User talk:TomStar81/Archive

The USN big battleship debate
Please don't take my comments as implying that the article needs to be significantly bigger than it is. All nations have debates about change and in this case the US is just a bit behind the rest of the world. A reflection of having the budget to hang onto obsolete capabilities for a very long period. I think the scope of the article is about right, although the actual content of the debate itself is potentially quite complex.

ALR (talk) 21:46, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I noticed you mentioned at the FAC page that you've had intermittent time to work on the article. If you want some help, I can do some work on the prose, specifically, the "pro-battleship" bias the article has inherited, and any other non-research tasks you might be able to think of. I just wanted to get some more specific guidance on where you are going from you before I tackle it, because it makes no sense for me to duplicate effort and/or veer too far from the path you had in mind.  bahamut0013 ♠  ♣   01:43, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I've made some comments on the page you might wish to read. Also, I was referring more to copyedit or rephrasing in my offer; while one would say that a Marine is knowledgable about naval gunfire, my experience about the aprticulars of the debate is limited to what I've read in the related articles. While my tentative position is that the Navy needs to stop dancing about and get the big guns back into play, I must admit that there is little supporting evidence to the Navy's cost arguments in the article. I think that adding some number crunching examples and references would help balance that up, but I've always been weak on the research side of article-writing, and better at the re-work of prose. Do you have any more detailed thoughts on how to best hammer out this "Pro-guns bias"??  bahamut0013 ♠  ♣   20:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I see, you are adding meat to the "anti-guns" view. For some reason, I'd assumed you were going to want to cut some of the pro-guns. I dunno why, and I'm glad I waited before making any big changes; your way is much better. If you leave a note the next time you make a big expansion, I'll whip out the copyediting--no offense, but spelling isn't not one of your strengths.  bahamut0013 ♠  ♣   11:19, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Insignia and stuff
I imagine you'll be doing the usual with the insignia once the election is over. If so, would you mind doing the  to thank people for their last six months work? The reason is basically variety, so that people get barnstars not only awarded by me. If this is a problem, please let me know. Thanks in advance, Tom, -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 23:37, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: Congrats!
Thank you very much! :-) Kirill (prof) 01:14, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks also Tom, and congratulations on your re-election! Nick Dowling (talk) 02:28, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Well done and all the best. I've decided to step aside.  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) 08:54, 1 October 2008 (UTC)




 * Thanks Tom and congrats on your re-election. All the best for your new term. Kyriakos (talk) 09:09, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Edit Summary
Oh ok, thanks for clearing that up. :) JonCatalán(Talk) 02:16, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

TFA/R
There's an opening now. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 03:20, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Various barnstars
Any chance you could award the writing contest barnstars this month? It's the WikiChevrons for Bellhalla and the Writers Barnstar for Abraham, B. S.. Bellhalla also gets the A-Class Medal, per the current nom in Awards. -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 17:11, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah, the ACM has just been awarded, so one less :) -- R OGER D AVIES   talk 17:14, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

corrections to Wiki Battleship Texas BB35
Hello:

I left a posting on the talk page of the Battleship Texas for corrections that are needed, the sources supporting the corrections and my expertise regarding the ship.

There are additional changes that go all the way through 1990.

Before I make any changes, I wanted for someone to look at what I posted.

Charels Moore

— IronShipIronShip (talk) 20:53, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXI (September 2008)
The September 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:07, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

FAC support
Thank you for the helpful comments!!!! Cheers, &mdash; the _ ed 17  &mdash; 00:25, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

RE:Block templates
There is Uw-ublock which is probably what you are looking for: it is for accounts where there is some ambiguity over their intentions, ie may not have meant to offend. You can use the  parameter to include the reasoning behind why it is against the username policy. For obvious violations such as "User:Woody sucks dick" then use Uw-uhblock. For the account that you blocked, it could have been done indef under vandalism-only so no need to really worry about templates. For the comprehensice list of templates, see Template:Blocksnotice/inner. Regards. Woody (talk) 09:26, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Arizona's guns on the Nevada (in your 14" gun article)
TOM! I WAS LOOKING FOR THIS FOR AN ENTIRE HOUR ONE DAY!!!!!!!! ("Notably, slavaged 14"/45 caliber guns from the #2 turret aboard the battleship USS Arizona (BB-39) were removed and installed aboard the battleship USS Nevada (BB-36) in the fall of 1944, and these guns would later be fired in anger against the Japanese by Nevada in 1945")

!!!!!! Thanks! [if you couldn't tell, I'm happy.] :) &mdash;Ed 17   for President    Vote for Ed  15:00, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Psh. A dual-nom? What did I do to deserve a DYK (assuming that that becomes a DYK...!)You wrote the bloody article!!! :) Thanks though. &mdash;Ed 17   for President    Vote for Ed  00:42, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I added an alternate + a note...this is what I added...what do you think?


 * Alternate? "...that the three 14"/45 caliber guns that were originally in the USS Arizona (BB-39)'s turret 2 were removed and installed aboard the battleship USS Nevada (BB-36) and used in action against the Japanese in 1945? &mdash;Ed 17   for President    Vote for Ed  00:51, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * A second thought. It isn't in the article, but the source says "It is often stated that USS Arizona (BB-39) never fired her guns in anger [...] These guns [that were installed on the Nevada] were then used for shore bombardments during the 1945 Pacific campaigns, so it may be technically said that Arizona's guns were fired in anger after all." If that was incorperated into the article, there could be a hook like "...that the popular statement that USS Arizona (BB-39) never fired her guns in anger" is a myth?" Nice cliffhanger, IMHO...will get people to go to the article.... &mdash;Ed 17   for President    Vote for Ed  00:51, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * ...though it needs a link to the article in question... =/ &mdash;Ed 17   for President    Vote for Ed  00:52, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks.
Thanks TomStar. Congratulations on your RfA. I think I actually saw that a little while ago, when I had come to RfA just to see if there was anything new.  Jus tin (Gmail?)(u) 15:12, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I have not heard from the other editor about my corrections the the BB35 article. I am logged in but I can not get access to his talk page to leave a message.

Can I post historic documents (deck log, ship's war diary etc) that are references to the Common page where BB35 photos are posted?

–– ——  —Preceding unsigned comment added by IronShip (talk • contribs) 03:14, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't know how to do this
"I am once again declining csd deletion; the article asserts some notaibility and is in compliance with WP:V "Verfiability, not Truth". File an afd for any future deletion, please; it may yeild better results." -- how do I file one of these? please respond on my Talk page--Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici (talk) 04:51, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Nevermind I think I got it right; please check deletion tag on the article now. --Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici (talk) 05:11, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for supporting my request for adminship. I appreciate your confidence. Regards, Lazulilasher (talk) 23:55, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Anytime
Glad to be of assistance. If you ever need someone to proofread an article, just drop me a line and I'll get right on it. --AtTheAbyss (talk) 02:33, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

RE: Move protection
Which page is it? I took a quick glance and couldn't find it. - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:02, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. Thanks for letting me know. - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:09, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Lead revision.
I changed around USS New Jersey (BB-62)'s lead, but an IP undid my edit...if you like my version more, could you change it back? Thanks. &mdash; Ed 17   for President   Vote for Ed  18:04, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

USS New Jersey
Don't worry, I'll be able to help. I think I've got most of the articles linked to through New Jersey already in my watchlist, so I'm already guarding them when I'm able. I'm finally getting back into the general flow after having all the projects and tests thrust upon me because of the Hurricane. Now I can finally live-up to my role as a coordinator. -MBK004 on the iPhone (talk) 21:58, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll lend a hand, as well. JonCatalán(Talk) 22:05, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Congratulations on the main page feature. I'll watch it also.  I'm especially interested to see if anyone complains about that paragraph I added recently with information from Thompson's book.  I can't find where it says in the article, but Milligan was captain of New Jersey at that time and, according to Thompson, apparently was aware that powder bags mixed under Miceli's direction ruined his ship's main gun accuracy in Lebanon.  Milligan was later picked to lead the Iowa explosion investigation and apparently tried to steer the investigation, successfully at first, along with Miceli, away from any suggestion that faulty powder or powder bags could have had anything to do with the explosion. Cla68 (talk) 00:16, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey, Tom, congrats on the TFA appearance (and I'm also watching the page. I was on a rollback roll there for about three minutes).  Incidentally, one new-user appeared to be semi-constructive, and thus I have a question:  Is there any formal Manual of Style for referring to battleships as "she" or "it" for naval-pages?  There seems to be some disagreement over it, so I'm slightly curious. Cam (Chat) 05:27, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Absolutely, either is acceptable, but She is the established usage and will not be changed. I believe it is in the FAQ on the talk page of the article. -MBK004 05:28, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Alright. thanks for the answer (and now I'm informed for the mass-collaboration with Cla68 on Yamato class & the IJN Aircraft Carriers;)Cam (Chat) 06:12, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks.
Thanks for the really nice Barnstar. I've always been a battleship fan. Cheers. Manxruler (talk) 02:00, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the barnstar! Happy Editing, RockManQ  (talk) 00:37, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Same from here. Thanks,  Spencer T♦C 01:07, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Fourth'd. :D Out of curiosity, isn't "Semper Fi" for the Marines and not the Navy? =) &mdash; Ed 17   for President  Vote for Ed  02:04, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what any of you are talking about (does this make me a stalker?), but Semper Fidelis is the motto of the USMC. Tell it to the Marines! --AtTheAbyss (talk) 02:10, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You can read the article Semper Fi and learn all about it. 129.108.225.143 (talk) 02:19, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the Wikichevrons, and congratulations on the TFA appearance!! Cam (Chat) 04:49, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks also for the barnstar, recent changes was an absolute nightmare last night — Possum (talk) 08:44, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Re:Barnstar
Thanks a lot for your appreciation! LeaveSleaves talk 02:15, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Image question
Perhaps you might have some insight into this...I understand that many US Navy ships, after completing a cruise or a deployment, print and distribute a "cruisebook" to the crew which contains a summary of the ship's actions during the cruise and pictures of the crew, kind of like a high school yearbook. Are images scanned from such a cruisebook considered public domain? Is the cruisebook's printing paid for by the US Navy, or does it come from private funds raised by the ship's crewmembers amongst themselves? Cla68 (talk) 04:16, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you!
Thank you for the barnstar, TomStar81! Happy editing to you. -FlyingToaster (talk) 01:15, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

North to the Yukon
This page says "accounting for roughly half of all Japanese aircraft shot down between 1 October 1944 and 1 February 1945" I don't dispute it, but I've read (& can't recall where...) the 40mm was inadequate against kamikaze because shell weight was too low, & the 5"/38's ROF was too low; it took until the 3" auto for USN to have a suitable response. Can you source & include? (I'm betting Friedman's Naval Weaps will have it, but I don't have a copy.)  TREKphiler   hit me ♠  04:56, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * In case you are wondering Tom, I told Trek to come here because I stole the 40 mm and 20 mm sections for that article from your Iowa-class battleship article. :) &mdash; Ed 17   for President  Vote for Ed  14:30, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You again! ;D Yeah, great havin' good sources handy. Thanx. Not just for the page; I can use that myself, too. (If I ever get the damn book finished...)  TREKphiler   hit me ♠  03:30, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Iowa explosion article
The article is taking me longer than I thought to complete. I noticed that you wanted to have the Iowa class battleship topic nominated for Featured before the end of the calendar year. If I can get the Iowa explosion article to Good Article status, then you'll be able to nominate the topic since one or two GA-level articles within the topic are allowed. I think I can have it at GA level in a few weeks. Cla68 (talk) 06:32, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Tom
Hi Tom! Congrats on being able to walk away for a time. :) I have a sentence that may be interesting to you (it's the last sentence here):

"Yet another drastic change was considered, during the "carrier panic" of early 1942. This was the point in the war where the Navy, and the President, realized that the next fleet carriers, the Essex-class aircraft carriers, had not even been laid down yet and only one (USS Hornet (CV-12)) would enter service before 1944. As a result, the Bureau of Ships decided to convert a few hulls that were currently under construction to aircraft carriers; however, they still had to decide which hulls would be converted. So, at different parts of 1942, they considered converting some of the Cleveland-class light cruisers, a few of the Baltimore-class heavy cruisers, all six Alaska's, or even one of the Iowa-class battleships to aircraft carriers."

Cheers! &mdash; Ed 17   for President  Vote for Ed  04:32, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Wisconsin needs work
WP:SHIPS has identified USS Wisconsin (BB-64) as needing some work to maintain its FA star. You might want to chime in before someone decides to start a FAR. -MBK004 18:31, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Area 58 article
Since you AfD nominated the Area 58 article you might be interested in DCEETA, which is pretty much a rehash of the same tinfoil headgear type stuff. I'm trying to cull it down to a reasonable level, I don't think it has legs but it's probably as notable as some of the other military cruft around.

Regards

ALR (talk) 21:56, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Fort Bliss
I've done a bit of work at Fort Bliss. Nyttend (talk) 23:43, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks...
...for the note. :) Did you see the additions someone made to Iowa class battleship and (maybe, I forget) some of the ships oif the class? I didn't revert them 'cos I wasn't sure if they were helpful or not (assuming AGF with my lack of knowledge =]).... &mdash; Ed 17   for President  Vote for Ed  21:48, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Template Substitution
Hi there, and thank you for using templates on Wikipedia. On one of your recent edits you used a template that should have been substituted but you did not subst it. Please subst templates that are meant to be substed in the future. Please take a look at Substitution to learn more about it. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you need any more help or want to reply to this please contact me on my talk page. Thanks.  ·Add§hore·  T alk /C ont 13:25, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you...
...but if you get the chance can you chip in your two cents here?

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Albion subclass MS carrier.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Albion subclass MS carrier.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:02, 2 November 2008 (UTC)