User talk:The Bushranger/Archive 2

USS Recruit (TDE-1) ("USS Neversail")
Thanks for letting me know about the new page. I notice that the USS Recruit DAB page says there were three ships by this name, but it lists only two. Wasn't there an earlier non-ship also named the Recruit? Do you have any information about her? --MelanieN (talk) 14:41, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * According to a comment (invisible comment) at Naval Training Center San Diego, there was an earlier one built in New York. I remember that because it punctured my original claim, for the "Did you know..." item, that the Recruit at NTCSD was the Navy's first "non-ship". --MelanieN (talk) 14:58, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll be darned - she actually has a Wikipedia page already! Who knew! Should be possible to delete that "orphan" tag, don't you think? --MelanieN (talk) 15:08, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * By the way, did you nominate this page, USS Recruit (TDE-1), for a "Did you know...?" If not, I will. --MelanieN (talk) 14:39, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * They like to have something intriguing or offbeat for DYKs. How about "Did you know... that the training ship USS Recruit at Naval Training Center San Diego was also known as "Building 430"? --MelanieN (talk) 14:42, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Rules, rules! My attitude is IAR. But check how much you expanded it from the original listing, maybe it would qualify under the five-fold rule. --MelanieN (talk) 14:49, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Count it again, I just padded it a little 0;-D and added a reference or two. --MelanieN (talk) 17:02, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination of USS Recruit (1917)
Hello! Your submission of USS Recruit (1917) 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! PleaseStand (talk) 22:23, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * My mistake. Approved and responded at User talk:PleaseStand. PleaseStand (talk) 22:52, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Nice job with this writeup! Very interesting article. I do wonder what became of her. Scrap wood for people's furnaces, you think? --MelanieN (talk) 01:06, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, now that you've done all this research and found out that she may NOT have actually moved to Coney Island, or that nobody knows what became of her, you might want to update the information at USS Recruit, which currently says:"USS Recruit (1917), a wooden "battleship" built in New York City's Union Square in 1917 as a recruiting tool, moved to Coney Island in 1920." I recently updated the same article to reflect the current status of USS Recruit (TDE-1). --MelanieN (talk) 01:14, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Oooh, and looky what else I found! It turns out that United States Naval Training Center, Bainbridge also had a "non-ship," the "R.T.S. Commodore, a relatively large ship built on dry land." Wanna run with this one too? --MelanieN (talk) 01:22, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, that is a challenging assignment, isn't it? I added a trivial amount of information to the new page but was unable to find any new facts - not even when the ship was constructed or whether she still stands. (My hunch is no, since I gather most of the Navy buildings have been demolished.) I dropped a note to the Bainbridge Development Corporation to see if they can tell me anything - at the very least, whether she still exists or not. --MelanieN (talk) 14:43, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I got this reply:
 * "Hi Melanie,
 * The ship you are speaking of the "Never Sail" was dismantled and movedwhen the Navy left the property in the 1970's. Not sure what happened to it but you may be able to find it through this website, http://usntcb.org/
 * I have attached a picture of it for you, good luck on your research.
 * Deborah"
 * The website is no help, but I will put into the article the information that the ship was dismantled. --MelanieN (talk) 02:48, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * BTW I mentioned to my husband that we had found so many of these that there was now a category for landships; he wondered if they had to look out for landsharks! --MelanieN (talk) 03:12, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Brazilian battleship Riachuelo
It's another sub-stub, this time created by WP:NEWT, at DYK. Pass? Buggie111 (talk) 03:33, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Aero-engine Task Force
I don't know if you've had a chance to check it out yet, but WikiProject Aircraft/Engines might fall within your areas of interests. - BilCat (talk) 09:57, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Heh, it certainly does, thanks. Once I get done with the recategorisation project (well, the big parts done) I might sign up and work on some of those (the Lycoming IO-720, oddly, has always been a favourite...) - The Bushranger (talk) 12:21, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for your comments on the hook at Template_talk:Did_you_know for Everybody Draw Mohammed Day. You are correct in that the article meets the criteria for DYK, the hook is verifiable, and should be promoted as a DYK. Thank you for your time. -- Cirt (talk) 15:50, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

DYK
Thanks for your comment on my DYK nom of Parker Watkins Hardin. I hope my comments on the nomination page have clarified things. Please let me know if they have not. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 16:51, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Metropolitan Block
I've responded at T:TDYK; hopefully issues are resolved. Thanks for the note. Nyttend (talk) 18:08, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : L (April 2010)
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:36, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Russian Air Force
Thanks for your contributions regarding the new roundel. However the discussion on the talkpage at the moment does not seem to make clear whether the three-colour design has actually been accepted, or rejected, by the Federation Council. Please check what the actual official status is and cite your sources before making any further edits on this. Cheers and thanks, Buckshot06 (talk) 11:04, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Failing to tag categories before speedy rename proposals
Greetings. Recently you proposed for speedy rename several nuclear weapon related categories, which were subsequently renamed.

The CFD speedy policy says, in part:

"Tag category with new name and list on WP:CFDS."

As far as I can tell, in your contributions history (including deleted contributions for the now deleted old names), you have not tagged any of the categories you recently (last 2 weeks) nominated for speedy rename.

I don't want to be a legalistic policy wonk, but the notifications establish a warning to people working on projects, so that we're aware of the proposals and can see and comment if we have any input. Merely tagging stuff on the CFDS page without notifying anyone else is denying others the reasonable chance to review and comment prior to actions being taken. It's essentially being excessively BOLD by robot proxy.

The particulars of those renames seem acceptable and appropriate to me - I don't object to that - but if this HAD been a case where the project people working in that area objected, you'd now be in hot water for the lack of notification.

Can you PLEASE try to consistently tag appropriately when you make nominations, to avoid this sort of confusion and potential post-facto objections?

Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:52, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * * blush* I realised I'd been missing that this morning. I made sure I tagged the categories I did this morning, and, from now on, will make a point of always doing so. Thanks for the reminder, and my apologies for slipping up 'till now. - The Bushranger Return fire Flank speed 20:36, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Cool. Thanks!  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:39, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Fair use
Given, I'd like to ask you how you feel that the image meets WP:NFC #1, since there was more than one of the aircraft produced and it is absolutely possible to take a picture of another airframe, as well as #8, since it is not mentioned in any commentary whatsoever, as well as how it meets WP:NFCI #5, since it is not the subject of critical commentary or discussion about the movie? Thanks, -- Terrillja talk  21:53, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * 

DYK for USS Recruit (TDE-1)
The DYK project (nominate) 00:03, 8 May 2010 (UTC)


 * That's interesting! about the plaque saying there were three. Of course some of the information on that plaque is incorrect (such as it having been the Navy's ONLY commissioned ship never to reach water) so it might not be true - but still it's intriguing. I'll keep looking. --MelanieN (talk) 14:43, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You don't suppose they were talking about the "USS Enterprise" at Recruit Training Command, Great Lakes, Illinois, do you? It is purely a building - a barracks in fact - but is named and commissioned like a ship. "These barracks are notable for being the first time the Navy has included the USS initialism in the name of a building, and for the ship-like commissioning ceremonies." I doubt if that's it, because the plaque says "three similar structures." --MelanieN (talk) 14:55, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * BTW did you see that we got 4.3K hits with this DYK? Not a hall-of-famer but not bad. --MelanieN (talk) 16:18, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Grumman XTSF
Hi Bushranger. I've suggested an alt for this articles DYK (just so you know). With regards to the B-class assessment you've requested, the only thing I think I'd like to see is a clearer ref for the last sentence of the lead. I'm guessing its already covered in the last few refs, but if it could be a tiny bit clearer that would be better. The lead is a bit short - although I appreciate its a short article (but if you could extend it by a sentence or two that would be excellent). Cheers, Ranger Steve (talk) 17:35, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the hook suggestion, I tweaked it in an alternate manner but it looks better, thanks for the prod. On the article, I've expanded and referenced the intro - how does it look now? Thanks for the feedback! - The Bushranger Return fire Flank speed 17:41, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Good idea for the DYK. Looks fine for B- class - of course it was only after I went to the discussion page that I saw it was a GA nom too! If I get time later I might be able to do that, but I'll have to see. Ranger Steve (talk) 17:57, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Cool, thanks! Figured I'd shoot for GA, seeing as I think essentially all sources on it have been mined. Obscure aircraft like this I find quite intriguing. - The Bushranger Return fire Flank speed 19:42, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi!
Hello! I saw that you can help me, so i write to you! I nominate DYK here under Museum of Vuk and Dositej, but as this is my first nomination, i just want to know is it good, and what else can i do about it to be good. Can you advice me? :) All best! -- Tadijaspeaks 20:49, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Glad to be able to help! :) You did great. The hook needed just a little modification for better English grammar, but that was a mere quibble. Great work! - The Bushranger Return fire Flank speed 20:55, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * OO, cool! Thank you very much! I am happy! Can i do something more now? Or it is up to admins now? :) -- Tadijaspeaks 20:59, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, now you wait for somebody to select your article for a DYK queue. It's not up to admins, anybody can prepare a queue - however, it is, as a rule, discouraged to select your own hooks when preparing one. But not to worry, once it's approved, it will run eventually, before too long! - The Bushranger Return fire Flank speed 21:08, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Aaa, cool. Thanks, then, i am finished for now. So, until next DYK, be good, and thanks! :) -- Tadijaspeaks 21:10, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Re:
Thanks! I stole my Dad's issue of Classic Trains today when I visited him, which is the only reason I was able to write it. ;) — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  22:20, 9 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Quick question: would you be able to check T:TDYK for me? Thanks! — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  01:40, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Consider it done! :) - The Bushranger Return fire Flank speed 01:43, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you! BTW, I can't read Japanese either; I used Google Translate. ;-) — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  01:56, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

FPC Nomination
Hi there! I just wanted to let you know that I closed your nomination, Featured picture candidates/Diamond T-52A, as "not promoted" per WP:SNOW. We welcome your contributions to WP:FPC, and you're encouraged to nominate more images. If you'd like, you can ask experienced users to review images at picture peer review. Thanks for your participation, and I hope to see you around! :)  Jujutacular  T · C 07:16, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Article Nomination
Hi Bushranger, I just wanted to thank you for your approval of Manatee Palms Youth Services for a nominated "did you know" article. Do you know when it will be featured on the home page? I love editing wikipedia! Thx for your help. :) Tkfy7cf (talk) 17:53, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your response! You're a great helper! Tkfy7cf (talk) 13:59, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Hans Multhopp
Re: "I was just going by what was on his wiki page with the Paperclip reference - I guess that's wrong, then? Ouch. - The Bushranger Return fire Flank speed 00:45, 12 May 2010 (UTC)"
 * Yup, fanciful but completely fabricated; Myhra even has a photo of Multhopp at the RAE in 1947, in his book Focke Wulf Ta 183 (1999). FWiW, Multhopp's work at the Martin Company is well documented so that nonsensical Wiki article needs some drastic surgery! Bzuk (talk) 02:53, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Following up, both Kurt Tank and Hans Multhopp were prescient enough to have bargained in early 1945 for future concessions with the Allied forces that were about to overrun the Focke Wulf works. Tank cut a deal with the Russians, received a stipend but reneged and approached the British, who were reluctant to employ such a well-known figure. With the recriminations of hiring a "Nazi" (neither Tank nor Multhopp were rabid Nazis), Tank was approached by agents of Perón and struck a bargain to deliver almost the entire design team to Argentina. Multhopp chose not to go along partly because of the uncertainty of what awaited in Latin America, but mainly he sought a chance to "move out of the shadow" of Tank and thought he could get a better position by negotiating directly with the British. He was sought after by others but the Royal Aircraft Establishment at Farnborough gave him the opportunity to continue his innovative work on high-speed aircraft. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 03:05, 12 May 2010 (UTC).
 * Interesting, thanks. I see you fixed up the article a bit already, too. It's frustrating finding errors like that - but also neat to find this "side information" when working on stuff! - The Bushranger Return fire Flank speed 14:07, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Multhopp's connection to Petter's work is very tenuous as the original RAE studies for high-speed aircraft bear a similiarity in wing planform to the later Petter wing designs used in the P.1 and that has led to the "leap-of-logic" that authors such as David Myhra, author of Focke Wulf Ta 183 (1999) have transposed to Multhopp's work. Myhra was also the originator of the "if it looks like the Ta 183 than the MiG-15 must have been a copy of the Ta 183." This claim has been hotly disputed by many other researchers, but the supposition still has a determined longevity. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:21, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed. That old canard crops up a lot, doesn't it? (Along with the whole "German Uberweapons" thing, but that's another kettle of lutefisk.) - The Bushranger Return fire Flank speed 20:36, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Manatee Palms dequeued
Hey there Bushranger, someone dequeued the Manatee Palms article an hour before launch because someone nominated another article of mine for DYK. Can you assist?Tkfy7cf (talk) 08:14, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * BR, read WT:DYK first — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  08:15, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Just a note for you


FWiW, the amount of work and persistence that you exhibited in taking the lead on bringing the FMA IAe 33 Pulqui II to GA status, was exemplary. It was a pleasure to work with you and I look forward to many more exchanges "across the wires."Bzuk (talk) 13:36, 13 May 2010 (UTC).

Manatee Palms
Bushranger, can you please verify the Manatee Palms article again so we can launch it? Thanks so much.Tkfy7cf (talk) 17:16, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I've added/fixed the references, it should be good now. - The Bushranger Return fire Flank speed 19:04, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Can you give it a go once more? I'm sorry for this unusual trouble.Tkfy7cf (talk) 02:44, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No worries. :) I'll give it a look over when I get the chance. - The Bushranger Return fire Flank speed 02:45, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much, I really appreciate it. Tkfy7cf (talk) 03:28, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Cmadler has said that he will requeue the article once it is approved through DYK. Could you please approve it so that he can requeue it? Thanks. Tkfy7cf (talk) 04:28, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Glad to be able to help. Consensus seems to be the history section needs expansion before approval, though. - The Bushranger Return fire Flank speed 14:07, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The article's history section has been substantially updated and should be sufficient. Can you please approve the article?Tkfy7cf (talk) 03:51, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Unfortunatly, There's still discussion going on about the hook and article at WT:DYK, and approving it at this point wouldn't be advisable until that's all settled... - The Bushranger Return fire Flank speed 04:06, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Bushranger, thanks for your comment re: Manatee Palms. Please see my recent comment at DYK:talk. Thanks - Tkfy7cf (talk) 04:50, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

SECAT S5 : Wikiwings
Hello Bushranger! It was very kind of you to award me my 'wings'. They will certainly encourage me to try to find some more 'new' (old) aircraft types to contribute to Wikipedia! I had noticed your valuable additions to the SECAT S5 article - partly using a copy of 'Janes'. I'm afraid that a copy of that annual 'Bible' does not reside in my fairly modest reference library! Sincerely RuthAS (talk) 21:30, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You're welcome, and thanks for the compliment. :) Alas, I don't have any dead-tree copies of Jane's myself, but that particular tidbit for the ref was visible in the snippet of the book Google Books provided (alas, they don't feature the whole book, more's the pity!) - The Bushranger Return fire Flank speed 02:50, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

My DYK
I was wondering if you could take a look at my DYK for Recast under May 9. If you don't want to look at it, I understand and sorry for bugging you. Joe Chill (talk) 21:42, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * P.S.: If you don't want to, can you at least tell me how I can remove the red link category? (It doesn't appear when I click on edit this page). Joe Chill (talk) 21:42, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No worries, I'll have a look at both issues. Glad to help! - The Bushranger Return fire Flank speed 21:57, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe the redlink category is part of the infobox template. The only way to be rid of it would be to delete the infobox, or the release date. Perhaps the relevant Wikiproject could take a look at editing the template syntax? - The Bushranger Return fire Flank speed 21:57, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I wouldn't have asked for you to review it if the only ones that were being reviewed where the ones that I didn't create. I find that weird. If only there was more DYK reviewers (sigh). Joe Chill (talk) 22:00, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Sometimes that happens. There is a bit of a backlog building up, isn't there? There's discussion about switching back to a 6-hour DYK cycle to help clear it out. - The Bushranger Return fire Flank speed 22:03, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll voice my opinion there. Joe Chill (talk) 22:04, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

OMT DYKs
Please do not add DYKs to the actual panels for display on the portal. Instead, please list them in the holding area on the talk page. The reason for this is that I have been very meticulous in choosing enough variety in the hooks on each pane. While your addition this hook will stand since it is within the variety I was striving for, I had no idea of its addition until I went to add a fourth hook to the panel only to discover that someone had already added a fourth. Thanks for your cooperation, -MBK004 02:47, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Aha. Thanks for the correction, I'll keep that in mind from now on. I guess I should ask around a bit more sometimes, eh? Sorry to have slipped! - The Bushranger Return fire Flank speed 02:48, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, although the adage that it is better to ask for forgiveness than permission does aptly apply. Also, I should be more specific, the holding area is on the portal's talk page not the DYK archive talk page: Portal_talk:Battleships -MBK004 02:52, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Cantonalist... no Carlist
In the article Spanish ship Duque de Tetuán (1874), the old Armoured frigate (ironclad) Tetuan, was captured by Cantonalist in de Cantonalism revolution; no for Carlist, and fought in the Portman naval combat, betwen centralist an cantonalist scuadrons [http://www.ciere.org/CUADERNOS/art%2062/Art.%202.htm APORTACIÓN A LA HISTORIA DEL REPUBLICANISMO Y EL FEDERALISMO ESPAÑOL DEL SIGLO XIX. (in spanish)].

(sorry for my short english) Takashi Kurita ~ Hablame compañero 07:41, 14 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Takashi kurita (talk • contribs)
 * Thanks for the clarification, the sources I had in the quick skim I could give them, confused me a bit. I'll edit. Thanks much!


 * Another question.... Duque de Tetuán (1874) no was built in Cartagena.... was built in Ferrol (references in spanish article)
 * [[Image:Naval jack of Spain.svg|18px]] Takashi Kurita ~ Hablame compañero 15:13, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * A reference I found said Cartagena, but I wondered. I'll edit, thanks! - The Bushranger Return fire Flank speed 16:24, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Avro Canada CF-103
Albeit proceeding to the mock-up stage, the CF-103 was essentially a moribund project that some historians have misconstrued as a legitimate contender for production. Instead, it was an example of the Design Office embarking on a marketing campaign without letting the Production and Flight Test section in on the "fun." While the company was fully occupied in resolving serious design flaws in the pre-production CF-100 fighter, the Chief Designer who was brought into the project at an 11th hour, wanted to fundamentally change the entire design. What he had not contended with was the inherent strength and design potential in the original airframe that allowed the aircraft to be dived at supersonic speeds. With the Design Office telling test pilots that the Mach 0.85 speed was not to be exceeded, the Chief Development Test Pilot had already found that the aircraft slipped easily past the sound barrier in a prolonged dive from 33,000 ft. Despite the thick, straight wing, the CF-100 proved to be the first of its type to fly at supersonic speeds, although it could not fly faster than 640 mph in level speed. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 00:00, 15 May 2010 (UTC).
 * In his biography, S/L Janusz Żurakowski revealed that rather than being praised for his "supersonic" feat, he found that he was admonished by the Design Office, whose principals had promoted the CF-103 as an alternate to the CF-100. The project was "under wraps" and Żurakowski was completely unaware of the existence of the mock-up, housed in the experimental bay at Avro Canada. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 00:28, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:RB
You qualify! Buggie111 (talk) 13:58, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Awesome! Thanks for pointing that out! - The Bushranger Return fire Flank speed 14:08, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Duque de Tetuan
Don't bother trying to get ahold of Conway's 1860-1905; it's useless for this ship. All it has is a one-line note: "Duque de Tetuan, a 700t floating battery built at Ferrol in 1874, armed with 1-6.2in and 4-4.7in." It doesn't even have it's own heading, it's stuck in a note along with the monitor Puigcerda towards the end of the "Armoured Ships" section. Parsecboy (talk) 14:27, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah...thanks. Finding stuff about DdT seems to be like pulling teeth! - The Bushranger Return fire Flank speed 22:23, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, a lot of these obscure ships are pretty thin on information. I'm a little concerned about getting the individual Kaiser-class battleship articles up to GA, myself. Parsecboy (talk) 03:07, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I've got three book refs for them, and some web ones. Google Books may help. Yet me know if any other porblems are encountered. Buggie111 (talk) 03:21, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Err, I meant Kaiser Friedrich III-class battleship, the dreadnought Kaisers will be a piece of cake Parsecboy (talk) 20:34, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Is there a reference anywhere for the reuse of armour plate in DdT, at least? That's the only thing keeping that article from B-class. - The Bushranger Return fire Flank speed 05:35, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Nothing on the armor yet, but check this out; seems the ship took part in a battle off Cartagena in 1874. Parsecboy (talk) 11:41, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Nothing for me either. This is not really promising. Buggie111 (talk) 13:57, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I found that reference about the battle off Cartegena; however, it conflicts with the other references I can find. I think the ship referred to there is actually the "other"/older Tetuán, the armoured frigate that preceded DdT. As for the Admirals...ouch. These older ships can be quite frustrating, can't they? - The Bushranger Return fire Flank speed 16:24, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I wondered, given that the battle took place the same year the ship was commissioned. Yeah, the older ships that were obsolete by WWI but built too late for any of the naval fighting in the 19th century are really tough to flesh out. Parsecboy (talk) 20:34, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Materialscientist's Wikiquette alert
Bushranger, thanks for your help on this Manatee Palms brouhaha. Please review this request for intervention on the Wikiquette alerts page. Honestly, I am a new user and I thought Wikipedia editors would be more welcoming and kind. Tkfy7cf (talk) 07:03, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

More landships?
Wow, that's interesting! Good sleuthing! I'll see if I can find anything about those two ships, the Marlinspike and the Bluejet. Hmmm, so that sould make the historical placque inaccurate; it says Recruit was one of three, but counting Commodore there would now be four. You found two references about the one at Orlando so you can probably create something about that - if the Wikifolks would accept those as "reliable sources". I do wonder about the accuracy of the stuff reported secondhand from Ryan - himself a local San Diego travel guy rather than a military historian. For example he says the ships were "built after the Second World War," but according to this, the Orlando Naval Training Center wasn't even established until the early 1960s; prior to that it was an Army air station. As for more informaiton about the Bluejet, chances are there are some documents, somewhere in the City of Orlando archives, that establish "existing conditions" when they took over the base, and it might include an inventory of what was there. I'll explore that angle. --MelanieN (talk) 16:53, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * P.S. Reading that City of Orlando page, it appears that they demolished everything that had been on the NTC property before redeveloping it. --MelanieN (talk) 16:59, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Here's a bigger and possibly more rewarding project for you: there is no Wikipedia page about Naval Training Center Orlando, 1968 - 1999. There are just a few sentences about NTC Orlando at the page Orlando Executive Airport. For that matter there is also no page about Orlando Army Air Base/Orlando Air Force Base. Orlando Army Air Base redirects to Orlando Executive Airport. There is a page about McCoy Air Force Base which became Orlando International Airport. I don't think McCoy was the same as Orlando Army Air Base but I could be wrong. --MelanieN (talk) 17:22, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

A1 (Croatia)
Hi! Thanks for your feedback on A1 (Croatia) as well as grammar corrections. I'll be sure to expand the short subsections you have pointed out and get back to you as soon as there is some progress in that respect. As far as 380 km figure for Zagreb - Split distance is concerned, the figure appears in a PDF referenced by the article, in Croatian Motorways website, and of course as chainage to Dugopolje interchange (Split exit). Anyway thank you for constructive advice and encouragement! --Tomobe03 (talk) 03:26, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The short subsections have been expanded. --Tomobe03 (talk) 01:03, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Glad to be able to help! I'll see about giving the article a looking over at some point tonight. :) - The Bushranger Return fire Flank speed 01:04, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your review. I've never submitted anything for DYK before, so I'm new to this. Could you please help and tell me what should I do next? --Tomobe03 (talk) 14:12, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, now, you wait until somebody selects the hook to put in the queue for an appearance in DYK. That's up to the people who compile the lists, so it could take a while, but it will eventually wind up in DYK. :) - The Bushranger Return fire Flank speed 14:14, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

tx
for your note at dyk about the lede.--Epeefleche (talk) 14:44, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Could you look at this DYK?
I've been involved today in reviewing this DYK nomination for D. Iacobescu. The article's pretty good but there are technical problems with the hook. However, when trying to communicate with the author I've had nothing but grief, abuse, and page-long diatribes. I'm withdrawing from the nom because it's not worth the hassle but it might be something that could easily be solved by the intervention of a neutral third party, especially as in principle the article is suitable for DYK, it's just a hook issue. Thanks. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:00, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, good grief. What sound and fury... Anyway, sorry you had to go through all that. I'll take a look (and I have one or two issues with that hook myself...) - The Bushranger Return fire Flank speed 13:14, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * And I guess I will never get apologies for the misrepresentation above and throughout these discussions... Bushranger, in the future, please do me the favor of not acting on DustFormsWords' emotions. Particularly when s/he claims "grief, abuse and page-long diatribes" can be found in messages s/he stated she did not even read. Incidentally, the issues were subtle, the explanation needed to be thorough - which prevented neither of you from claiming that there were still issues with the hook (and not even the same issues). I deserve at least the benefit of the doubt, as a long-time editor of good standing, and as one who just happened to be right in this case. The only reason why I spent more time on this issue is the hope of preventing similar incidents. Dahn (talk) 23:44, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I appreciate that. Sorry for revisiting the issue, but the above exchange looked to me like the kind of dialogue that would lead to a label placed on me for no reason at all (in what was already a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation for me). I tend to avoid disputes myself, but I looked on the DYK objections as a matter of principle - a subtle principle no less: questionable requests for sources, purely guided by a reader's subjectivity or a literalist interpretation of DYK requirements, have dramatic consequences on an article's coherence. Regards, Dahn (talk) 00:48, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

DYK
How is it unclear? The source is here: http://biostor.org/reference/49. Joe Chill (talk) 15:42, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * replied on DYK page. - The Bushranger Return fire Flank speed 15:50, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Elena Myers DYK
Do you mind if I bump Elena Myers to Prep Extra -- I don't think we should have two sportspeople leads in a row, and I didn't think there was anything wrong with my lead choice? Espresso Addict (talk) 15:44, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Cheers! I agree it's not the world's best picture, but the articles are strong, IMO, & it reduces the bias towards US/UKism, a frequent moan on talk main page. Espresso Addict (talk) 15:58, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I have a tendency to jump on the few non US/UK hooks where the article doesn't need a heavy copy edit. Espresso Addict (talk) 16:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Sovetsky Soyuz class battleship
Yeah, but Sturm really prefers the hyphen. (Watching) - Dank (push to talk) 19:51, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah. Punctuation, it's so much fun, isn't it? :P My concern was just getting rid of the extra battleship links, which seemed a tad superfluous. - The Bushranger Return fire Flank speed 22:55, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Oops! I didn't notice that. - Dank (push to talk) 23:04, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No worries! It took me awhile to learn how to use sclass but once I did, I discovered it's quite the nifty little template. - The Bushranger Return fire Flank speed 23:07, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

DYK for two french generals
I did submit them, as suggested (well you suggested the one, and I added Michel Ordener). Would you take a look and see if I did it right (and used the proper hook). I'm not very good on hooks. Auntieruth55 (talk) 00:23, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * They can be a bit hard to come up with sometimes. They look good, although I might suggest an alternate for one. :) - The Bushranger Return fire Flank speed 00:29, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * feel free to do so. I also added Etienne Hastrel de Rivedoux. I've been busy over the last couple of days, trying to fill in some red links from Army of the Danube order of battle. Auntieruth55 (talk) 00:37, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * would you check the dyk on Etienne Hastrel de Rivedoux? May 19 I think. Auntieruth55 (talk) 00:21, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * consider it done! - The Bushranger Return fire Flank speed 00:31, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Duque de Tetuan-Armoured Frigate Tetuán
Armor Question:


 * Coello Lillo, Juan Luis, Rodríguez González,Agustín Ramón y Rodríguez González, Agustín
 * Buques de la Armada Española: A través de la fotografía (1849-1900)
 * 2001
 * publisher: Agualarga
 * Madrid
 * ISBN 9788495088376
 * page 80

Takashi Kurita ~ Hablame compañero 08:00, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I see you asked too about "battle in Cartagena"; in this battle (Combate naval de Portmán), fighted the old armoured frigate Tetuán with other 2 armoured frigates and 1 paddle steam (cantonalist squadron), against 1 armoured frigate, 3 screew wooden frigate, 2 paddle steam, and 2 screw schooner (governmental squadron): Combate naval de Portmán.


 * command in the cantonalist squadron, was the general Juan Contreras y San Román ; command in the governmental squadron, was the rear admiral Miguel Lobo y Malagamba


 * [[Image:Naval jack of Spain.svg|18px]] Takashi Kurita ~ Hablame compañero 10:20, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


 * If you need more help with spanish ships.... tell me... ;)
 * [[Image:Naval jack of Spain.svg|18px]] Takashi Kurita ~ Hablame compañero 14:15, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Article says: was decommissioned and struck from the official strength of the Armada by 1897,[7] and the ship was sold for scrap in 1900.

but was recomisionated in 1898 when start de 1898 war betwen USA and Spain; her missión: Ferrol defense and denonate electrical mines Latimer Clark (12) and Mathieson (4);

see reference nº5 in Duque de Tetuán (batería flotante) if USA atacks Ferrol

Takashi Kurita ~ Hablame compañero 14:51, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

F+W C-3605
Hello there! I came across F+W C-3605 at DYK and have subsequently done a bit of work on the article lead. It seemed strange to me that it was a couple of lines (and 34 words) before I found out that this article is about an aircraft! I've re-written the lead so that a reader finds out what they are reading about as soon as possible (which I think is good encyclopedic practice). As you have been the only previous contributor so far I thought I would let you know so you can check over the changes and tweak/alter as necessary. Any problems let me know. Thanks! Nick Ottery (talk) 11:59, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for cleaning that up! Intros are something I have difficulty with sometimes, so thanks muchly for your help. It looks a lot better now! - The Bushranger Return fire Flank speed 12:54, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You're welcome! Glad to be of some help. Nick Ottery (talk) 13:53, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Appendicies
Following your comments at the Featured Article review for HMAS Australia (1911) regarding the layout of the footnotes/refs/appendicies sections, I did a little bit of playing around and tweaked the layout slightly. What do you think? -- saberwyn 02:42, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks much better now, I think! Smooth and easy on the eye. :) - The Bushranger Return fire Flank speed 14:15, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Weird page
Bushranger, could you please take a look at this page: (A Good Year) and tell me what's wrong with it? Thanks. Tkfy7cf (talk) 09:47, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey Bushranger... I am attaching an image of what I am speaking of... it's seen in firefox. Tkfy7cf (talk) 13:41, 25 May 2010 (UTC) 150px|
 * ...you mean how the transwiki and category links are piled up at the top there? o.O Weird...- The Bushranger Return fire Flank speed 13:43, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it seems to be solely a firefox issue. I wonder what's causing it. Tkfy7cf (talk) 14:46, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No idea. I vaguely recall there might be somehing about the new skin that lets you select to make it do that? Or is it only doing that on that page? Makes me glad I use IE and the old skin... - The Bushranger Return fire Flank speed 14:47, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Reshadieh
Thanks for your fixes. Could you review it at WP:MHAR? Buggie111 (talk) 20:25, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Done! :) - The Bushranger Return fire Flank speed 20:26, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, looks like I was a bit too late. Could you do Ottoman battleship Abdul Kadir please, and tel me if either are GAn able? Buggie111 (talk) 20:27, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Impero
What do you think it needs before a GA? Buggie111 (talk) 04:08, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, first the references need some work - there's three sources mentioned in the inline citations, but only one in the bibliography? After that, I'd suggest finding a way to expand the 'History' section - background on the design is reasonable, I think, especially as it's a deritive of the VV-class design (and thus a lot of design stuff would/will be in the class article), but the history seems a little short (what causes was the steel needed for that led to her planned scrapping befor the bombers got her? Panzers? Aircraft? Was there any discussion of using her hulk for something other than razor blades after the war? That kinda thing.) - The Bushranger Return fire Flank speed 13:20, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Couldn't find a lot. Check it out now. Buggie111 (talk) 14:52, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I changed the wording a bit so it reads better. It still looks a bit skimpy to me (not that I have any room to talk!), but if there's not much more that can be said, well, there's not much more that can be said, I reckon. - The Bushranger Return fire Flank speed 14:55, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Garzke and Dulin's Axis and Neutral Battleships has a section on her. — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  15:28, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Re: Stubs on aircraft articles
You are correct that the template is technically not a stub template (it is closer to Expand section) and it does not affect the measurement of readable prose. That being said, it still presents a problem for DYK as it gives the appearance that the article is missing significant information in violation of additional rule D6. Given the choice between removing the template or flagging the DYK nomination, I find it is friendlier to make the minor correction needed to allow a nomination to go forward. --Allen3 talk 19:43, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

North American XB-21
Hi, I reviewed your GA nomination North American XB-21 and passed it. Congratulations, Xtzou ( Talk ) 19:29, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

HZ-1 Aerocycle
Hi, I have begun a review of your GA nomination and have entered a few comments at Talk:HZ-1 Aerocycle/GA1. Thanks, Xtzou ( Talk ) 19:02, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It's been passed. Congratulations! Best wishes, Xtzou ( Talk ) 12:44, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

DYK Prep 1
I was holding off completing Prep 1 in the hope of someone okaying a decent US hook -- is this the first totally US-free set, I wonder? Espresso Addict (talk) 01:12, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Good question! I was hoping for one too, but with only one full queue (eek!) decided to go ahead and do it (before heading off to try and approve more hooks...) - The Bushranger Return fire Flank speed 01:16, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm trying hard to approve more hooks but I'm rubbish at it -- I always seem to find fault. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:58, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Newtown-Stephensburg Historic District
Just out of curiosity, what would be 5x the current size of the page? -  NeutralHomer •  Talk  • 02:24, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Sorry again for the confusion. -  NeutralHomer  •  Talk  • 02:29, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

SS Ernst Brockelmann
I've suggested an alternative hook. Mjroots (talk) 07:41, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:MHAR backlog
Could you clear it out please. You can do mine's, and I can do everyone else's. Deal, or do I sound a bit to eager to get my article reviewed? Buggie111 (talk) 13:42, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No worries, I'm just as eager. :) Sounds like a most cunning plan. - The Bushranger Return fire Flank speed 13:49, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll see you in first place! As for me, I take second Buggie111 (talk) 14:01, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I've finished the Republiques. And please asses Le Mesnil Patry :(. Buggie111 (talk) 14:30, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * On them both! As for the contest, I think Sturm might beat all of us. - The Bushranger Return fire Flank speed 14:32, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I tie with Sturm as of now. And I've laso added another article or two that I would like to be assesed. Buggie111 (talk) 14:40, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Nifty. And, I'll get to them shortly. :) Le Mensil Patry needs a few refs. - The Bushranger Return fire Flank speed 14:43, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. Buggie111 (talk) 14:49, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * And done. Also, it's odd how some of these ships have so little info on them, isn't it? But there's enough to make an article that would be what you'd expect from an entry in a "print" encyclopedia, which is enough for B-class for me. Ah, for a time machine... (Also, after I get these last two I need to head off.) - The Bushranger Return fire Flank speed 14:53, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure. Judging by your contribs, you sleep for nine hours a day, and do somthing else for three, but then go back to your normal work scheduale. Buggie111 (talk) 14:56, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Hah, if only I could get that much sleep! :P - The Bushranger Return fire Flank speed 15:02, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

You've got another backlog to work through, courtesy of me. Buggie111 (talk) 18:56, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Most stuff done. 20:20, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * And all now, but I've got one to put up. - The Bushranger Return fire Flank speed 20:21, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll get you another backlog by 14:00 tommorow (meaning UTC time). Buggie111 (talk) 21:02, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * There's three at the backlog now, with another four coming. Buggie111 (talk) 01:20, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll get to them when I can. The computer may be going strange. =/ - The Bushranger Return fire Flank speed 02:56, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The backlog! Buggie111 (talk) 16:18, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Ze plane! Ze plane! - The Bushranger Return fire Flank speed 16:19, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I've fixed all of your problems. Buggie111 (talk) 16:46, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Once you get on Bushranger, could you please reasses the articles that you have assesed at MHAR (U-450, Massena and Voltaire) and adjust their status at the Contest? They have (at MHAR) on them as of now. Also, I've plopped another U-boat (U-1023) up, one that served for only 47 days. It also needs assesing. Good luck in the June contest! Buggie111 (talk) 01:40, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. :) I'll do what I can as soon as I get the time. - The Bushranger Return fire Flank speed 14:45, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

100
Congratulations on having contributed 100 images - those really help make the encyclopedia come alive! - Ahunt (talk) 18:20, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Fair use or free, every article looks much better with a pic. :) - The Bushranger Return fire Flank speed 19:54, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree! - Ahunt (talk) 21:09, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Castorte history
You seem to have done a copy paste move on Castorte, as it also displays the history for the SAAB 18. I forgot the link, but somthing should fix it. Buggie111 (talk) 18:58, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, sort of. I had the page I was building in userspace for the Saab 18, but since that page already existed, when I finished that project I had to edit the existing page to include the new stuff, while the userspace page was blanked. Castore was the next project, and when that was done it was moved to become the new page, which meant that userspace's page history from previous projects went along for the ride... - The Bushranger Return fire Flank speed 19:53, 29 May 2010 (UTC)