum range to the nearest yard or the nearest five yards, and there aren't any other units I can figure out that would make this number a more reasonably rounded number, unless it was 42,350 yards converted to kilometers with two decimal places, and then back to yards again, but that's still only 50-yard precision at the least. (42,345 yd = 127,035 ft = 38,720 m = 24.060 mi = 20.907 nmi [intl] = 20.894 nmi [Admiralty] = 20.893 nmi [pre-1954 US] = 5.2177 Norwegian geographical miles = 127,777 shaku = 1.2548×10−12 parsec, nothing with less than 4 apparently significant digits).

Good grief! Do you realize that to use that number with a clear conscience, we'd have to specify whether we are measuring from the breech or from the muzzle, for a gun whose barrel is 222⁄9 yards long on the inside? Even at an elevation of 30 degrees, multiply that by cosine 30° and you've still got 19¼ yd in the lateral direction. Even at 45°, it would be 15.7 yards, more than three times the 5-yard precision for the range we have, so it would be either 42,360 yards from the breech if the other number is from the muzzle, and 42,330 yards from the muzzle if the number we have is from the breech.

Also, does it need to specify the type of round used (I think armor-piercing in this case, at least I saw AP with a range figure somewhere); I don't know anything about the choices available. Gene Nygaard (talk) 21:13, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the output is based on the input in terms of significant figures, but I'd have to check, but it should be controllable. It's all right there at the beginning of the conversion template doc page. However, I really see no need to convert to nmi as the Navy specified yards. What are needed, IMO, for those non-nautical folks, are conversions in miles, as I certainly can't divide by 1780 in my head, and meters, from which km can be derived by the reader. Hell, I didn't even know that there were different kinds of nmi, I was taught the nice and simple 2000 yards, none of this minute of arc stuff. And if you access the navweps.com link you'll find that, IIRC, both the AP and HE rounds have the same range. But, regardless, I'm not going to get all wrapped around the axle about the ranges as they are, at best, only approximations. But I will go back and add a miles block to the conversions.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:45, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * It isn't the output that's a problem; it is the input. My main point is that 42,345 yards isn't a believable "approximation", no matter how well it is sourced. Why such a strange number? It just doesn't make any sense.
 * So which part of the gun are we measuring from? The breech or the muzzle? Gene Nygaard (talk) 23:46, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Who says it's an approximation? It's entirely possible that the Navy test-fired one to that exact range. Or maybe that's the number they got after adjustments for standard meterological conditions. Dunno, and quite frankly, I don't care. That's the official Navy number and that's good enough. You're getting all wrapped around the axle about this unnecessarily. We have a sourced number, that's good enough. And I doubt that the Navy measured from either muzzle or breech, probably instead from the gun position as is commonly done in field artillery. A yard or two one way or another just doesn't matter; artillery is an area effect weapon, not a precision weapon.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:59, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiCup
There is a subthread discussing your contribution of a good topic here- basically, I'm not really seeing it as a legitimate claim, but you're welcome to add any thoughts. J Milburn (talk) 23:06, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

WikiCup 2010 January newsletter
We are half way through round one of the WikiCup. We've had some shakeups regarding late entries, flag changes and early dropouts, but the competition is now established- there will be no more flag changes or new competitors. Congratulations to, our current leader, who, at the time of writing, has more listed points than and   (second and third place respectively) combined. A special well done also goes to - his artcle Jewel Box (St. Louis, Missouri) was the first content to score points in the competition.

Around half of competitors are yet to score. Please remember to submit content soon after it is promoted, so that the judges are able to review entries. 64 of the 149 current competitors will advance to round 2- if you currently have no points, do not worry, as over half of the current top 64 have under 50 points. Everyone needs to get their entries in now to guarantee their places in round 2! If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, by email or on IRC. Good luck! J Milburn, Garden, iMatthew and The ed17 Delivered by JCbot (talk) at 00:21, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Contest
I noticed that you were updating the contest and that my name was not on the score board so I added it, with no points. I will let someone else do that. I hope thats ok. --Kumioko (talk) 02:58, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It's fine, but you should check in with Ian Rose; he updated the table.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:19, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations

 * Well done, maybe next month Ill make better competition. Cheers --Kumioko (talk) 03:31, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

FAC
"Thunderbird":

Thanks for your comments on my FAC. You answered some questions there which deserve a personal response.

Although I've been around for a while, my only experience with editorial reviews has been in the FA process. In two prior FACs with which I've been connected there was no active project. I am of course aware of the WP:SHIPS project, but have not been involved wtih its internal review processes. I have no experience with the GAs process, but am somewhat leery of it, as I have seen one GA review (coincidentally on a ship, but not my article) which I thought was unhelpful. So on my present article I decided to go to a familiar venue.

I have taken your suggestions into account, and addressed them on the page. I will also add to the article a short summary of the protection scheme of the ship.

Best regards, Kablammo (talk) 15:28, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:SHIPS is pretty inactive, but MILHIST is very active and it might prove useful. GARs can go either way, depending on the individual reviewer, but A-class or peer review will give you a mix of people.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:40, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Contest Questions
I was just looking through the old contest results and noticed my name on a few articles I submitted months ago (I forgot they were there). Im just trying to clarify for the next month and thanks in advance for the help.--Kumioko (talk) 15:59, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Do the old articles count towards the total articles column or only the ones done under the new scoring system? Its fine either way I was just curious.
 * 2) I noticed on the scoring table that there is nothing for getting a list to FL but I thought I saw somewhere that was worth 10 point so thats what I gave myslef when I added the featured list to the articles I added to the contest. Was that correct?
 * 3) I have several articles that are currently stubs or starts that are very close to B class, but I didn't necessarily do all the work this month. If I submit these, having not done all the edits to get it to B this month, is that in the spirit of the contest (Some are down to just needed some minor cleanup and a couple inline citations to get there)? I can give you examples if you need one.

DYK nomination of Russian battleship Imperator Aleksander III
Hello! Your submission of Russian battleship Imperator Aleksander III at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Materialscientist (talk) 12:36, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Aviation Contest
Hi Sturmvogel 66! This note is to inform you that your Aviation Contest submissions page has been archived from the previous round! You are now free to add submissions for this round! Note: This next round will run from January through February, so feel free to update your submission page with work from both months! Thanks, and happy editing! (Note: I will not be watching this space. If you have any questions, feel free to ask at the Contest discussion page. -SidewinderX (talk) 14:18, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Gangut class battleship
Hello! Your submission of Gangut class battleship at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Materialscientist (talk) 01:57, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Russian battleship Sevastopol (1911)
Hello! Your submission of Russian battleship Sevastopol (1911) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Materialscientist (talk) 01:57, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Please check my ALT1. Materialscientist (talk) 22:36, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Russian battleship Imperatritsa Ekaterina Velikaya

 * Loved this article! Great work!!  — Kralizec! (talk) 21:44, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, nice to be appreciated.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:20, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVII (January 2010)
The January 2010 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) 04:48, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Article for expanding
SS City of Flint - indeed intresting story more details are here. What do you think? German Telegram The American Government is trying to build up the seizure of the American ship City of Flint as an unfriendly act on the part of Germany in order to push the repeal of the arms embargo in Congress. We should therefore avoid anything with respect to the treatment of the ship and the American crew that the American Government could exploit to that end. If war material, including airplane parts, should be found in the cargo, it would constitute a flagrant violation of the Neutrality Act. Reliable reports indicate very brisk arms smuggling operations from Jo0doe (talk) 14:55, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Fort Krasnaya Gorka and Petropavlovsk
See here  There no Leon Trotsky there and none  instantly machine-gunned happened - excluding by part of fort garrison itself. Thanks.
 * If you need any clarification for ru Aviation (like Mig-3 gun-sight) or something else - just ask - I'll help. Regards  Jo0doe (talk) 15:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
-MBK004 07:34, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

editing
I saw Andy's comment on the review. do you want help? Auntieruth55 (talk) 15:46, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, please. I know that I'm not a great writer, but his comments seem unsupportable to me.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:08, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Canonde138mmMle1929.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Canonde138mmMle1929.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the media description page and edit it to add, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rama (talk) 22:25, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
check Pe-8 now. I hope it's more readable. Pls make sure I didn't mess up your references. Auntieruth55 (talk) 22:51, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I made a few changes, but we've already had one edit conflict so I'll stop until you're done. One point is that I used the TB-7 designation when referring to event before it was redesignated in 1943.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:23, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
I cannot post by clicking on the edit button, and I am having mega problems with wikipedia. Nothing I type is saving. This is the third time I've posted this message. I think you should refer throughout to the Pe-8, not the TB-7 and then the Pe-8. The article is entitled the Pe-8 (not the TB-7), and it's confusing to the reader to do it otherwise. It took me some time to figure out that is what you were doing when I first read it. If you wanted me to copy edit for you (which I just spent 5 hours doing), why are you reverting most of the suggestions I've made? I expected you'd revert some, but to revert the active tense back to the passive tense makes no sense to me. Have you looked here for drawings? Auntieruth55 (talk) 01:02, 7 February 2010 (UTC) Auntieruth55 (talk) 01:02, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I haven't changed a single tense on you; check the history. I corrected a few errors of fact. I guess the TB-7/Pe-8 is just me being fussy. I didn't expect any issues with its use because I mention both names in the lede. I'm sorry to hear that your connection to wiki is having problems and I appreciate the time you've spent on helping me. I owe you big time and your GARs, etc. will get prompt attention as that's about the best way I can think to repay you as I doubt that you'll need the editing help.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:21, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


 * the problem seems to have been the Beta version. I've signed out of that, and have not had any trouble. Thanks for the action on the Potato War.  Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:25, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I looked at it once and was not impressed. Now I'll be sure to steer even more clear of it. Glad you figured out what the problems was; that sort of thing tends to elevate my blood pressure.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:27, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
It is still giving me fits, and this is the only way I can post to anything. I guess it was my wiki interface that makes it look like the edits were reversed. Sorry to snap at you. :) What is Kombrig?  (Commander Brigade?)  This needs clarification.  Also, a way around the TB-7 / Pe-8 thing is simply to call it the aircraft or the plane or the bomber, or whatever, through the development section.  :)  Auntieruth55 (talk) 15:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC)  Auntieruth55 (talk) 15:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)
Hello, I am contacting you because you are serious contributor to ordnance-related articles. I propose to add an additional note to the "manual of style", warning not to use literal conversions for gun names, where the calibre, gun weight or projectile weight used in the gun name is just a convenient approximation rather than an exact measurement. This applies to cases such British "4.7 inch" guns, British "18 inch torpedoes", "6 pounder guns" etc... in such cases, using the undefined undefined template produces incorrect results and should not be used. In such cases we need to hardcode "4.7-inch (120-mm)", "18-inch (450-mm)". Currently well-meaning folks keep going through these articles and adding undefined undefined everywhere without understanding the subject matter, producing rubbish like "18 inch (460 mm) torpedo" and 12 pounder (5.4 kg).. We also ne3ed, in my opinion, to agree to what degree we abbreviate calibres in conversion e.g. 12-inch = 305 mm, 4-inch = 102 mm, 6-inch = 152-mm, etc.. What is your opinion on this ? regards, Rod. Rcbutcher (talk) 10:15, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Rod, I agree with you about the user names although that's really only going to be easy when dealing with 'pounder'-type designations. I think that we do need to a note to be careful about the nominal caliber vs. the actual caliber, ie German 28 cm is really 28.3 cm. That sort of thing is easy to do on the individual weapon pages, but a hell of a lot harder for ship articles, forex, where the weapon isn't the primary focus. As for rounding I'm generally OK with to the nearest whole digit until you get down to small arms sizes where you should probably match the number of significant digits, 5.55 mm=.223, etc. About the only significant exception that I can think of are the 17.7-inch torpedoes which should probably retain their 3 significant digits.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 10:45, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

File:Canonde138mmMle1929.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Canonde138mmMle1929.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:30, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Petlyakov Pe-3 GA review
I have reviewed the article, and passed it. It was an easy, quick review, because the article was an easy pass. My only comment is about adding a reference to the Finnish army utilizing a captured one. Thanks for making an article that was quite interesting to read. I didn't even imagine that bright guns would make night flying hard. Now I know. Thanks, and congrats. Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ) 03:44, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, now you know :-)! Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:46, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Sign your supports
You really need to rid yourself of this habit. -MBK004 05:52, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, OK!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:53, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

You're appreciated
Talk:Main_Page — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  16:30, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Snicker. Nice to be appreciated for my 35 days of Russian battleships and battlecruisers. Kinda makes up for my Pe-8 article getting slammed at FAC. Well, maybe not, but still... --Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:36, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure it was slammed, but perhaps not appreciated. ;) Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:42, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe, maybe not. But it was interesting to read a big discussion about the declining numbers of reviewers and reviews for FA, etc on the coordinators page, as several people there mentioned that they'd noticed much more of an emphasis on prose quality since about '08 and that they no longer submitted FACs as the process had become unfriendly. Rather resonated for me as I don't feel that my article was particularly lacking in quality. Now, I'll grant that I'm not a prose stylist, but neither do I think that I write badly. So my ego is feeling a bit bruised right now.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:59, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Pe-8
Sorry to see this. Spruce it up some more and try again. Maybe one of the other editors in MH can help, perhaps one who knows more about these bombers than I do. Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:31, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Just a note, I am going through the article to look for any further issues, unless you don't want me to. Looking at some of your correspondence above, I'm sorry if you felt like you took a beating at FAC. I'm just trying to make sure articles are in the best possible shape when they go through. If my demeanor was offensive, I apologize and would welcome any feedback on how I can improve. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  20:27, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Andy, I don't mind, but the only comment of yours that got me was the one about the lengthy sentence, so don't worry about that. As for feeling hard done by, I wouldn't be bothered if I understood better why people were so critical of my writing as it seems just as workman-like as are the bulk of the FAs that I've read. I really can't recall any FA where the prose was noticeably outstanding, but maybe that's just something I don't pick up on. I know I'm not a great prose stylist, but I don't think that I'm any worse than the other editors who have written FAs. Auntieruth55 did a rewrite/extensive copy edit and there were only a couple of instances that I thought were significant improvements, including one where I'd been floundering for weeks, and the rest just seemed to not to be particularly meaningful. But maybe I'm just a bit tone-deaf for this sort of thing.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:41, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand. Many prose changes people request at FAC (actually probably most) are subjective. If I see little errors or MoS problems, I usually just fix them myself, or I oppose the article if a lot of work is needed. In your case, not a lot of work was needed but we are so short on reviewers I find myself diving in to fewer and fewer articles. Anyway, I will finish going through Pe-8 and hopefully you can have it back at FAC after your other one is done. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  20:49, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

FAC
Hey there! First off, thanks for all your hard work around here. I hope to see Petlyakov Pe-8 back at FAC again in the future.

I just wanted to draw your attention to a recent change in the FAC instructions. It is set up now so if you have a nomination archived, you need to wait 2 weeks before nominating another. It's a new guideline so easy to gloss over. You can ask an FAC delegate for leave to nominating something right away, or they may remove the new nomination. In your case, HMS Lion (1910) should have waited 2 weeks after Petlyakov Pe-8 was archived. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  03:12, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of HMS Indefatigable (1909)
I have undertaken to review the article HMS Indefatigable (1909) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. Please feel free to contact me with any questions or queries you may have during this period. ✽ Familiae Watt§   (TALK)  04:32, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Urgent
TomStar81 (Talk) 06:43, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations!
You are one of the six editors advancing into the final round of the Henry Allingham World War I Contest. The final round started at 00:00, 11 February and ends 23:59, 10 March. The top three ranked players at the end of this round will become winners of the contest and receive special prizes! Keep up the good work! --Eurocopter (talk) 12:23, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Joachim Helbig review
Hi, could you please have a second look at the article? I tried to address everything but some questions remain unanswered (I couldn't find the answers) MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:04, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The question you posed is very difficult to answer indeed. Schumann (page 80) states that Helbig was posted to the III./KG 152 "Hindenburg" in April 1937. According to Schumann and Taghon volume 1 page 22 and 23 III./KG 152 was redesignated II./LG 1 on 1 November 1938. If this is true then Helbig would have served in the II Gruppe. MisterBee1966 (talk) 21:14, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I thought as much, but the term Kampfaufklärungs is confusing and raises many possibilities as I mentioned earlier.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * In case you're interested my personal collection of WW2 related books can be found here User:MisterBee1966/Library. MisterBee1966 (talk) 21:58, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Not bad; we overlap a lot although I've got more technical/operational histories and fewer of the biographies and medal winner-type books.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:05, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

A historic copyright issue
This diff shows you are concerned with text from Plane Spotting World. As the proprietor of that site all I can say to assist you is that PSW uses, as it says at the foot of each page, GNU Free Documentation License 1.2

I am not sure what the issue is at Wikipedia, but I hope this will assist you with resolving whatever concerns you have or had. Forgive me if this is a dead issue. I would have expected our PSW community to raise this with you instead of me. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 20:07, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Le Van Duyet
Thanks for the review, I've replied  YellowMonkey  ( vote in the Southern Stars photo poll )  07:10, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Phil Bucklew
I thought I got everything outstanding a week or 2 ago? Prose cleanup, married life, photo, etc?--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 21:29, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that, I didn't check it before posting to your talk page. I promoted it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:49, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Aviation/Assessment/Yermolayev Yer-2
I left some comments for you at the A-class review, but it appears you've been busy as of late since more than a week has gone by without a reply. When you get a moment you can check and see if my clarification helped any, and you can take a peak at Joe N's comments as well. TomStar81 (Talk) 10:54, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
Military Order of St. Hubert is waiting for GA too. Do you have time? Auntieruth55 (talk) 02:53, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Probably not tonight, but likely tomorrow.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:56, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the reviews on the battle and Schmitt. If you have a chance to look at Karl Aloys zu Fürstenberg‎ at ACR, I'd appreciate it. Auntieruth55 (talk) 01:51, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

GA review ongoing for AH-64 Apache
Thank you for taking this review onto your hands, it has allowed the quality of the page to continue to improve and will benifit the rest of the wikipedia users. I regret however that I will be unavailable for over a week, until the 11th of next month. Could you postpone any final verdict until then, so that I will be able to come back and respond to any updated instructions and queries? There are other more experienced and knowledgable editors that are working on the page as well, so there is a good chance they will be able to do the work requested, but should reform not be forthcoming and failing looks like an option, I would appreciate the hold until then in order to come back and straighten it out. My apologies for my poor netiquettique. Kyteto (talk) 23:42, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Just wanted to add a note of thanks for the successful review over on the AH-64 Apache article, good improvements were made throughout, and I'm glad it is now a GA. Thank you for reviewing it, and I hope we bump into each other on another project. :) Kyteto (talk) 23:24, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You guys earned it. I know correcting all the citations and such couldn't have been much fun, but I'm glad that y'all followed through.

Talkback
have you checked back on this? Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:07, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

WikiCup 2010 February newsletter
Round one is over, and round two has begun! Congratulations to the 64 contestants who have made it through, but well done and thank you to all contestants who took part in our first round. A special well done goes to, our round one winner (1010 points), and to and , who were second and third respectively (640 points/605 points). Sasata was awarded the most points for both good articles (300 points) and featured articles (600 points), and TonyTheTiger was awarded the most for featured topics (225 points), while Hunter Kahn claimed the most for good topics (70). claimed the most featured lists (240 points) and featured pictures (35 points), claimed the most for Did you know? entries (490 points),  claimed the most for featured sounds (70 points) and  claimed the most for In the news entries (40 points). No one claimed a featured portal or valued picture.

Credits awarded after the end of round one but before round two may be claimed in round two, but remember the rule that content must have been worked on in some significant way during 2010 by you for you to claim points. The groups for round two will be placed up shortly, and the submissions' pages will be blanked. This round will continue until 28 April, when the top two users from each group, as well as 16 wildcards, will progress to round three. Please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup; thank you to all doing this last round, and particularly to those helping at WikiCup/Reviews. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, by email or on IRC. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox, iMatthew and The ed17 Delivered by JCbot (talk) at 00:54, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Le Van Duyet ACR
clarified, hopefully  YellowMonkey  ( vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll )  05:59, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Nominations for the March 2010 Military history Project Coordinator elections now open!
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 8 March 2010! More information on coordinatorship may be found on the coordinator academy course and in the responsibilities section on the coordinator page. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:27, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Maginot
Thanks for reviewing - it confirms my impression about the lead as well, and those of the others in the series. I'll have a go at recasting Rochonvillers and the others, which owe too much to the first writing two years ago; I haven't been ruthless enough with rewriting.  Acroterion  (talk)  18:56, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVIII (February 2010)
The February 2010 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) 23:19, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

consolidate sources
I've just worked on an article that would benefit from the citation consolidation (named ref). Would you do it? Battle of Schliengen. Auntieruth55 (talk) 04:12, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

GA Review of Jagdgeschwader 11
I have added the missing citations for this article. Could you please take a look to see if those are in order ? Thanks Perseus71 (talk) 13:12, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Your point is noted. I will make sure its incorporated. However, it will take me a little bit of time ti finish it though. Perseus71 (talk) 01:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi!


 * I went over all the citations. Here's the issue. There's two ways you can present citations. One is Long footnotes
 * &lt;ref>Author Name Book Name, page 34. Academic Press, 2005.&lt;/ref>

or just
 * There's also another style of Shortened Notes.
 * &lt;ref> Miller 2005, p. 34.&lt;/ref>


 * Both have been Approved/supported by Cite. I am using the second method as I quote from several pages of same book. I have no intention of purposefully providing bogus citations. I feel that because I used the short code, the notes are pointing to that first reference of Page 80 in your example. If you wish I can change from
 * to
 * &lt;ref> Miller 2005, p. 34.&lt;/ref>


 * Please do let me know your thoughts. Perseus71 (talk) 15:10, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I am relatively indifferent to the form of the citation; I'm only really concerned about the citation supporting the paragraph/fact/statement. And the citations as they currently are do not do so because page 80 of Miller and Caldwell, forex, doesn't support anything past 1943, IIRC. So validate every use of the same citation as I strongly suspect that all the references to Parker's book do not refer to page 385.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:03, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Here's my point about the citation style. If I use




 * It shows in the Citation section, reference to the very first entry from that book. Say page 24. Evenif my citation content says otherwise. Only if I use




 * That I get desired results. In many cases where the Citation section pointed to Page 185, my cite was actually pointing to somewhere else!.


 * Anyway, I have changed every single of the references/citations to reflect exact page numbers that have the concerned content. I request you to take a look.Perseus71 (talk) 04:09, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, OK, now I understand what you were doing before. Each different page citation needs a unique name, so you can only consolidate citations with the same page and source. So now you can consolidate your repeated citations, like #40-42, like so: for the first entry and for all subsequent uses. So I'll start the GA review here in the next couple of days as you now probably meet the basic standards. Don't forget to validate your external links; I think that one is dead.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:21, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

German Battleship Bismarck
Hello, can you please explain )on that article's talk page) why you dropped the above to C class due to "lack of citations", when the article contains more than 70? I don't know trhe protocols for this but would propose asking for this to be re-assessed immediately. Thanks, bigpad (talk) 23:10, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Many facts were cited, many were not. I didn't want to bother with noting them, but I've now done so. Add the necessary cites and I'll be happy to reassess it as B-class.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:27, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply and for adding the cite tags into that article (which I've just seen). bigpad (talk) 16:15, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

GAN nomination of Russian battleship Imperatritsa Mariya
Hi there Sturmvogel 66! Thanks for your suggestions about User:Buggie111/ Russian battleship Sevastopol (1895), it's been coming along rather nicely. About your GA nomination of Russian battleship Imperatritsa Mariya: I've looked it over, and think it will pas, but I'm not so sure about WP:MOS and have asked for a Second Opinion. Feel free to fix the few concerns I have expressed here. Once again, thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia and WP:OMT, and have fun editing!

YT, Buggie111 (talk) 03:44, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

DYK for French battleship Jean Bart (1911)

 * Nice work; I really enjoyed this article! — Kralizec! (talk) 22:12, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Glad you liked it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:14, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

JG 11

 * It was not his fault it was a dodgy cite techy problem. I have fixed them now. Dapi89 (talk) 18:25, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You've caught some of them, but missed others. Look at citation f for Caldwell and Miller, p. 80, forex. That page covers stuff in 1943 and has no bearing on incidents in 1944 as per that citation. I'd advise y'all to review every one of the cites to make sure that they actually support the fact or statement being cited.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:26, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Tim Cross
just wanted to say thanks for the review! HJ Mitchell |  Penny for your thoughts?   20:00, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You're welcome; it was a well-written article.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:22, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Battle of San Marino
I spotted your comments just as I was off to bed - I think that's the first "uncontested" GA review I've seen in a while...

Thanks muchly! Shimgray | talk | 00:14, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, short articles make it easier to review and it read easily. It may have helped that I'm already familiar with the Italian Campaign and didn't need something expanded that a less knowledgeable editor might have needed, but...--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:19, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
Hello Sturmvogel 66,

I just wanted to say thank you so much for assessing Andrew Hull Foote! Have a Great Day! Lord Oliver  The Olive Branch 00:50, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You're welcome.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:45, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Winner of the Henry Allingham World War I International Contest (1st edition)

 * Very remiss of me but I don't think I ever congratulated on this achievement -- great work and well deserved! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:50, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, my friend!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:40, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

USS maine
Nice work on the Maine article! --Badger151 (talk) 00:21, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Still got a little clean-up to do on the description section. I'll probably put it out for a peer review once I'm done to discuss the conspiracy and copy vio problems.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:35, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:MiGi250vrdk.gif
 Thanks for uploading File:MiGi250vrdk.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:


 * I am a bot, and will therefore will not be able to answer your questions.


 * I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used once again.


 * If you recieved this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.


 * To opt out of these bot messages, add  to somewhere on your talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 07:51, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
dealt with your question on Army of the Danube Auntieruth55 (talk) 00:54, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

USS Maine
Okay, there was nothing wrong with the changes I made... in fact, separating the armor entries for easier reading and adding links where they should be are as helpful as one can get... did you even look at the changes I made? I doubt it, seeing as how the only comment was "not everything has to be abbreviated, ya know"... that may be, but nothing else I did needed to be changed... not that the abbreviations were wrong, either... if one considers that non-abbreviated conversion sequences can strech the page unnecassarily, I'd say that reverting back to them has done more harm than eliminating them did... Magus732 (talk) 03:23, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Coordinator elections have opened!
Voting for the Military history WikiProject coordinator elections has opened; all users are encouraged to participate in the elections. Voting will conclude 23:59 (UTC) on 28 March 2010. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:22, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Lion class battlecruiser
Hello! Your submission of Lion class battlecruiser at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Materialscientist (talk) 08:05, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Koenigsmacker
Thanks for reviewing those articles. I've referenced the cites and found better information on the site's potential use as a park. You'd think as the main location around Thionville for fighting in 1944, it'd be high on the list for public access. While I wouldn't ordinarily rely on a trip report like that found on bunkertours.com, it was written by Nick Catford, a reputable published author on the subject of subterranea.  Acroterion  (talk)  02:27, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

You looking at this?
There's been about 7 billion reviews. I'm going to put it on hold, put only if your actually paying attention. Buggie111 (talk) 13:57, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd actually forgotten about this, but I'll start addressing some of the issues raised now.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:39, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Do 217
Do we have any more Bundes photos for this article? I want to expand it, but pics are lacking. Can anything be done? I have asked two other editors. Dapi89 (talk) 16:25, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I really haven't looked. There might be some that are still unindexed, but I don't know.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:31, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Aviation-related articles
Hi mate, do you think you could assess a couple of articles I have an interest in against the Aviation B-Class criteria, namely Les Holden and Neville McNamara? They're already at B-Class for MilHist but not Aviation, and with the end of the contest round the corner... ;-) By the same token, any of yours still awaiting similar assessment? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:34, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll be happy to take a look, although I've just been matching the MilHist assessment as a cross-assessment as per the last couple of A-class articles I had. I'd appreciate it if you take a look at my ACR WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Sovetsky Soyuz class battleship, particularly if you have any ideas on how to expand the lead.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:12, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Tks buddy, will do. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:55, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you
Thanks.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:59, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

yamato
I've fixed all the issues you brought up at the FAC. Cam (Chat) 19:44, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations!
Thanks!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:59, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

GA Review Jagdgeschwader 11
Hi !

After our last, chat, you had indicated that you intended to start GA Review of this article soon. May I know if there's anything the article needs in terms of the Cites ? I have already removed dead links. Please let me know. '  Perseus 71  talk 19:06, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Can you kindly clarify your thoughts behind the comment indicating no data on losses strength ? There is a notable losses section. I certainly can provide all the documented losses of the unit based Erik Mombeek's well referenced list of MIAs/KIAs. However then someone will raise the point

Quote-- "A list of casualties should only contain notable (i.e. they either have or should have a Wikipedia article about them) casualties. Not everyone who dies in a war is notable (again intending no disrespect to anyone). If a list of all casualties is to be include—which is, in my view, a big if, given that Wikipedia is intended for a general audience—it really should be all casualties, not just the casualties from a particular operation. So in order of my preference:

1. List of Notable casualties only 2. No list (with discussion of notable casualties in the text) 3. List of all casualties, not just some from one operation" --End Quote I have however provided total losses in Operation Bodenplatte. As to German language sources, I have also referenced Miller, David A. "Die Schwertertraeger Der Wehrmacht: Recipients of the Knight's Cross with Oakleaves and Swords" Does that count ? Kindly let me know. '  Perseus 71  talk 20:40, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd like to see unit strengths, losses and claims; the article is a history of the unit, not the aces in the unit. Most of your sources focus on aces, but they're not what this article is about. There's no need for a name-by-name list, but a summary would be damn handy. And by German-language sources I mean Prien's book on JG 1 and 11 and/or the relevant part of Prien's Jagdfliegerverbände der deutschen Luftwaffe 1934-1945, Bd. X which contain this information as MisterBee has already mentioned.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:22, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Your FAs/As
You should add them to WP:SA to go on the front page. I have added the maiden flights of some of the Soviet bombers  YellowMonkey  ( vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll )  03:45, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Re Umberto
Hi Sturm, I added a bit to the article on her peacetime career. Can you make sure the sources are still fine? Also, I found an account of the 1896 fleet maneuvers in the 1897 edition of Brassey's (here). I don't have time to add it to the article myself, so I thought I'd drop you a note about it. This might be useful if you plan on working on the class article as well. Parsecboy (talk) 13:45, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the tip. I really hadn't planned on doing much with these Italian ships, but I'd forgotten that the various Brassey's sometime have decent info on their activities. I've also added some stuff from the Italo-Turkish War that I've found. Could you reassess it since we've dug up at least some pre-WWI material on her? Not sure that there's really enough meat in the Italian Navy chapter to be worth adding to the class article, but I'll have to think about it some more.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:10, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

WikiCup 2010 March newsletter
We're half way through round two, and everything is running smoothly. leads overall with 650 points this round, and heads pool B. currently leads pool C, dubbed the "Group of Death", which has a only a single contestant yet to score this round (the fewest of any group), as well five contestants over 100 points (the most). With a month still to go, as well as 16 wildcard places, everything is still to play for. Anything you worry may not receive the necessary attention before the end of the round (such as outstanding GA or FA nominations) is welcome at WikiCup/Reviews, and please remember to continue offering reviews yourself where possible. As always, the judges are available to contact via email, IRC or their talk pages, and general discussion about the Cup is welcome on the WikiCup talk page.

Although unrelated to the WikiCup, April sees a Good Article Nominations backlog elimination drive, formulated as a friendly competition with small awards, as the Cup is. Several WikiCup contestants and judges have already signed up, but regular reviewers and those who hope to do more reviewing are more than welcome to join at the drive page. If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox, iMatthew and The ed17 Delivered by JCbot (talk) 22:23, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

GA Review of HMS Queen Mary
I shall be undertaking the review of this article against the Good Article criteria, per its nomination for Good Article status. If you have any queries or questions do not hesitate to contact me. ✽ Juniper§ Liege  (TALK)  01:02, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

GA Review of Lion class battlecruiser
I shall be undertaking the review of this article against the Good Article criteria, per its nomination for Good Article status. If you have any queries or questions do not hesitate to contact me. ✽ Juniper§ Liege  (TALK)  03:37, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Congrats again
I look forward to supporting a new good topic at WP:GTC consisting of Lion class battlecruiser, HMS Lion (1910) and HMS Princess Royal (1911) since they are all GAs now. -MBK004 05:09, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll probably wait until the end of the month when I'll need the points more for the WikiCup. But thanks for reminding me.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:53, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Remember that the process takes two weeks from nomination to promotion at a bare minimum. -MBK004 05:14, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, I have not checked the Russian battleships yet, but you've brought enough of them to GA that there ought to be a good topic in there? -MBK004 06:11, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll time it so that they're approved at the beginning of next month. And the Imperator Aleksandr II class articles also qualify.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:06, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

GA Review of French cruiser Pluton
Hmmm.... I could've done all 3 reviews in one notice, anyway: I shall be undertaking the review of this article against the Good Article criteria, per its nomination for Good Article status. If you have any queries or questions do not hesitate to contact me. ✽ Juniper§ Liege  (TALK)  06:17, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Haven't forgotten
... about your copyediting request ... I've got the monthly WP:Update, and I want to make sure not to let any SHIPS articles already at FAC slip through the cracks, then I'll do it, shouldn't be long. - Dank (push to talk) 19:48, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No worries, whenever you get time will be fine.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:28, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

BCT Ground Combat Vehicle
Question:Do I link publishers and companies in the references?

I've clarified the RFP thing and also found an image for IFV. Finding the publishers is proving to be impossible for some.Marcus Aurelius Antoninus (talk) 22:34, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You can link them if you wish, that's certainly not a requirement. Lemme take a look and see what I can find on publishers.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:52, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

HMAS Australia rewrite
In response to your question back in February, I've picked myself up and drafted an expansion of HMAS Australia (1911) in userspace (see User:Saberwyn/HMAS Australia I), which is now as far as I think I can finish it. I don't have much content on the design and characteristics yet, figuring that you knew more than I did on these matters. Would you be able to add this information, and would you prefer to do it before the beast is unleashed on mainspace? -- saberwyn 06:58, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Either way is fine as the mainspace article already has the bulk of the design and characteristics. You've done a magnificent job so even a not quite finished version in mainspace would be a significant improvement over what's currently there. We've still got a bit of editing to do to combine the two as there may be pieces of the mainspace article worth retaining and we need to merge the references and sweat all the little MOS details like capitalization, etc. But perhaps we should do this in your sandbox, now that I think about it, and then merge the two. What do you think?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:10, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Whenever you guys are ready, just ping me and I'll histmerge them. That was a very entertaining read, guys. — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  19:39, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, Saberwyn's extracted far more than I expected from my cursory reading of the Australian official history on its post-Jutland activities. I was honestly expecting to have to let it sit at GA until I (finally) got ahold of Roskill's official history to complete its late-war history. But I think it's pretty much FA-class already. And I love the bit about the monotonous patrols driving a guy insane. Definite DYK material if we meet the 5x criteria, although that seems unlikely given how big the mainspace article already is.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:09, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I think we've covered everything thats in the mainspace atm, and its right to go. Any little fiddles can be done in mainspace, and other editors will be able to highlight any necessary tweaks or errors. As for DYK, I doubt we'd make it :( -- saberwyn 23:39, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I would approve a DYK that has an increase in prose size of 13 -> 41 kB...seems like a good instance to IAR. :-) I'll histmerge it later tonight (after a capture the flag game...unless no one else shows up and we have to cancel). — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  00:58, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I've put it up for GA already and will do a DYK later tomorrow.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:54, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Ed, the DYK's been submitted so jump on it before another editor wastes some time quibbling about the 5x and 5 day requirements.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:32, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The GAR's already been passed (why do I get a picture of slavering editors just waiting to pounce on an innocent GA nom?) and I'm not sure that we're quite ready for an ACR, mainly due to the non-standard layout of the references. I'm not even sure if they meet our own MOS much less than that of the main MOS. I'm not used to seeing citations for Navweps.com in the bibliography rather than in the footnote itself, forex. We could go ahead and start the ACR and let them tell us how to correct it, which would shorten the time, but I tend to prefer to fix things that I know are incorrect myself before exposing them to outside scrutiny. But given that this is the work of one or another of y'all I'll let y'all make the call.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:54, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

That was a very quick review. As for refs: I'm used to keeping all the short-form cites in the body of the article, and the full bibliographic data in the references section, mainly for reasons of consistency. I've also used this overall reference layout in other A and FA class articles without dramas (HMAS Melbourne (R21) and Collins class submarine are two examples). I'd say submit it and see what happens. -- saberwyn 23:37, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll submit it later on tonight.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:40, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * DYK done. Another example of saber's referencing style is 'my' article North Carolina-class battleship. :-) — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  04:24, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for looking after the DYK. I started the ACR, FYI. I guess I'm more used to Parsec's style, rather than y'all's. But whatever works; I'm tired of bouncing at FAC.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:32, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Borodino class GA
Just wanted to let you know I reviewed the article for GA (the review page is here). The only major problem I found was with the images' copyright status. Parsecboy (talk) 21:09, 3 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Any progress on the image situation? It's been a few days so I thought I'd give you a poke :) Parsecboy (talk) 18:43, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

NSW shipwreck template
Hi No Dramas but there is a reply over on my page Best Regards Whodidwhat (talk) 04:46, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Where did I go wrong?
What do I need to do to correctly upload Marcus Aurelius Antoninus (talk) 21:51, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure that you can't. But you can link to it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:12, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations in advance on the award at MILHIST
I was happy to support; I was familiar with the last article and I read over your responses in the two other ACRs. Please let me know if your sources arrived and you want to make another run at FAC for Lion, Sturmvogel, I'd like to give it a once-over, if that's okay with you. (Watching) - Dank (push to talk) 03:34, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to get Roskill until around the end of the month, so feel free to give the Lion article a look over, though Australia is likely to go for FAC sooner as it doesn't need to wait for more sources. Looking over either or both would be appreciated. Just don't delete the hyphen on the names of ship classes; they're all adjectival phrases and need the hyphen. And I disagree with the AP copybook about North-Carolina-class, etc., because that situation is no different than, say, Virginia-class, as the North Carolina in the former is an adjectival phrase, no matter than North is technically an adjective itself.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:43, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You'll probably need consistency at least at FAC; you sometimes do and sometimes don't hyphenate the adjectival class at Sovetsky. I started off assuming this was an easy hyphen question, and the more questions I asked, the harder it got.  I'm waiting on responses at WT:SHIPNAME.  I like to know answers and arguments so I can back you up at FAC if some reviewer challenges you, but I don't personally care whether it's hyphenated or not, I think readers will understand it either way. - Dank (push to talk) 03:55, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I had to go back through and straighten that out after you pointed it out, but it's something I'm looking for now that I'm more aware of it. The only exception is in the lead where is matches the non-hyphenated article title.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:58, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIX (March 2010)
The March 2010 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) 22:40, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

For you

 * Thanks!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:13, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I failed to realize that you had already been awarded this; it was not updated on the nominations page. Consequently, I have deleted my redundant awarding of this award to you, and extend my congrats on you accomplishment. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:07, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
-MBK004 08:36, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

War of the Bavarian Succession again
It's at FAC and could use another pair of eyes and a voice. If you have time. Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:22, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Akagi portside bridge
I read that somewhere else online, about the Akagi and Kaga (and Hiryu and Soryu) being intended to work together, with the Akagi to the starboard of the Kaga, and the Hiryu to the starboard of the Soryu, so that in each case the bridge would be toward the inside of the two carrier formation, to improved visibility of signals, (flags and blinkers) this effect being somewhat accentuated by the Akagi and Hiryu having the funnels, hence smoke, toward the outside of the formation. Of course, to make this really perfect, the Kaga and the Soryu would have had to have had their funnels on their port sides, which they did not. As I mentioned, I read this on some site, and it made perfect sense to me. To be completely honest, I have never really understood the reason you mentioned, about the bridge arrangement improving air traffic patterns. I guess it might, but nobody has told me how that would work, and I can’t surmise how the bridge locations would affect air traffic patterns for good or ill. I could see how the bridge location could affect air traffic patterns on a modern carrier with a slanted flight deck, but don't see how it would affect air traffic on a straight decked carrier.

The computer that I use is shared by a few co workers, and evidently some or at least one of them has posted some vandalism on Wikipedia. That could easily create the impression that I occasionally indulge in vandalism. I don’t, and I have often reverted vandalism when I see it. I may not always be 100 percent right, but I never intentionally put in something wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.30.62.198 (talk) 18:59, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Congrats on A-class!
Now that HMAS Australia (1911) is rated as A-class, I think congratulations are in order. :) -- saberwyn 00:31, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Heck, you did the bulk of the work! I think we can both pat ourselves on the back. Unless you have any objections I'll put it up for FAC in a couple of days.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:08, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * But you do realise its all your fault? :P Give it a week before FAC... I want a friend or two of mine to read it and make sure its understandable by 'normal' people. -- saberwyn 02:30, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Lemme know whenever he's done and I'll submit the nom. I'm in no hurry as I need the point for the next round of the WikiCup.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:37, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
responded to your comments Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:17, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

You beat me to the punch!
I had List of battlecruisers of Russia slowly coming along in my sandbox. you didn't. But heck with it, I love your speed. I'll have to go tag it as u1. And you can create SMS Erzherzog Franz Ferdinand if you want. Buggie111 (talk) 03:24, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, feel free to contribute text as I've hit a bit of writer's block on it. I'm not liable to get to Franz Ferdinand anytime soon as I'm away from my sources at the moment. I might do the Regia Elenas to a basic level just to get rid of the redlinks, but nothing else is planned.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:00, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Talk:BCT Ground Combat Vehicle Program/GA1
Hey. Could this be looked at and any final comments made? Looks like work is being/has been done but I'm seeing little activity on that page, so I can't tell how close it is to passing. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 15:42, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

HMS New Zealand (1911) GAN
Have you thought about nominating this? I've looked at it, and it seems on par with Indefatigable. You'll get ( another... ) good topic if it passes and the GTC passes. Buggie111 (talk) 13:19, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I have plans for it once I get the RN's official history. There were a lot of issues brought up during the PR that I need to address. Australia had a lot of information available from their own history so I didn't need to wait. All of my other British articles are pretty much on hold because I won't know the ships' post-Jutland activities until I get a hold of the official history.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:35, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Pe-3
Comments left for you on the Petlyakov Pe-3 talk page. Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:55, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Talk page length
Your talk page is getting pretty large again. Time for another archive? -MBK004 04:33, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Habsburg class GANs
Hey there. I think I've covered your concerns on that page. Check it out and verify please. Buggie111 (talk) 02:40, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Update. Everything is fixed besides the article name for the living age magazine, and that sohuld be done this night. Promote?

Thanks for Reviewing my other article!
Thank you very much for reviewing Organization of the Luftwaffe. '  Perseus 71  talk 04:02, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
— Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  05:58, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

GAN backlog elimination drive - 1 week to go
–MuZemike delivered by MuZebot 16:24, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Soviet cruiser Kaganovich
The article Soviet cruiser Kaganovich 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 seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Soviet cruiser Kaganovich for things which need to be addressed. Pyrotec (talk) 11:55, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:35.5cmHaubitzeM1Assembly.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:35.5cmHaubitzeM1Assembly.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:29, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:835cmPLKvz22.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:835cmPLKvz22.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:22, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:8cmPLKvz37 02.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:8cmPLKvz37 02.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:34, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:9cmPLKvz20.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:9cmPLKvz20.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:26, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Gan for SMS Brandenberg, SMS Arpad and SMS Habsburg
Sorry if you id not see this last time, but all issues in the article bar the article name of The Lving Age ref hae been fixed. Please reasses. Buggie111 (talk) 23:50, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Either provide the article's title and author, or delete the fact that the incomplete citation supports. A reader needs to be able to find the article and they can't do it with the information provided. Plus there is still the awkward wording issue about the engines, etc., that I noted earlier that needs to be cleaned up.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:37, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I've found a different ref for the fact, and I thought NielsenGW took care of the akward wording, there's no tag there. Buggie111 (talk) 14:02, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:ACh-30Bdieselengine.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:ACh-30Bdieselengine.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:39, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
Marcus Aurelius Antoninus (talk) 20:08, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Talkback at HAbsburg GA review
Buggie111 (talk) 02:17, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Habsburg class battleship nominations
I've fixed SMS Arpad and SMS Babenberg to the standards of Habsburg. Care to check if they meet your expectations?

Cheers, Buggie111 (talk) 03:48, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Working my way through them now. Found one problem with Arpad already. You guys really need to watch your citations.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:50, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

WikiCup 2010 April newsletter
Round two is over, and we are down to our final 32. For anyone interested in the final standings (though not arranged by group) this page has been compiled. Congratulations to, our clear overall round winner, and to and , who were solidly second and third respectively. There were a good number of high scorers this round- competition was certainly tough! Round three begins tomorrow, but anything promoted after the end of round two is eligible for points. 16 contestants (eight pool leaders and eight wildcards) will progress to round four in two months- things are really starting to get competitive. Anything you worry may not receive the necessary attention before the end of the round (such as outstanding GA or FA nominations) is welcome at WikiCup/Reviews, and please remember to continue offering reviews yourself where possible. As always, the judges are available to contact via email, IRC or their talk pages, and general discussion about the Cup is welcome on the WikiCup talk page.

Judge iMatthew has retired from Wikipedia, and we wish him the best. The competition has been ticking over well with minimal need for judge intervention, so thank you to everyone making that possible. A special thank you goes to participants and  for their help in preparing for round three. Good luck everyone! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox and The ed17 17:39, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your participation in the April 2010 GAN backlog elimination drive
–MuZemike delivered by MuZebot 17:43, 1 May 2010 (UTC)