User talk:Trekphiler/Archive 1

Aha, art
Aha, you actually meant "art". My apologies. Go ahead, man, you certainly seem to know about it (I don't). Just a brief note: You might consider starting to contribute to Aviation in World War I (creating a new section). That page (as it seems to me) would certainly gain from more contributions in general. If you continue there, instead of making a new article, the chances that people help out/contribute is bigger. Place a note on its talk page too. Then, maybe later, when there is an abundance of info, a new subarticle can be created. I generally think that a longer article (up to a certain point) are better than many small ones. But, then again, I am a mergist. Just some thoughts, though. Good luck! My regards, Dennis Nilsson. Dna-Dennistalk - contribs 19:08, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi again...
On the WWI talk page (section "Coverage") you said "I see no mention of the crucial influence of the U-boat campaign & how near it brought Britain to defeat. Nor do I see (as usual) any mention of the Japanese contributions to convoy escort in the Med. Nor any reference to commerce raiding, which was also important to RN defense of trade."

You might want to contribute to the sub-page Naval warfare of World War I. It is far from extensive, and could be lacking in these respects.

PS. Just a hint: If you plan on continually contributing to wikipedia, you might consider placing just a little text on your userpage. This would make your name in talk pages turn from "red" to "blue", which by others probably would be considered more suitable (currently, if people want to contact you, they are immediately transferred to the creation/editing of your userpage). If you want ideas or help, I will gladly help out. Just give me a message on my talk page. My regards, Dennis Nilsson. Dna-Dennistalk - contribs 13:11, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

A userpage shell
I have created a shell for your userpage. Some brief notes:


 * Generally: click "edit" on your userpage to see what I have done
 * Personal details: This is totally up to you and your concerns about your own privacy. You may naturally remain anonymous.
 * Languages: I have added the so-called Babel template (in your case: ). Learn more about it here: Babel.
 * Images: Images (for all wikipedias) are stored in the so-called Wikimedia commons (I have added some useful links to this on your userpage). Click "edit" on your userpage and you can see the code which rendered the ballon image.
 * Sandbox: I prefer personal sandboxes, so I have created a subpage below your userpage (User:Trekphiler/Sandbox). In this way, no others will mess with your sandbox. Here you can play with anything (guess that is why it is called a sandbox :)) I've also added a link to your own sandbox on your userpage.
 * User talk pages: I've noticed on my talk page that you probably manually add messages. The easiest (and best) method is just:
 * Click the "+" button next to "edit this page"
 * Enter a headline in the little edit-box, write the message, and click "save page".
 * In this way, all messages will be formatted in the same way, making them easier to find & view.

Well, I think that's all. I hope it has been useful. Don't be afraid reading wikipedia help pages - they are well-written and not exhausting.

My regards, Dennis Nilsson. Dna-Dennistalk - contribs 18:20, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Sig and Babel
Hi, sorry for not responding earlier, I was having a "weekend away". The flag I was using was initially the larger image that appears on the UK articles in Wikipe4dia, until someone advised I used this current one because it takes up less space. I cannot advise where to find a maple leaf equivalent.

Also I see someone else has posted the link for babel above. -- Francs2000 22:07, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Personal Projects
If anybody's watching {I'm getting paranoid... ;)}, I've done a Howell torpedo page that could use some help. I've proposed a nose art page. I'm also in the middle of an edit of the flying aces WW2 list (which is way bigger than I expected...) I've seen an article online of the US aces, but my copy doesn't have the original source attached anymore (somehow...). If anybody's seen it (also ref on flying aces talk page), do include it. Trekphiler 15:57, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Yamschikova
Half the articles cite 17 victories, the other half 3. I don't know which is correct. Yamschikova is not well known for her WW2 activities (which to me suggests that 3 is the correct number of victories... it's not likely that the highest-scoring ace would be so low-profile). She is more famous for her post-war career as a test-pilot and the first woman in the world to fly jets.

Two articles (in Russian):
 * http://airaces.narod.ru/woman/yamshkva.htm
 * http://testpilot.ru/russia/nii_vvs/pilots/yamshikova.htm

HTH. - Emt147 Burninate!  21:16, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Knight Rider and George Barris
According to George Barris's own website, Barris only made the convertible version of KITT. Michael Scheffe designed and built the original KITT (which Universal made a few of them) and one was redressed for KARR. This was already mentioned on KITT's page in the Trivia section BTW. Cyberia23 22:41, 8 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Not a problem. Oh, and Barris also made the super-pursuit KITT too. (I forgot about that one). Cyberia23 17:21, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Panama Canal peer review
Thanks for your contributions to Panama Canal; I thought you would be interested to know that it is up for a peer review. Comments welcome. — Johantheghost 15:33, 22 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comments; I've responded in Talk:Panama Canal. — Johantheghost 16:44, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Beatles
You're welcome, comrade. Happy Holidays :) --Cjmarsicano 16:57, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Userboxes!
Hey bro,

Go to WikiProject Userboxes - that'll have all the info you need :)

Have a great holiday,

CJ Marsicano 03:57, 25 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Hi! If you'd like to see how I did my tabular userbox layout, you can check out User:GeekGirlSarah/Userboxes in the source. It's just a multicolumn table... feel free to copypaste, whatever! &hearts; GeekGirlSarah &hearts; 15:58, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Always remember to stop and eat the flowers! Good luck with your layout! &hearts; GeekGirlSarah &hearts; 16:28, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Neckarsulm Radwerke
Daimler's first true car had its chassis supplied by Christian Schmidt of Neckarsulm Radwerke. Trekphiler 15:02, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Thats interesting, more from internet:
 * NSU automotive manufacture starting from 1905, before motorcycles, bicycles, 1873 as factory for cord machines of Christian Schmidt and Heinrich Scholl based, most important motorcycle factory of the world in the Vorkriegszeit

So... are you meaning the first motorcycle (1885) or the modified stagecoach (1886) ???--Zzzzzzus 12:47, 26 December 2005 (UTC)zzzzzzus This Schmidt is from AUDI isnt he?--Zzzzzzus 13:19, 26 December 2005 (UTC)zzzzzzus

List of military figures
Maybe you should rename it to List of military figures by nickname to identify its true contents. --Armadillo From Hell 06:11, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Military Simulations
Thanks for the input - somehow I've missed that particular Dupuy book. I'll have to look out for it! :Just noticed I've got it on the shelf! :-p EyeSerene 12:17, 3 October 2006 (UTC) Thanks again EyeSerene 12:13, 3 October 2006 (UTC) Military Simulations
 * Re Field exercises: they are included as one extreme of the simulation spectrum (with computerised at the other). I'm working on a diagram that will go into that section to hopefully make the entire spectrum clearer. I take your point, though, that they can be carried out as part of the experimental validation process for an existing model... maybe I should stick that in somewhere! They are also wargames of course, but I'm deliberately trying to avoid using that term.
 * Re your edits: I have altered tham slightly to conform with the article's style. You might want to check that I haven't altered the facts as well ;-)
 * Re Len Deighton: not sure about the validity of the source - is the book fictional? Also not sure what you mean by 'unanticipated capacity'; capacity for what?
 * Re Lanchester: I agree this does need more development (particularly with respect to OA/OR). I haven't done it yet 'cos I didn't want to just end up reproducing the Wiki Lanchester article but it's in the pipeline!

Cheers for the continued interest - progress is slow at the moment (busy period at work!). I've added a diagram (& amended the text a bit) that should make my case for including exercises as a form of simulation clearer (I hope!). I'm fairly happy with the first 3 sections, but the 'Simulation & reality' is not really working hence my trying to divide it up a bit (it was turning into a list of criticisms). It's still not great though (not counting continuity/citation errors that have crept in by rearranging paragraphs). Maybe it would be a good idea to hive off some of the material into a 'Training' article - what I'm trying to avoid though is (a) taking too much out so the article becomes too abstract, and (b) making it too long. It has already grown past what I thought it would when I started it (but it's my first, so I guess that's a lesson learned!) Re more examples: any ideas? I've found it hard to find examples that are non-US/NATO/cold war as so much is either still classified or limited to academic papers. I know the Russians, Germans & others use modelling extensively but unfortunately I'm no linguist ;-) EyeSerene 18:57, 13 October 2006 (UTC) Addendum: the 'drills were bloodless battles; battles were bloody drills' quote is normally accredited to Josephus (& sometimes Patton, though he just pinched it!) EyeSerene 19:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

A bit hectic at work at the mo, so I've not revisited the article for a while! Thanks again for the input - it all helps. I studied modelling and simulation as part of my degree at a military university... but unfortunately nearly 20 years ago so much of what I know is a bit dated! It also doesn't help that so much of the published stuff was written during the cold war for what I suppose are fairly obvious reasons. I'd have to agree though that Dupuy is a very important source, although I don't think everyone would: he's upset a few establishment figures in his time. I'll make the time to have a final stab at getting the article into a reasonably finished condition and then post it up - out of my hands then ;-) EyeSerene 14:44, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: RCN convoys
Hi Trekphiler,

Thanks for your encouragement and info. I've put in a request for Milner's book at our local library. It must be a fairly recent publication as I've not seen it with his other books at my branch. I requested a peer review and Kirill has responded with a helpful critique. He has asked for more inline footnotes, but as I explained to him, in many cases, paragraphs that do not have specific citations were paraphrased from several sources writing on the same subject, while those with citations were single source rewrites. As it's presented now the page has 5400 words and 22 footnotes. Have you any thoughts on this? Thanks. Alberg22 14:44, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

re: Up to spec
Hey. Thanks for changing the characteristics in the U-1A article. I will go through some of my U-boat books and see if I can find any info on the boat's max depth. The number currently in the article is from the website uboat.net. -- Underneath-it-All 01:17, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Brescia GP and Formula One
Hi. You're technically correct that Brescia is the second exception to Monza's hosting the Italian GP. I wonder if we've got the wording wrong in the article around that piece, though. The article is on Formula One, and of course F1 wasn't devised until 1946, so Brescia can't be an exception in the sense of this article. Any thoughts on how we should re-word? 4u1e 14:31, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I think your re-word (on my talk page) looks good, but I think Wikipedia's having one of its periodic glitches, in that the version I'm seeing in the article is not the same one I see when I try and edit. I will amend to your latest proposal later if this has not already in fact happened. 4u1e (confused!)
 * Done now - I hate it when what you see in the article isn't what's on the edit page. Cheers. 4u1e

Pearl Harbor
I can't guess how this sentence is supposed to go: I'm sure there should be extra letters in "ut", but I don't know which ones. Your edits look good otherwise. It never hurts to cite your sources. -Will Beback 09:31, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The ut, because of decryption and typing delays, Embassy personnel failed to deliver the message at the specified time.

JN-25
I suspect we are seeing a clash of meanings here. In crypto, break has several meanings, all related to varous grades of breaking into confidentiality of messages. It has a very much more constricted meaning in popular usage re crypto. The popular mind seems to have an image of a piece of glass (darkly perhaps), which resists entirely until it shatters, theruupon it doesn't resist at all. Bad mental image.

In fact, with such systems as JN-25, it was necessary to perform a two-part dance in the breaking. First, one built up the additive tables (a kind of jigsaw thing at heart, really), and then attempted to discover the meaning of code words or phrases. The identification of the Midway as meant by a particular code word (the broken distaillation plant ruse) is an example of the latter. Stinnet and quite a few others seem to think that learing a few of the additives (from several thousands) consitutes a break (ie, intelligibility of message). To think so is to stretch meanings beyond all sense.

Stinnit (and perhaps others) also thinks that understanding how to break a cyrpto system is equivalent to doing so. Since OP-20-G had prepared an instruction manual for breaking JN-25, they (or someone) must have done so. Hence he has much suspicion about the missing messages and the motives of those who hid/destroyed them. He is wrong, in fact. For instance, it is clearly understood by all in the crypto biz that there is amethod which will in fact break any symmetric cypher, such as the most recent US standard, AES. And they are correct; a brute force attack will in fact ALWAYS break any message rpotected by such a cypher. The only, monor, drawback is that no such attack can actually be carreid out for any such cypher with sufficiently long randomly chosen keys. And the same was true earlier. And for both JN-25 and Enigma. Purple was solved much more thoroughly in that the Japanese didn't choose their keys very randomly, and once a copy of it was built by SIS, just about all the traffic could be converted to plaintext. So your edits on this point are confusing at minimum, and wrong if read in some ways. In any case, a reader may take from this that there was information available to that was hidden, withheld, or something, by someone, thus inviting speciulation as to why.

Hope this helps? ww 10:39, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I can live with your suggested compromise, I think. I'll try to remember to get to it. I'm not sure I follow your impression about the 10% max break of any JN-25 edition prior to 12.7.41. IRC, it was additive identifications, allowing cleartext reading of the code, but not of any underlying meaning. Thus if I can manage to strip the additives from "24979h238476082660098", I might get "apple pie tommorow", but will have no idea what's actually being discuseed. The actual plaintext is, of course, "feed your head" as part of a discussion of song lyrics. ww 01:23, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Trekp, I've not read the Costello book, but he's a prolific author in the someone kenw beforehand camp, and in this instance his claim that no traffic analysis was done on copied signals from the Japanese doesn't pass the hilarity test. And doesn't fit with assorted commetns like that of Layton to Kimmel about the missing carriers a copuple of days before the 7th. Thi sis the one asking about Diamond Head.
 * As for signals intelligence info here on WP, you might start with traffic analysis and follow some links from there. ww 10:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

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

A few features that you might find helpful:


 * Our navigation box points to most of the useful pages within the project.
 * The announcement and open task box is updated very frequently. You can [ watchlist it] if you're interested; or, you can add it directly to your user page by including WPMILHIST Announcements there.
 * Most important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you [ watchlist it].
 * The project has several departments, which handle article quality assessment, peer review, and project-wide collaboration.
 * We have a number of task forces that focus on specific topics, nations, periods, and conflicts.
 * Our requests page has extensive lists of requested articles, images, maps, and translations.
 * We've developed a variety of guidelines for article structure and content, template use, categorization, and other issues that you may find useful.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask one of the project coordinators, or any experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! Kirill Lokshin 19:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Nose art
I'd be happy to participate. I have to admit uploading images in a serious shortcoming of mine but I'm trying to learn. The subject is one I have an interest in, if you'll reference the group histories I've written. I'll keep checking the discussion and project pages to see what goes.--Buckboard 06:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Trek--read your start notes, and looks good, but I want to give it the thought it obviously deserves. Looks like it might be a pretty vast topic, just based on what little I've personally seen. (I also perused your userboxes just now and see a large number of mutual interests--not bad for a left-wing Canadian and a right-wing Buckeye. Is the Taj Mahal you referenced the blues artist? a fav of mine, esp. Senor Blues) --Buckboard 10:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

About Tukhachevsky
Tukhachevsky I came across a reference to him, & (honestly) had never heard of him. How big was his influence on Zhukov? How much was he influenced by Fuller, Hobart, & Guderian? What would you say was the best source (in English) on his theory? Has he ever been translated? Thanks! Trekphiler17:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

The biography of that bloody demon prooves that nothing can stand against a state propaganda machine vielding unlimited budgets.

Most of his military science is about how to set up bolshevik tyrany in the conquerred lands, how to liquidate unwanted classes etc. His "selected" works are available (free) online. http://militera.lib.ru/science/tuhachevsky/index.html

He was much elder that Guderian. Of course, during the USSR/Germany military cooperation, (Pre 1933) period, there was intensive exchange of ideas between these brothers. Much is written about that.

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue X - December 2006
The December 2006 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 is an automated delivery by grafikbot 23:30, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

A request for assistance
Would you support the concept of moving the Earhart "myths" to a separate page or article? The reason for my suggesting this is that the main article should be an accurate and scholarly work while the speculation and conspiracy theories surrounding the disappearance of Amelia Earhart are interesting, they belong in a unique section. Most researchers, as you know, discount the many theories and speculation that has arisen in the years following her last flight. Go onto the Earhart discussion page and register your vote/comments...and a Happy New Year to you as well. Bzuk 02:50 3 January 2007 (UTC).

Janusz Zurakowski
In my other life, I am an editor and author and the saga of the first Polish Battle of Britain pilots always intriqued me. An opportunity to meet S/L Janusz Zurakowski led to my approaching him to assist in an article I planned to write about him and others. By a complete misunderstanding (and partly due to his hearing loss after years of sitting behind roaring piston engines), he understood that I intended to write his biography. The next thing I knew, in the mail arrives copies of his log books and bits of an extensive scrapbook he had been keeping. As you know, in Canada, "Zura" is famous as the first pilot of the doomed supersonic Avro CF-105 Arrow but as I got to know him, I realized that he had led a fabulous life which was dominated by his love of flying but also transcended into world politics- his father was murdered by the Gestapo in an elaborate "hit" while his wife was arrested by the Communists in Poland for trying to flee. Her life became interwoven in the story as she was a courier for the Polish underground and faced down an angry Gestapo officer who had a gun to her forehead. However, Zura led a romantic existence as a pre-war Polish fighter pilot who on the first days of the conflict was an instructor at an advanced flight training centre. Undaunted by his "clapped out" PZL P7, he had a machine gun mounted and nearly destroyed a Dornier Do 17 that had attacked his airbase; the Dornier made its escape by simply outrunning the outmoded Polish trainer. Zura was pulled out of combat to fly the British Hurricanes that were coming into Rumania when the fighting suddenly changed as the Soviets attacked Poland on its southern front. He escaped internment in "friendly" Rumania by disquising himself as a "forester" and making his way via Libya to France. There he was again drafted to go to England as a "bomber" pilot, a decision that astounded him since he spoke fluent French and was an experienced combat fighter pilot. The RAF, in desperate need of pilots in the upcoming Battle of Britain, accepted him as a fighter pilot where he served with great distinction in 234 Squadron bringing down three "Jerries" and damaging two others. After the Battle, he was converted into an advanced combat instructor (his old trade) but pressed for a front line role. He was transferred to the new Polish squadrons where he served as a CO as well as S/L again racking up another victory and adding to his row of medals with the "Polish VC." With the prospect of being laid up as a "desk jockey," he applied for test pilot training, graduating from Boscombe Down as one of the first wartime test pilots. He went on to test every combat aircraft in the RAF arsenal as well as those of Allied countries. At the flight test centre, he became famous as one of the best aerobatic pilots around, specializing in high-performance jets. Gloster Aircraft hired him as a civilian test pilot in 1947. He went on to create dazzling flight displays with the Gloster Meteor, even finding a way to do the "impossible," the famous "Zurabatic Cartwheel" which nearly suspended the heavy fighter in mid-air. Avro Canada hired him in 1950 to test the CF-100 which he promptly proceeded to fly supersonically by diving it at full speed. He was appointed the Chief Development Test Pilot of the Avro Arrow and then the story morphs into legend and myth... Bzuk 19:01 3 January 2007 (UTC).

Help re. Herb Carnegie
Hi. You made some comments on the talk page for the article on hockey player Herb Carnegie regarding the neutrality (or lack thereof) of the page. I rewrote the article in October, but someone has reintroduced earlier comments that turn it back into a anti-Carnegie screed. I reverted it to the earlier version, but I'm pretty new here and would appreciate it if a more "experienced" WP editor could take a look. Much thanks, Blotto adrift 16:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Question about literature and the Western (genre)
Hi Trekphiler,

I put the following comment on the Talk:Western_%28genre%29 page, in reference to the removal of the literature section:


 * The article describes the Western genre as encompassing literature and film. I fail to see how removing the entire literature section of this article, referenced in the lead sentence, is justifiable and how said content is not germane. Someone looking for info on Western genre books is going to find nothing. Please clarify how this serves the readers.

What I meant to argue in that comment was that the article needed to be rewritten to consistently acknowledge the cross-media application of the term Western. I agree that the way the literature section was originally implanted in the page, it was ineffectively surrounded by film-centric material, but I think that can be fixed without wholesale removal of the literature content. Would appreciate your further comments on that. Thanks. Planetneutral 16:02, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XI - January 2007
The January 2007 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 is an automated delivery by grafikbot 21:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:MILHIST Coordinator Elections
The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are looking to elect seven coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by February 11!

Delivered by grafikbot 11:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Western genre
I can see your argument for doing that (although it's a reversal of the pro-active merger of these pages that took place in 2005), although I wonder if it will be worth the effort.

The central problem with breaking out Western films will be individually redirecting the more than 500 wikilinks to the Western (genre) page, many of which are from movie and actor/actress entries. You'll also have the work of leaving a meaningful genre page, which I think is still important to have. And you'll need to include your breakout options on the Western dab page so that readers don't have to double dab (Western>Western (genre)>Western films).

I wouldn't breakout Western comics unless you're actually going to write the article. At present, the Western comic content isn't worthy of its own entry. Planetneutral 12:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, redirecting those links would be a hefty undertaking, although some of them were already links to pages that had been redirected to the genre page (such as Western movies or Western films), so one could just change those redirects and save some effort. Still, a lot of work.


 * Note that Western fiction was already broken out, per our conversation at Talk:Western (genre). Of course, it could be reincorporated, but I don't think that's necessary at present, especially since there is still some temptation to break film out separately from the genre page and I suspect it will eventually happen. But until thusly motivated, I think it generally works OK as is. Planetneutral 13:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XII - February 2007
The February 2007 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.

Delivered by grafikbot 17:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Aviation Newsletter delivery
The March 2007 issue of the Aviation 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. Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 17:33, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Frank Lockhart
I redid your citations for the article to make the references more concise. Please review my edits, especially what used to be reference #9, to make sure that I did them all properly. Thanks! RoyalbroilT : C 23:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

User blocks
You can report vandals to the Admins so they can be blocked if they keep vandalizing after you post warnings. If you revert a vandals' edits, make sure to post a warning on the offending persons' talk page. List of warnings here. - Hdt83  |  Talk  23:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Nicknames of military peeps
Hi. Sorry it took so long to get back to you. I have -- yeesh! -- 905 pages in my watchlist, and I think your reply got lost in a flurry of later entries, and I promptly forgot our discussion when some new shiny discussions popped up.

I myself have only (relatively) recently started to cite my own stuff regularly -- my previous thoughts "Why cite this? I know it's true!" I know it's gonna be a bugger, but I'm going to try to cite the nickname articles (famous last words), probably in the summer when classes are over. And I'll do it the way I mentioned, simply flagging an entry with a lettercode to indicate which book an entry came from, rather than than the whole schtick.

And yes, I do find this stuff useful and interesting. I myself have either started or contributed majorly (word?) to a number of the nickname articles. I practically adopted List of monarchs by nickname, creating the "cognomen" and "sobriquet" sections, adding in the nicknames in the native language, etc; I also started the List of nicknames of historical personages (<- dumb name, what was I thinking?) I also created the athlete, entertainer, and hockey nickname articles, so you can imagine what my opinion is of another article in that subject matter. I also created a baseball list, which included the nicknames of teams, stadiums, etc, but I think it got deleted as "cruft" (God, I hate that word!). And I agree, seems we can have all kinds of crap lists, as long as they are only "List of Pokemon with anger-management issues" or "List of monsters in Rogue with serifs". -- Sig Pig  |SEND - OVER 03:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XIV (April 2007)
The April 2007 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 is an automated delivery by grafikbot 15:00, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Infobox Drive for the Firearms Wikiproject
Hello Trekphiler. The Firearms Wikiproject is having an infobox drive. The purpose of this is to ensure that most (if not all) of the articles within our scope have the relevant infoboxes. The start date will be May 28th. If you choose to participate, go to our project page and pick an article under the To-do list's Infobox section or look for firearm articles that need an infobox. Before you start editing an article, please cross it out on the list so that we don't have editor's work clashing. The drive will last for five days. If you are interested, please RSVP to LWF. Thank you, the Firearms Wikiproject. --Seed 2.0 09:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XV (May 2007)
The May 2007 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 is an automated delivery by grafikbot 16:07, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Makin Raid
Hi. Last month you identified the two submarines involved in the Makin Raid as "Narwhal and Argonaut". Are you sure you didn't mean Narwhal's sister Nautilus? According to the ship's articles, Nautilus made the raid, while Narwhal was off the coast of Hokkaidō. —wwoods 06:32, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Dreadnought
Hi,

At Dreadnought, you said "10x12 is usual form only for specs". I did wonder about whether that was the best way of doing it. On balance, I think you are right. So I do not mind your revert of those elements of the edit. I am not convinced that a full revert was necessary. So I have put the other edits back. I hope you don't mind. Keep up the good work on specifications. Regards Lightmouse 16:15, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Greetings
Hi Trekphiler - good to hear from you again! Yes, I finished the article... and since becoming involved with GA assessment, I've realised how poorly-constructed it is. When I eventually get round to it, I'll be conducting some major butchery. Your interest at the time was very helpful; as a complete newbie editor, your encouragement back then had a large part to play in making me feel welcome and my wanting to stay with the project. Kudos ;) EyeSereneTALK 16:14, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Marines
The only case that occurs to me where "naval infantry" were actually different to marines is the British Naval Division in WW1, who were essentially "sailors in khaki".

However the SNLF fits the common definition/conception of marines as elite naval infantry.

Also naval infantry redirects to our article on marines. If there is a significant difference, we should have a separate article. Grant |  Talk  00:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Kaigun Rikusentai (SNLF) were trained for amphibious landings, and some were even trained for parachute operations.


 * The Naval Infantry (Russia) were/are also trained for amphibious landings.


 * BTW, maybe Marine ought to be moved to Naval infantry, if that really is a more generic term(?) Grant  |  Talk  13:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Link to section heading
Is this what you're looking for? Arthurrh 08:24, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

"Plagiarized"
Hiya. In regards to your apparently POV changes to articles using the DANFS template, I'd suggest that if you have a problem with the template, you might want to discuss it on the template's talk page. According to the definition at plagiarism, it involves using info "without adequate acknowledgement" and I think the template constitutes that acknowledgement, besides which, since the book is a government work, apparently it's in the public domain. Katr67 19:00, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, reading Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships, it seems the NHC doesn't have a problem with their work being copied, but I'd suggest you nominate the template for deletion, since you feel so strongly about it, rather than alter the pages using a template that was developed by consensus. Perhaps WikiProject Ships would have some suggestions as well. Katr67 19:41, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Your "sub mission"
maybe it's just me, but "U.S. submarines (with some aid from the British and Dutch)...", sounds flippant/sarcastic/insecure. The three British sub flotillas concerned are only a small contribution relative to the US.

Anyway, is this finickiness about national contributions in various services and at different points during the war, so important? It seems likely that the British and Dutch torpedoes worked better than the American (or Japanese) ones. Should we mention that? Judging by your detailed contributions at Talk:Douglas MacArthur, you seem to be to be well aware how ungrateful Dugout Doug was, to the predominantly Filipino and/or Australian forces under his command, prior to mid-1943. Should we mention that? Grant |  Talk  14:12, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Cactus AF
I wasn't suggesting it didn't influence deliveries to Guad, just that it wasn't that simple, & IJA's perceptions of Vandegrift's strength needs to be mentioned, IMO. Trekphiler 08:01, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * No problem, if you have a source to back it up, please add it to the article. If I read something that supports that, I'll add it. Cla68 10:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

On your Mark
Just noticed Mark 14 torpedo. I've come across an online source for that journal ref somewhere, but since my hard drive crashed :C I can't find it. Have you seen it? Trekphiler 20:16, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you're talking about this article by Frederick J Milford in a 1996 issue of THE SUBMARINE REVIEW? And here's part two. Binksternet 21:27, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the link. I saw that, too, but there's another one, a four-part series. Looking at it again, it occurs to me these are two parts of it; I saw a different site & layout, with all four parts. Trekphiler 21:40 & 21:43, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * We're in luck. If you simply advance the last digit in the URL, you get parts three, four and five. Nice. Binksternet 22:25, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Pan Am Clipper
You may be looking for this also here LeadSongDog 23:03, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Fishy
Have a look at the Tautog infobox? It's showing "struck" rather than "stricken", & won't accept a change to that without wiping out the section entirely. Nor will it accept an add "as built" without putting it in a weird place... Trekphiler 15:56, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It appears that it's using a different infobox template than the other related submarine articles that uses "struck" instead of "stricken" and doesn't have an "as built" field. The infobox probably needs to be switched from the "Infobox Ship" to "Ship Table Header 01" as in the USS Thresher (SS-200) article. Cla68 20:47, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XX (October 2007)
The October 2007 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.

Delivered by grafikbot 15:06, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Pearl Harbor issues
Most of your recent changes were at Pearl Harbor were mine. Nearly all of them were either mere compositional word choices, or in the case of the agenda laden ones to correct a tone of justified Japanese grievance against US agression (ie, the progressive embargoes). You seem to have seen them in some other way. How exactly? ww (talk) 04:02, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * There's a history in this article of folks adopting what seems to be the semi-official Japanese attitude on Pearl, namely "we wuz forced into it by aggressive US pressure". It fits with the US=evil motives attitude of some of the well-meaning but ill-informed and poorly thinking tradition, some of which can be seen in the history of the talk page.
 * Most of the edits I made in that particular session were to change what seemed to be agenda based edits designed to slide that point or something more or less like it into the article. It's possible I suppose that that was the motivation of Imperial leaders, except that major planning and resources were committed well before the oil embargo, and quite a bit after the scrap metal embargo, and is incompatible with the serious (and deadly, recall the '36 murders and coup attempt by the expansionists) and longstanding sense of Imperial entitlement to all those resources to the West and South. The Army at least was undertaking aggressive expansion to secure resources in the early 30s and the Empire as a whole had been collecting (or trying to collect) more territory as far back as the late 19th century.
 * As for permanently, that was a way to clearly distinguish between large damage (that could be and was repaired) and worse. I recall that it was a surprise to me (years ago) to learn that all those horribly damaged ships, some sunk to the bottom of the harbor, actually got back into the war. It was a writerly choice intended to assist the reader to make that distinction. You are correct about the bald meaning of original phrase, but incorrect as to the ability of a reader to misconstrue. A lot of the copyedits I make here are of this compositional art sort, designed to head off the inevitable tangle in the non already expert reader's mind. ww (talk) 21:46, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I can go with your phrase instead of permanently, though I think it's overkill for the purpose I had in mind.
 * As for the difference between Pearl and caused for WWII, I agree there's an overlap. The article used to cover the subject in a paragraph or two, but all that's been moved in an excess of brevity twitch. To the detriment of the article. But to the extent the matter is covered at all, it seems we agree that including innuendo (or something equivalent) explaining that Pearl was forced on the Japanese is POV. I'll have a go at making another edit pass for that purpose.
 * On the issue of mistake, that requires some appreciation of the long term consequences of Pearl and recent truncations of the article have attempted to remove most of that as well. So if is to be covered, we ought to be returning to something nearer to what was here at one time.
 * I'm not sure what to do about what I think was damage to the article by the brevity police. Were it up to me, we'd have a longer article addressing the concerns the Average Reader will have about Pearl. How did it come about? Who's to blame? What about the claims FDR, Marshall, ... left it happen? Were the local commanders derelict in their duty? Why was there more than a token cost to the attackers? What was with that radar sighting a hundred miles out? What were the consequences of the damage to the later War? And with relevant images to illustrate points as they're made. Readers who wish to know more detail on one of these points should refer to more detailed articles. The present article addresses very little of this, and so the article richly deserves the withdrawal of its former featured status. I had quite a bit to do with the article that earned that award and it pains me to see it savaged as it has been. ww (talk) 22:51, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * We may disagree here. I think there should be brief coverage of each of these points in this article, not merely pointers to fuller coverage. Since it's a big topic with lots of points to cover in a paragraph, that means a lot of paragraphs. And that means a long article which will irritate the brevity police who seem more or less pleased with the present article. I don;t think this article, if perfectly written (tone, coverage, NPOV, adequacy for the non-specialist Average Reader...) will be short enough to satisfy them. I see a permanent conflict, resolvable only be changing the brief the brevity police are using to support their position. At least to include recognition that some articles, like this one, are necessarily large subjects.
 * On the issue of phrasing, consider that the technical meaning of reattach will not be apparent to the Average Reader. It's why I chose 'return to Fleet service' instead. The Reader for whom we're writing this is not going to appreciate technical correctness, and will likely misunderstand it. In which case, it's my policy to sacrifice technical correctness for clarity of exposition, as in this case. ww (talk) 23:50, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps then there isn't disagreement between us then. I agree that brief coverage and links to more complete coverage is the way to go. How brief is too brief, or too much, will be a point of contention, of course.
 * In the instance of annoyance of the need to use non-technically correct terms in these articles, I share your feelings. But it's a search for perfection at the cost of intelligibility. too bad Readers won't bother to educate themselves to the standards I'd have them do (and you as well I think). We're stuck with it, just as the French are stuck with being annoyed by English speakers' insistence on importing and mangling French words. We can't control the world, nor can the French. The reasonable approach is to grin bemusedly and move on, not to raise the blood pressure and rail against the injustice of it all. Though in the case of the French, I've not much sympathy with official edicts as to what is officially acceptable. I didn't much like grammar teachers in school either. ww (talk) 00:47, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

What a croc
Trekphiler, the article had become a little fat in the trivia mid-section, "looking strangely fat", as they say in Egypt when you find a strings of crocs dangling from your waist. He, he. Best wishes, Afv2006 (talk) 13:12, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know what you mean - I feel the same way. Thanks for your message. It made me laugh. Best, Afv2006 (talk) 21:53, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: Help desk
You never have to make your name public. Your username is enough for the "author" part (even "Anonymous" works). I noticed some of your images are missing licensing info too. You should add the appropriate license tag (depending on how you want to release them). Based on your other images that you did license, you probably just want to add. Rocket000 (talk) 10:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: Pearl Harbor edit discussion page
sorry about leaving posts at possibly strange places, but i don't know how to do better

here is a response to the pearl harbor edit.

it's not my browser, this phrase sounds odd, like it has too many ands in it. Check source.

"and two destroyers beyond repair, and destroyed and 188 aircraft" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.86.253.202 (talk) 08:57, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

- - -

Yah, I couldn't edit because the page is locked. I should get an account sometime. Thanks for the edit.

Steam Torpedo Boat
Hi Trekphiler, I see that on PT boat you have restored a reference to a non-existant article called "Steam Torpedo Boat". You also added a reference to the Steam Gun Boat. Now I am the creator of the article on the steam gun boat and I am also the one who removed your reference to the steam torpedo boat. I removed your reference to the steam torpedo boat because, as far as I am aware, they existed back in Confederate times but certainly not as PT boats in the second world war. I did not link to the steam gun boat because it is not a torpedo boat. For the same reason, I would not add a link to the Fairmile C motor gun boat, which is also my own article. Nor, more generally, would I link to Motor Gun Boat.--Geronimo20 19:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * There is another page Torpedo boats which details the history of torpedo boats. I reckon your reference to Steam Torpedo Boats belongs there. And you're right - that article should be written. But I think that PT boats is getting blowsy and overblown. It needs tightening up. That's a little long term project I have in mind. So please don't be offended at me trying to toss your offerings overboard - it's just that the boat is beginning to sink under its own weight! Cheers --Geronimo20 08:15, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXI (November 2007)
The November 2007 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 02:55, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Stubs
There is a more precise (and useful) method of calling an article a stub than writing "This page is a stub. You can help by adding to it...". You can simply put in a stub template (a list of which can be found here. Other than that, great articles. A lot of them aren't really stubs, just a bit short. Kakofonous (talk) 21:39, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXII (December 2007)
The December 2007 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) 23:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The color of valor

 * No, putting it in has very little to do with race for me. BTW, I regret posting my remark, even for the few minutes before I removed it.  My apologies. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 11:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:MilHist idea
Just a note, you put your idea on the main article page rather than the talk page....didn't know whether that was intentional or not Narson (talk) 12:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Deadend entries
Hi. I noticed your entries in Deadend project. An advice: When you fix something: delete it from the list. Friendly, -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC) I usually put as much as links as possible and add some tags (orphan, etc.). But your edits seemed ok. Maybe they were lacking some tags but I am not sure. Maybe the articles were fine from this point of view as well. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC) When you add internal links, just remove deadend tags. Not orphan unless you find articles to link in it. There is another project dealing with orphan articles. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

When merging
Please don't blank an article after you merge its content, instead create a redirect for navigational purposes. --Closedmouth (talk) 14:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Email question
Not sure I know of a good source - was their something in particular you were interested in and I might do a little hunting around. MilborneOne (talk) 19:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

MacArthur Edits
How do I respond when you delete my previous message? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.148.1.17 (talk) 23:26, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Steamed? Anyway, check the content of the contributions I was deleting on Jan. 3. That's all I ask, and all that's required to acquit me of the charge of vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.148.1.17 (talk) 00:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Apology accepted. I am somewhat new to Wikipedia and don't yet know all the "tricks" involved in doing things "elegantly". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.148.1.17 (talk) 00:32, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Aircraft articles
Just to help the aircraft project you might want to look at aerostart template which is used to create aircraft articles. It would be useful if you create an aircraft article to add it to New articles (Aircraft) this flags it up to other editors in the project to come and help (which in my case means correcting my typos!). Thanks MilborneOne (talk) 18:52, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * If you start a new article just put aerostart (not the tl it is just to stop it working on this page!) on the page and then do show preview it fills the page with a blank infobox and specification data. If you look at the template and click on edit you can see the page format. If you look at New articles (Aircraft) editors just add the article titles to the list (in the case new aircraft types for January 2008). If you look at the new articles page you will see the various subjects covered. Most editors have this on their watchlist so are alerted when a new aircraft article is created. With regard to the fuel, if it is decided that it should be added then probably User:Rlandmann would be involved. But we need to wait for comments before anything is done. Any questions then please come back to me. MilborneOne (talk) 19:19, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Aerostart has a setting for english or metric specs if they are not set the specs dont show you just need to edit this page and you can see all the entries that need filling - should work in a sandbox. MilborneOne (talk) 19:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * OK - the other method I use is just have the text from the template in a note pad file and just copy and paste the text when I need it. MilborneOne (talk) 19:46, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Aerospecs
He Trekphiler - I just made a series of edits to User:MilborneOne's talk page to show you how the aerospecs template works. If you check the page history I've commented every step, so you can see how to make it work for you next time. You can now go ahead and transplant it into the article yourself! Cheers --Rlandmann (talk) 20:24, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I've continued the series of edits over at the XP-31 article itself; in particular, pay attention to how we usually describe guns. Cheers and thanks for helping out with filling in the gaps! --Rlandmann (talk) 20:40, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

It would be really helpful if you would use the new template; the only issue with "seeing" is the line that controls whether the template shows the specifications "met" first or "eng" first. Every new article created with the new template is one that someone else doesn't have to clean up later! :) --Rlandmann (talk) 21:03, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Great! Yes, if you're unsure about how a template works, then copying-and-pasting a working example is always a good strategy. And just to clarify my comment above: there are no known bugs with this template - it's working successfully in some 500 articles since early last year. --Rlandmann (talk) 22:27, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Following myself up here, since I just caught your "complicated" comment on MilborneOne's page; I've said it before, but I think you must have missed it - there's nothing complicated about it. The one non-obvious little trick is that you need to specifically tell the template whether you want it to display metric-first or english-units-first, otherwise it will display neither. --Rlandmann (talk) 22:32, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

To help with the "bug" then :)

Try this:
 * 1) create a new page by clicking on User:Trekphiler/spec sandbox
 * 2) type in  and save the page
 * 3) Note that nothing is showing in the specifications section!
 * 4) Edit the page again, and add some made-up numbers into the specifications fields, and make sure to include "eng" (without the quote marks) in the "met or eng?" field
 * 5) Save the page, and you'll see the specifications showing as expected.

Hope this helps! --Rlandmann (talk) 22:38, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Power figures (and other stuff)
Actually, very very few references intended for a general readership will indicate the rpm at which the quoted power figure was produced at; which is why Wikipedia has generally not included these figures in articles about aircraft. On the other hand, articles about aero engines generally do include this information wherever possible (as indeed they should).

The reason for the non-inclusion of this figure (and fuel capacity, take-off and landing runs, and any of dozens of other potential candidates for inclusion) is to keep our level of detail commensurate with the level of detail in those general reference works. To get a feel for this, take a look at the general books about aircraft in a small-to-mid-size public library or in an average, non-specialist bookshop.

Of course, then there will always be someone who wants to specify the distance from the ground to the propeller hubs (real example! I wish I could find the link - was a couple of years ago now...), which I think we can both agree is excessive ;) --Rlandmann (talk) 03:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Heh, yes indeed. I'm as much a detail freak as anyone else, but Wikipedia is not a pilots' manual. Even if Jane's will include fun facts like the dimensions of the baggage doors on GA aircraft, but I think we can presume that most of our readership doesn't care...


 * Again, the specs on the engines seem to be pretty spot-on compared with works like Gunston's Encyclopedia of Aero Engines or, for example, the level of information you'd expect to find on a placard in a museum. --Rlandmann (talk) 03:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

We are, most assuredly, writing for a generalist audience: "the educated layperson", and the level of detail needs to be equivalent to what that educated layperson would expect to find in a traditional encyclopedia (as opposed to, say, a pilot's manual, Jane's, or a monograph for aviation enthusiasts). The Wright Whirlwind article is now way past that point. You might like to take a read of What Wikipedia is Not - the section on "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" is relevant to our discussion here. The art of writing a good article lies very much in choosing what to leave out as much as what to put in.

I'm surprised by your remark that Britannica provides a higher level of detail than Wikipedia's articles on aircraft. Maybe the print version is different, but most of the aircraft I've just surveyed in the online edition don't even mention what type of engine was used, let alone its power output (let alone at what altitude or rpm that power output was achieved at). I also wasn't able to find a single separate article on an aero engine - not even the one I would have expected from Britannica, the Merlin.

However, you're very much on the right track as far as external links go: in fact, the whole external links policy is aimed at providing the reader with pointers to further reading "that is accurate and on-topic; information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail" (emphasis mine). So, by all means, familiarise yourself with that policy and then link away! --Rlandmann (talk) 06:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Categories
On a different subject: categories. One of the general rules of categorisation on Wikipedia is not to include articles in their specific category and into the parent(s) of that category. Therefore, if an article is in Category:United States fighter aircraft 1930-1939, it should not also be placed in Category:United States military aircraft 1930-1939, since the latter category includes the former category.

Also, trying to pipe an article to more than one spot in the same category (like you tried to do with Boeing P-29) doesn't work, since the pipe only determines where the link to the article will appear in alphabetical order, not what the link will look like. The correct way to achieve what you were trying to do is to add the categories to the redirect page (see the Boeing XF7B now). Note also that the XF7B now shows up in Category:United States fighter aircraft 1930-1939 in italics - this indicates that the entry in the category view is a redirect somewhere else. On a related note, when piping US military aircraft, please don't include X- and Y- prefixes, and be careful of that tricky USN designation system - some creative piping is required there. Take a look at the following decade: Category:United States fighter aircraft 1940-1949 - it's pretty much got its house in order now. --Rlandmann (talk) 06:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * There's only one category that every aircraft article must have: its country-role-decade category (eg. Category:British airliners 1950-1959). Other than that, most major manufacturers have (or should have!) a category (eg. Category:Saab aircraft, so this should be included too. Beyond that, a couple of users created all kinds of categories along the lines of "propeller aircraft", "single-engine aircraft", "low wing aircraft" etc that practically no-one uses and which will be put up for deletion sooner-or-later.


 * The one thing to avoid is placing articles into a category and into the parent category of that category. --Rlandmann (talk) 05:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

There isn't a full list of aircraft categories, since any such list would contain several hundred subtly different entries and therefore be maddening to use. The category system is described here, or you can always start at Category:Aircraft and drill down. Another alternative, of course, is to find a similar aircraft and copy its category.

While the pattern isn't hard to learn, there are a couple of "gotchas", but they're probably best learned on a case-by-case basis. The project regulars do a pretty good job of catching new aircraft contributions and tying up the loose ends. The pattern I've seen over the years is that most newbies create articles about similar sorts of aircraft, and therefore learn the category scheme first and foremost through the aircraft that interest them. --Rlandmann (talk) 06:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Just clarifying that Templates (such as USAF bomber aircraft) and Categories (such as Category:United States bomber aircraft) are two entirely different animals (although some templates automatically add a category to an article; like the stub templates you've been adding do). I don't doubt your source on the LB-1; it probably did fly in 1923; but the "LB-1" designation quite clearly belongs to the system adopted by the USAAS in 1924 (indeed, the first "Light Bomber" to be designated under the system). Why? I'll cheerfully admit I have no idea! Regardless, there's no question that its correct country-role-decade category is Category:United States bomber aircraft 1920-1929, for reasons that I trust are obvious! :)


 * The problem with the "propeller", "single-engine", "low wing" etc categories is that they are, as far as I can see, largely useless. My best guesstimate is that there are something like 10-20,000 distinct aircraft types that have ever existed, each of which is at least theoretically a candidate for an article here. At present, we're covering something like 3,500-4,000 of them. I just don't see what use a category like "propeller aircraft", spanning several thousand otherwise unrelated types is to anybody? But I'm willing to be convinced otherwise! Categories for unusual aircraft configurations are obviously a different story: Category:Tailless aircraft, or Category:Rocket-powered aircraft, or Category:Flying wing aircraft link together aircraft with a noteworthy distinguishing feature. --Rlandmann (talk) 07:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Re:wikiair
Hello Trekphiler!

Nice to hear you're interested! The site is slowly improving, and we've also got a couple of users now who "specialise" in Planes. Vandal patrolling shouldn't be too bad at the moment, as we blocked IP editing in September after persistant vandalism. As we speak i'm testing an AVB, but it all depends on what happens. Let me know when you're over there though and i'll give you either Sysop rights of Rollback - it appears that you will need/want them, and I don't think you'll abuse them!

 Bluegoblin  7   11:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi,
 * We do actually have a lot content from WP, and this makes up, if not all, a large proportion of all content.
 * Undoing vandals is the same here as on WP, but i'm not entirely sure if we can just give rollback - i'll have a look!
 * If you don't want Sysop rights thats fine. If you rethink later they're there for you!
 * let me know here or there when you're up and running!
 *  Bluegoblin  7   19:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Great to see you up-n-running!
 * Feel free to invite other members over!
 *  BG 7   13:57, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

thanks for nom
Thanks for the half barnstar. I'm a little ambivalent about things at Attack recently, since the the last time I made a serious push on it, we managed to get FA status. I think reverting to that version of the article would be an improvement on what we have at the moment. Ah well.... ww (talk) 19:27, 2 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Aviation in World War I
Thanks trekp for the note about Aviation in World War I. If you check the edit summary you will find I reverted two different vandalism edits by an IP user. Because I do not have any of the fancy roll back tools I unid the latest vandalism then spotted the earlier vandalism and reverted that as well. I left a note on the users talk page and also because they have done it before have left a note with an Admin. MilborneOne (talk) 09:03, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Sourcing
I can't source it with my current material (it was something on Burma that pointed it out), but it is part of a pattern. For example, Operation U-Go was translated as "Operation C", as "U" (ウ) is the third letter. The style of ordering is called gojūon.

My guess would be that "Operation Z" is a pretty heavily distorted name. I've found reference for the Japanese operation being called "Hawaii Sakusen" (similar to "Mo Sakusen", the attack on Port Moresby; or "Mi Sakusen" their attack on Midway). Again, like Moresby, I've also found a (very weak) reference to the operation being referenced by its first two letters (Ha作戦 - The latter two characters stand for "sakusen" or, in English, "operation") here. From there, it probably got misinterpreted to be the kana character for "ha" (ハ) instead of "HA" as an abbreviation of Hawaii. Being that "ha" has already been translated as "Z" (in the Burma Campaign), it was probably the same thing.

Of course this is all original research, so it's probably not worth much to you. You're best bet would be to try and find the Official Japanese histories of World War II (or other reputable works by Japanese historians) and try to find the original code name for the attack on Pearl Harbor. Good luck. Oberiko (talk) 19:08, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

re:Run, Herve, run
Although I am trying to look for sources on sprint car, midget, & drag racers, I have found one so far that will be some use for you, in the mean time, I will try look for more, but as for sprint racing, have you tried asking user:Royalbroil, I think he knows better than me at this sort of stuff, but in the meantime I will try look through my bookmarks and will let you know within the week.

But in the meantime, have found these

http://www.na-motorsports.com/Racing/SprintCars.html http://www.ocair.com/newsletter/NLpage08.htm http://www.johnpadjenmotorsports.com/silverDollar/history.html http://www.winfield.50megs.com/Engines/Engines.htm http://www.draglist.com/stories/IMS%20DRL%20Story.htm

Willirennen (talk) 21:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, I would love to have a go at creating or expanding drag racing articles, but trouble is, I'm not sure if I'll be able to have enough time to create articles until July, maybe I'll do a few, especially Dick Landy one which i am keen at creating and the Hemi Under Glass. Willirennen (talk) 17:42, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Looking at the NHRA page, as I have noticed a large number of red links, you're totally right, there is a need for articles about drag racers. I'm just thinking, would a taskforce within the WikiProject Motorsport improve things, which I think would be a good idea. Willirennen (talk) 00:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

re: General Help/Definitions
Thanks for the help, it is much appreciated in these early stages! Sorry to be a "noob" but could you give me a definition for 'boilerplate' and 'sandbox' and how to incorparate them. Also I was wondering if someone could help me with my profile, what else can I do to customize it apart from just standard text, (again, sorry if this is irrelevant, I'll hopefully get the hang of this quickly in the next day or two. Fogle45 (talk) 18:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Got you now thanks! Yeah I Use Firefox and it definately helps. Also I was experimenting with Sandbox last night, very useful. If you can past that stuff on to my talk page that would be great. Thanks again 11:50, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Strategy
I didn't delete it??? (Trip Johnson (talk) 13:56, 8 March 2008 (UTC))

PH Debate
Yes he's always like that. I get tried of repeating the same info to him while he makes fragmented poor generalizations.

If you're interested in some decent articles let me know and I'd be happy to e-mail you some stuff. For example the SHIRIYA message was not intercepted at the time of its original transmission and no DF results were obtained. The message wasn't decrypted until years later. Cryptologia, Volume 31, Issue 3 July 2007 pg 232

I'm curious to see how far he will run with it.

ScottSScottS (talk) 05:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

RR 100 years website
I wrote to the Rolls Heritage Trust. Sure enough the 100 years page has been removed (according to the e-mail I got). I'm sure that several pence a year in hosting fees was really cutting into the profit margins! Anyway the good news is they have collected the material into book form. I'm trying to track down a copy.

I have also found that many of these biographies are starting to appear in JSTOR as part of a collection of the Royal Society. They too are collected in book form, and I'm going to try to find a copy of that as well. I have a feeling it might be a tad on the expensive side, especially on this side of the pond in the GWN.

If you're interested, I'll keep you up to date on my success in finding these.

Maury (talk) 17:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Next NW (early)
This is early for reasons LB22 and I understand.

Mark XIV torpedo
No problem. I found it odd that pics were sorely lacking, even on Commons. Broken Sphere Msg me 19:19, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Dan Patch
Hi. Thanks for your contribution to Minneapolis, Minnesota. I especially appreciated that you took the time to provide a citation. Unfortunately for a high level article like this it is a bit obscure (some big companies are not even mentioned). I did find one mention of an automobile but could not find the company in Google, looking quickly. I think many endeavors took the horse's name through endorsements. -Susanlesch (talk) 03:33, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, thank you. If you find it was a big deal maybe it would go in Economy of Minnesota or a someday-daughter article but I don't know. Best wishes. -Susanlesch (talk) 03:40, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

RE: Being selective
Sorry for the late reply, been rather off-wiki lately... How to link to an old version of a page:

stamped "23:25, 19 March 2008" from your talk page history - and paste it as a link here : I mean this version
 * 1) Go to the page you want to link to
 * 2) Click the "history" tab on top of page (to the right of the "edit this page" tab)
 * 3) RIGHT CLICK on the DATE AND TIME-link of the version, and copy link to clipboard
 * 4) Paste it onto the page you want to link from, for instance, I have now copied the link

That is, the wikicode for that link looks like this:

I mean this version

Regards, and a late Happy Easter! --Dna-Dennis (talk) 10:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Forgot, if you don't want to link to the entire page, but highlight a particular edit, copy the link called "(last)" in the page history to the left of the date-stamp (instead of copying the datestamp link). --Dna-Dennis (talk) 10:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Defunct
Hi, glad you wrote, I was about to write to you. You did all the hard work on the list. I noticed that there were a lot of brands listed that weren't there just a few weeks ago, and saw all the edits you made. My source is The Standard Catalog of American Cars 1805-1942 (3rd ed.) by Beverly Rae Kimes and Henry Austin Clark, Jr. I checked it out of the library and have it sitting right here. It is out of print and the places that have it used charge $200-$700 for it, so the library is probably your best bet on finding it. It's mindblowing in its comprehensiveness-- 1600+ pages, every pre-WWII car brand you can think of, and then some. All the dates and cross-references I have added to the list come directly from there. If you want to talk any more, my email is xjr.portfolio at that little Google mail thingie. Have a good one. SimonX (talk) 16:53, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

About the deletes- I didn't delete them on a whim, just so you know. I debated whether to leave them in or not. Now that you have the Kimes/Clark book, you can see how detailed it is. They list a lot of transplants of foreign companies manufacturing their autos in the US, but Decauville isn't one of them. As for Zabardust, it actually hasn't been on the list for that long. It was placed there just 7 edits and barely 3 months before you started working on the list last month. The person isn't a registered user and that is their ONLY edit on wikipedia. They only added Zabardust, nothing else. I tried finding info about Zabardust, but found nothing related to cars-- it seems to be a Bollywood-related term. That all seemed to me to point to vandalism, thus the deletion.

Speaking of deletion, what do you think of deleting truck brands on the list? There aren't many, but I think they should be on a separate list. I just got a new (for me) book from the library today that has White Hickory-- I had been unable to find info on that brand-- turns out they made trucks. This new book is great, it has a list of 5000 marques of US and Canadian cars. SimonX (talk) 19:28, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The American Car Since 1775, by the editors of Automobile Quarterly. As the title page to THE list reads: "5000 Marques    A Listing of Automobiles Produced in the United States and Canada"  It says there are 54 Canadian marques, but they aren't broken out separately. A sample entry is as follows:

American Simplex 1905-1910

Simplex Motor Car Co.

Mishawaka, Indiana

Company founded 1904. First car put on road July, 1905. Name changed to "Amplex" 1910.

So it just gives the essentials, with separate types of entries for unsubstantiated marques or for ones that were incorporated but never made any cars.

I'm going to take out the trucks. As for creating another new list, that would take more time than I would want to spend on it. There is still plenty of work to do on the car lists. Have a good day.SimonX (talk) 01:17, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Curtiss XBTC-2
Trek, I've looked at the source you used in creating the Curtiss XBTC-2 page. There's not enough differences from the XBTC-1 to warrant covering the -2 on a separate page, as both are Curtiss Model 96s, and both used R-4360 engines. TheXBT2C is related, using a downgraded engine and having two seats and radar. I beleive we can cover all three varaints on the same article, and still it would probably remain a stub for a long time. I'll give you a few hours to respond before making major changes. - BillCJ (talk) 22:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, the expanded article is at Curtiss XBTC, added the infobox, etc., along with redirects from the other options. - BillCJ (talk) 16:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

PSW logo...
Hi Trekphiler/Ghostrider!

The PSW logo is here, as you requested! We have permission from Tim/Bernd to use it if it's promotong TSW/PSW, which it is!

Thanks,

 BG 7   10:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmmm... i think it's uploaded to train in that format - give me 2 mins!
 *  BG 7   14:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If this is what you mean, then here it is: http://train.spottingworld.com/Image:Plane_logo.png. For the train one jsut reverse trains and planes! ;)
 * Thanks,
 *  BG 7   14:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Good - glad it's ok!
 * Hopefully it'll attract more users to PSW, which is what we need!
 * All the Best,
 *  BG 7   14:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Wow! You have been busy ;)!
 * Where were you trying to upload it - i'll give it a go!
 *  BG 7   14:51, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I've uploaded it to Image:PlaneSpottingWorld logo.png ok - and i'm also going to make some userboxes "This user is a member of..." etc  BG 7   15:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

(reset indent)

How about:

and:

?

You could even go so far as:

Or even one with a dual image!

<font face="Verdana"> BG 7   15:11, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Such as:
 * <font face="Verdana"> BG 7   15:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * <font face="Verdana"> BG 7   15:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * THanks! I think i'll put them into a template - easier than having to copy all the code each time, except the article one as i'm not too sure how to do parameters! I'll also be dropping a note at talk pages... the more they're used, the better!
 * <font face="Verdana"> BG 7   15:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeh i revised the trains one: (cos i have nothing better to do!)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXV (March 2008)
The March 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) 02:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Battle of Britain
Do you mind explaining to me what is your problem with the information I added? Which part is flaming obvious? What do you mean by "what year was just mentioned? what year was the battle?" What part of my edits was "irrelevant"?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ 09:16, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Re:Vandalism?
Instead of completely reverting my edits, why didn't you simply restore what you felt was (valuable?) information into the main body of the article? Is it possible that your "funky" comments might not be needed in this article?Shinerunner (talk) 00:51, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * O, I see, I'm supposed to guess what might be your comments? Should I leave the Hugh Jackman comment, the H.A.L. computer comment, the pistol company comment. A little help would be appreciated.Shinerunner (talk) 00:58, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not against humor and the edit you cited was a mistake on my part. My only defense is that I was working on that list line by line for about 3 hours straight in order to try to make some sense of all the references that have been added. I'm not sure if you noticed the history of this article, I've done some major work to it a few months back. When I decided to check back on it, the reference section looked like a train wreck.Shinerunner (talk) 01:11, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Polyglycoplex
A tag has been placed on Polyglycoplex, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be blatant advertising that only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 11, as well as the guidelines on spam.

If you can indicate why the subject of this article is not blatant advertising, you may contest the tagging. To do this, please add  on the top of Polyglycoplex and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would help make it encyclopedic, as well as adding any citations from reliable sources to ensure that the article will be verifiable. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. DGG (talk) 01:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * another admin removed the tag. But I am going to nominate it for deletion unless you can explain a little further why it is notable--has anyone besides one city paper recognized it? I am asking you first, because it does not seem your usual sort of rticle, and I respect the level of your contributions.DGG (talk) 02:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, but the question is whether you know of any actual academic work? If you do, please add it to the article. I will take a look for it myself in the various indexes tomorrow & see what i can find, but if you know any, it will help me get started. DGG (talk) 03:05, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Plane spotting world
Thank you, but my free time resources are very limited, and I'd prefer to scope on Wiki instead (especially, that you can copy articles from here :-) By the way, articles on Polish aircraft on the Polish Wiki are usually of worse quality, than En-Wiki, because I'm writing about aircraft mostly here ;-) Pibwl &larr;&laquo; 13:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Edit summaries
Hi. While I appreciate the good work you are doing, could you possible use better edit summaries? Although vandal warning (www.imanunrepentantmoron.com) may express your frustration eloquently, it may also deter the vandal from reforming, which is our ultimate goal in these interactions. Failing that, getting them blocked is the best way to deal with these editors. Remember WP:BITE and WP:CIVIL, even when dealing with editors you find unconstructive. I know how difficult that can be and I would be happy to be any help to you in any way that I can. Best wishes, --John (talk) 18:54, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply. Remember my offer; your proposed course of action sounds productive too. Best wishes, --John (talk) 02:45, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Standard E-1
Neither of the specs templates in general use are set up to accommodate alternate engine fits; the reason for this should be obvious - a large number of other specifications would also change depending on which engine was fitted (weights, maybe length, most if not all the performance specs). The accepted practice therefore is to pick one representative version and provide details for it. In a best case scenario, this will be the most numerous or most representative version, but sometimes practical concerns force us to select the version for which the best data is available! --Rlandmann (talk) 19:39, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * No problem. Just be aware of this fantastic resource: . It provides basic specs for virtually every aircraft type ever built in the United States. Even better for us Wikipedians, it appears to meet even the strict criteria of a reliable source since some of its major contributors are published authors in aerospace history. Google also showed up a preserved Standard E-1 at the Fantasy of Flight museum, and their website had another important spec (gross weight) and a bit more history. I've updated the E-1 article accordingly; you might want to do the same for some of the other recent articles you've created. Cheers! --Rlandmann (talk) 02:59, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the kind words. Here are a few other similar resources you might find useful:
 * British aircraft
 * Russian and Soviet aircraft
 * French aircraft
 * Italian aircraft (needs a little Italian to navigate - hover your mouse over the links marked "Schede" to the left of the screen)
 * None, though, with the "reliability" (in WP terms) of aerofiles though. Glad to have made your day; mine's been pretty rotten too :) --Rlandmann (talk) 03:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

LUSAC-11
There isn't a category for "designer's origin" - nor do we probably need one, since in 99% of cases this won't differ from "manufacturer's origin" (and could open up other cans of worms - Anthony Fokker was a Dutchman - should Fokker aircraft built in Germany and currently categorised as German also be categorised as Dutch?)

As a simple "litmus test", ask yourself whether the LUSAC-11 is likely to be included in a book of American military aircraft; and whether it is likely to be included in a book of French military aircraft. --Rlandmann (talk) 19:55, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 18:50, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

size matters:)
Ooooh thanks, I'd forgotten about it for a bit. Now I have no excuse not to make one. <font color="#FF1493">Merkin's  <font color="#FF1493">mum  02:37, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that was meant to have a :) after it lol:) <font color="#FF1493">Merkin's  <font color="#FF1493">mum  14:27, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Piping category links
Hi again Trekphiler - just a quick note about piping categories; since it seems you haven't quite got the hang of it yet.

When you put an article in a category, the Wiki software by default slots it into straight alphabetical order within that category. Usually, this is what we want; but in case it isn't, we can pipe it to wherever we want it to appear in the alphabet.

To use a recent example you edited, putting Savoia-Marchetti into Category:Companies established in 1915 will make it appear under "S" in the alphabet when you view that category - which is where it should be. However, piping it to tells the software "don't file this as S, file it as * instead". By convention, lists and other purely navigational articles are usually piped to *, since this separates them from the actual articles in the category. If you now click on Category:Companies established in 1915, you'll see Savoia-Marchetti isn't under S, where we would expect, but under *, where you placed it.

Piping is most frequently done in articles about people, since Western European convention files people familyname-givenname, but left to its own devices, the Wiki software will file these articles by their title, which is almost always givenname-familyname. To make sure that "John Smith" ends up filed correctly within Category:People with boring names, we would need to pipe the category link thus:.

In aircraft articles, we often pipe category links to preserve designation sequences (otherwise, the Wiki software would file "Foo F-100" before "Foo F-21", since it's blindly following alphabetical order). This is especially important to getting those wacky pre-1962 USN designations in shape.

Cheers --Rlandmann (talk) 00:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the delay in getting back to you - I've been preoccupied elsewhere (nearly finished Wikipedia:Aircraft encyclopedia topics/3|Volume 3]] - yay!). The short answer is that no, redlinked categories don't show up anywhere. As for the piping - yes, the best strategy is not to add pipes to any categories unless you know what you're doing and are doing it for a specific purpose. As for "lifting cats from other articles", like I said back in January, the only cat you need to worry about is the Country-Role-Decade category. If you want to go further, you really should invest the time and learn how the aircraft categories work. Cheers --Rlandmann (talk) 11:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

OR history sources
While I don’t remember the source on the German tank problem, it might have been one of Joseph F. McCloskey’s three articles in the journal Operations Research back in 1987. These were

“The Beginnings of Operations Research: 1934-1941”. Operations Research, Vol. 35, No. 1, pp. 143-152, 1987 “British Operational Research in World War II”. Operations Research, Vol. 35, No. 3, pp. 453-470, 1987 “American Operational Research in World War II”. Operations Research, Vol. 35, No. 6, pp. 910-925, 1987

The second would be the most likely source of the three. Most sources on the history of OR in WWII only go through 1941 and the German tank problem arose in 1944.

Some other good general sources on WWII OR history are the following:

M. Fortun and S. S. Schweber wrote a good piece, “Scientists and the Legacy of World War II: The Case of Operations Research (OR)”, in Social Studies of Science, Vol. 23, No. 4 (Nov., 1993), pp. 595-642, Published by: Sage Publications, Ltd.

Erik P. Rau has a monograph “The Adoption of Operational Research in the United States during World War II” in Agatha Chipley Hughes’ and Thomas Parke Hughes’ Systems, Experts, and Computers: The Systems Approach in Management and Engineering, World War II and After, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., 2001.

The same year he also contributed a chapter on “Technological Systems, Expertise, and Policy Making: The British Origins of Operational Research” in Technologies of Power:  Essays in Honor of Thomas Parke Hughes and Agatha Chipley Hughes, The MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., 2001.

More recently he has published Combat Science: the Emergence of Operational Research in World War II, Drexel University, Philadelphia, PA, 2005. ISSN 0160-9327

There is a recent book I have not read, entitled An Annotated Timeline of Operations Research: An Informal History published in 2005 by Saul I. Gass, Arjang A. Assad. It might have some interesting insights, but when I skimmed it, I wasn’t too impressed; if anything, it’s a little too informal and rambles briefly through a lot of topics.

Of course, if you're looking for the "standard text" on the subject of ops research itself, that would probably remain the work of Philip M. Morse & George E. Kimball, Methods of Operations Research, The MIT Press, Cambridge Mass. and John Wiley, New York, 1951.

Hope that helps,

Askari Mark (Talk) 02:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Nominate for F1POM & F1DOM
YOU can nominate for the F1 picture of the month here and F1 driver of the month here. '<font face="Skia" color="#000">Chubb '<font face="Skia" color="#556B2F">enna <font face="Skia" color="#000">itor  18:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Even more complex than Gabaldon
Ben Salomon, who finally was recognized with a posthumous Medal, 60 years or so later. I don't think, as some have charged, that anti-Semitism was the issue. It really was a very tough call under the prevailing laws of land warfare -- even today, there are rules against crew-served weapons for medical personnel. As far as I could tell, every contemporary account of his sacrifice considered it a Medal of Honor action.

Sometime in the early sixties, the U.S. Army made clear that medical types could choose between going armed with personal weapons (through automatic rifle), or wear the Red Cross. My mother was a reservist at the time, and had held expert rifle/pistol since WWII -- but never had thought she would use them in anger. Eventually, her particular choice was to go armed, but said she would only fire in defense of patients, not of herself alone.

A friend of mine retired as an Air Force parajumper, but was talked back for a couple of private military tours for the British in Iraq, primarily for his medical skills. The first tour was uneventful, but, knowing he is prone to understatement, it must have been quite an ambush when he commented, rather mildly, that he appreciated the speed with which the British got armor and tacair to them. He did say, however, that his .45 saved his life, hastening to add that he never fired it -- he was hanging upside down by his seat belt, with his pistol in a shoulder holster, and a bullet smashed the pistol. Had it not done so, he estimated the trajectory would have gone straight into his heart.

Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 21:00, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for you comments
Thanks for you comments at Generic_role-playing_game_system. It was very brave of you to take a contrary view from the other contributors to the discussion.--Gavin Collins (talk) 09:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Re:This is not jeopardy
You are welcome to archive your talk page at any time or using roughly any criteria you use, more information can be found at Help:Archiving_a_talk_page.

Basically you shouldn't mess with the appearance of your talk page to intentionally hide/ignore warnings or users in dispute with you. You are welcome to link to a self created archive (such as, say, User_talk:Trekphiler/Archive 1. You can use your move tab to move the whole page history and start clean again, or you can copy and paste the contents as long as you point to where they came from to comply with the GFDL.  Let me know if you have any further questions, it's a fairly straight forward procedure despite my complicating it with reason :)

As for making a signature, the preferences will let you set a signature that uses wikimarkup, HTML, or a combination of both (Wikimarkup can translate HTML color tags, for example). My signature, in the raw, is Keegan talk. So as you see I have the link from my name to my userpage using the standard piping, and HTML syntax (such as ) to manipulate it. I know little of HTML or that sort of thing, but it's something you can figure out with practice. You can practice with whether or not your sig will work by simply previewing it in an edit box. Here's the link with more information. Happy editing to you. Keegan  talk 02:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Not-so-slight rewording
Hey Trek, I think something went wrong with your edit here. "the Wall Street Journal reported Northrop Grumman was thron the project." doesn't make any sense, and I'm not certain where you were going with the rewrite. Since you probably remeber what you were trying to say, I thought I'd let you have a stab at fixing it first. Looks like your cursor took a whole line when you were deleting something - does it to me quite often! - BillCJ (talk) 02:40, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Removed important distinctions?
The edits to the gallery in the custom car article were to correct misspellings and add Wikilinks in the descriptions, as well as provide a better organization and layout of the images. Your wholesale revert did not contribute to improving the article. Moreover, the descriptions contain numerous subjective statements. For example "a very contemporary design", "Recent", or "Fullbore custom" ... as all of these are POV and there are no definitions of these descriptions. Another example is the following text: "Also has cutom interior and headrests. Appears to have four-link front suspension." When the picture is of the exterior of the car, it is pure conjecture and not "important distinctions" as you claim. Moreover, you reintroduced numerous misspellings — such as "cutom" (well ... after all, this article is about CUSTOM cars!), formatting errors — such as "Amc pacer" (rather than AMC Pacer), as well as undefined links — such as in "not gennie Hallibrands" (where "gennie" is a NOT word and I guess you mean the trademarked "Halibrand" wheels). I trust that you can see why the changes had to be made to improve this article. Thanks — CZmarlin (talk) 03:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Jet Aces
No pilot in World War II achieved aces status on the Me 163 or He 162 to my knowledge. According to Wolfgang Späte the most successful Me 163 pilot was Siegfried Schubert. Herbert Ihlefeld is said to be credited with one He 162 kill. MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Wolfgang Späte stated this in his book
 * Späte, Wolfgang. Der streng geheime Vogel Me 163. DÖRFLER im NEBEL VERLAG GmbH. ISBN 978-3-89555-142-0.
 * MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:07, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Interesting! No, I had not seen this. Thanks for pointing this out MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:19, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Bubi
"Bubi", "Bub" or "Bübchen" is the hypocoristic form of "young boy" in the German language. I had stated this in the Erich Hartmann article roughly 1/3 down 4th paragraph. MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:41, 28 April 2008 (UTC) <div style="border-style:solid; border-color:blue; background-color:AliceBlue; border-width:1px; text-align:left; padding:8px;" class="plainlinks"> Hello Trekphiler, MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:29, 28 April 2008 (UTC) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Unreserved apology
I was in too much of a rush and misread your comment, so my apologies.Minorhistorian (talk) 04:20, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVI (April 2008)
The April 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) 02:35, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

WPF1
BetacommandBot (talk) 13:45, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Mk XiV Torpedo
"Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Mark 14 torpedo. Your edits constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. You don't perchance work at BuOrd, do you? Trekphiler (talk) 11:05, 12 April 2008 (UTC)"

You sent me this message earlier via IP Ad. as I had not logged in when I made some changes.

The following quote in the Mark 14 torpedo page

"Blame for the inadequate weapon must be laid at the feet of the Bureau of Ordnance, which specified an unrealistically rigid magnetic exploder sensitivity setting and oversaw the feeble testing program. BuOrd hampered wartime investigation into Mark VI exploder problems by assigning the mechanism "secret" status, limiting knowledge of its inner workings to a few high-ranking officers, refusing to believe word of active duty sailors,[27] laying blame for failures on these very same men,[28] even sabotaging torpedoes to conceal defects"[29]

Blair does not say this "even sabotaging torpedoes to conceal defects" (ref [29]0. He details a story from Doug Rhymes, Tyrel Jacobs Torpedo Officer on board Sargo about when BuOrd flew a torpedo Expert out to Java to investigat the torpedo problems experienced by Sargo and how incompetant the "expert" appeared to be.  In no way does Blair say or suggest that the BuOrd 'sabotaged' the torpedos.SeanF1 (talk) 18:30, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar for the gullible
I gave your barnstar a headline. By the way, you need to add the last change bit to the message to make it really, really convincing. Well, everything has its positives, at least I was the first one! Have fun, I'm sure you will, EA210269 (talk) 07:00, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

F1POM and F1DOM
You can vote for the Formula One Picture of the Month/Driver of the Month at User talk:Chubbennaitor/F1POM and User talk:Sage Callahan/F1DOM. We really need your votes as the last picture and driver was decided. '<font face="geneva" color="#6699FF">Chubb '<font face="geneva" color="#7DF9FF">enna <font face="geneva" color="#00FF00">itor  07:31, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

BS
Thanks for the Barnstar. I knew it wasn't real because of various different things. '<font face="geneva" color="#6699FF">Chubb '<font face="geneva" color="#7DF9FF">enna <font face="geneva" color="#00FF00">itor  13:06, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough
The automatic logoff caught us and I got bent out of shape because of context. No hard feelings. Dhatfield (talk) 22:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the Barnstar. I really liked your quirk, though I must say I was fooled. The reason I went to your page was actually that you had removed the WPNorway project banner from Kornsjø Station, and added the WPSweden one instead. After double checking that the station is actually in Norway (though of course near the border since it is a border station), I put back then WPNorway banner (keeping the Swedish). Then I took a look at your user account just to assure myself that you were up to nothing wrong (which of course you were not). And then I though I got a message.... <strong style="color:green;">Arsenikk <sup style="color:grey;">(talk)  15:30, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar. I was surfing through links on random userpages and ended up on your page. I have fallen for it on someone elses page before too. Juthani1   tcs 01:08, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Deleted content
I believe you have to be an administrator to be able to see deleted content. Let me know if there's one in particular that you want to look at. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:07, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

thanks
thanks for the userboxMaolain (talk) 23:49, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVII (May 2008)
The May 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) 02:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Cheers!
Thanks for the star, mate! Jared Preston (talk) 11:37, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

F1POM
I think you would want to nominate them at F1DOM because POM is picture of the month. If you have a great picture then add it to the one you nominated at. '<font face="geneva" color="#6699FF">Chubb '<font face="geneva" color="#7DF9FF">enna <font face="geneva" color="#00FF00">itor  14:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

No problem. If you want you can edit the NW. '<font face="geneva" color="#6699FF">Chubb '<font face="geneva" color="#7DF9FF">enna <font face="geneva" color="#00FF00">itor  14:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Caesar FDR
That's something I ran across in other materials some years ago, it might take a bit of work to track down again but I'll see what I can do. Most of my books are packed up during an extended move/renovation. Will let you know! —PētersV (talk) 00:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

WPF1 Newsletter (June)
--<font face="Forte"> Diniz (talk)  20:56, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Something wrong with your barnstar
Hi. On User talk:ARBAY your barnstar framebox appears to be running on into sections added later. --Una Smith (talk) 21:14, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

RE: Your hidden page
Hey Trekphiler, I have recently found your hidden page, and I was wondering if oyu would like me to create a userbox people can paste to their talk pages and/or user pages saying they have found your hidden page? I am suggesting this because of...


 * I am a member of WikiProject:Userboxes and have created many Userboxes
 * Some people have subpages for their awards, and so the barnstar for discovering your hidden page doesn't get seen on their userpages/talk pages.

Let me know your verdict on My Talk Page or here.

Green1Blue2 (talk) 06:59, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Alright I won't bother. Also, I misunderstood after finding your hidden page and posted the barnstar on my talk page myself. Apologies! Would you mind posting it for me please?Green1Blue2 (talk) 08:16, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No apologies necessary. I just got your first message, so it's on the way. Trekphiler (talk) 08:27, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Allied submarines in the Pacific War
Thanks for adding the citations from Blair. Could you please also add the page numbers? I've got a copy of Silent Victory on order from Amazon.com, but it's half-way across the Pacific at the moment. Thanks, Nick Dowling (talk) 12:06, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Strange content removal edit comment
Just noticed this edit of yours: link - might want to see if your automated editing software isn't on the fritz. You might want to give How_to_archive_a_talk_page a squiz as well. ;-) Wongm (talk) 13:07, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Template:WP Space exploration
According to the "Usage" note at the bottome of WP Space exploration, that template has been deprecated and WPSpace it to be used instead. Were you aware of this? Is there some new consensus about using multiple space-related banners rather than the combined space banner? (sdsds - talk) 09:04, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Albrecht Von Kess'
Hi. I have cited it in a book by Eisenhower, "The Bitter Woods: The Battle of the Bulge", on his page. But some other cretinous editor keeps deleting it, without explanation. Dapi89 (talk) 09:20, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVIII (June 2008)
The June 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) 20:37, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Film bios
Just a heads up for future tagging - please be advised that biographies fall outside of WikiProject Film's scope, and should not be given a Film tag. Thanks, Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 07:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Cycle fenders
I have to admit I never heard of cycle fenders. (I am living in England.)  Maybe it's a North American phrase. Did you learn your mother tongue (assuming it's English) in Canada or the US, out of interest? I tried looking up cycle fenders in wiki, but ... well, you probably tried that already too.

So I googled it and sure enough you're right. But it still set me head scratching: I agree that motor-bike style mudguards is ugly, though. Maybe I'll ask Kieren since he's in on this and he is a man who takes his English seriously. (As far as I can remember he learned his English in Scotland where a lot of them take their English seriously.)  Charles01 (talk) 19:37, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Re:Thanks
I think that nitwit was looking to be blocked, so I was happy to oblige! ... disco spinster   talk  00:12, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Re:Viva España
can you read here: official web of spanish armada (navy) cita:

BANDERA DE PROA O TAJAMAR O TORROTITO

emplea en buques de guerra.

Determina el ceremonial marítimo que en los días festivos y en otras ocasiones de engalanado se ice a proa, en el bauprés, una bandera pequeña denominada de tajamar o torrotito, que desde el siglo XVII fue idéntica a la nacional, hasta que el Reglamento de Banderas, Insignias y Distintivos, de 11 de octubre de 1945, la creó cuartelada, con los cuatro cuarteles de Castilla, León, Aragón y Navarra, que actualmente mantiene.

Tralation (aprox):

Naval Jack, flag's bow, Tajamar o torrotino

Its used in war ships

IIs used in festive days ... a little flag called tajamar or torrotino, since 17th century, was the national flag.

Since 11 October 1945 was created the called "cuartelada", with four quarters .....

--Takashi kurita (talk) 11:10, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, i'm editing from Seville, Spain. My user in spanish Wikipedia


 * if you need datas over spanish ships article... ;)


 * --Takashi kurita (talk) 13:19, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * My english is very limited for write articles in english, hardly enough for traslate from english to spanish with a help of authomatic traslator (then check) or for check one english article (olny forn themes that i dominate).


 * My worst fault in english language, is my limited vocabulary


 * --Takashi kurita (talk) 14:25, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll try... with your help... ;)
 * --Takashi kurita (talk) 15:36, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

My first article in english
Churruca class destroyer ... im sure one revission is needed



--Takashi kurita (talk) 08:29, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks a lot... i continue... :)
 * --Takashi kurita (talk) 09:42, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * News datas added..... continue looking for datas (machine guns and depth chargues...)

--Takashi kurita (talk) 12:44, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi again:


 * Miranda (Augusto Miranda y Godoy), was one Military man (Admiral), politician and writer.


 * He was Navy Minister in 1913-1917, 1918-1918 and 1919-1919

Artile over Miranda write for me in WP:ES


 * His law:


 * 4 light cruisers
 * 6 destroyers
 * 28 submarines
 * 3 gunboart
 * 18 guard coast


 * Finally cosntructed:


 * 5 light cruisers (1 sunk in accident)
 * 3 destroyers (alsedo class), extend to 14 (Churruca class)
 * 16 submarines (1 Holland (USA), 3 Laurenti (ITA), 6 B Class (Spain) and 6 C Class (Spain)
 * 3 gunboat
 * auxiliary vessel

--Takashi kurita (talk) 13:41, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Speed
I live in a country where highspeed broad band is delivered down very old copper wires. At busy times of day - like when the kids get home from college and start watching movies on line - high speed is so fast that you might as well take a bath while it downloads or times out. In many ways that's my problem. However, your discussion page is (unless I flatter myself) for communicating with people like me, and that makes it your problem. I find myself avoiding your wiki-discussion page because of problems downloading it timely / at all. I thought you ought to know...

On the subject of pots and kettles, yes. I've been meaning to archive most of my own discussion page for at least six months. Then again, what's wrong with a spot of (relatively) harmless hypocrisy?

Regards Charles01 (talk) 08:48, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

RMS Lusitania very good edits
I noticed your edits to Lusitania article even though I didn't mind mentioning John Brown as far as the engineers were concerned, but what you did was okay and makes good grammar. Also nn need to hy-link a person, group etc more than twice in an article. I try to get people on Wikipedia to recognize that. Makes good form. Koplimek (talk) 13:43, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Re:Golden Oldie
With a little help one authomatic traslator, and WP:EN, is easy to me traslate to spanish articles in english.... (olny forn themes that i dominate... ships).

And olny when i have got time.

--Takashi kurita (talk) 17:57, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: I feel unuserboxed
The userbox is at WikiProject Military history/Outreach/User WPMILHIST Military land vehicles task force. I think it's listed somewhere on the task force page (since I'm fairly certain there's a link to a userbox slot in the task force boilerplate), but it might have disappeared for some reason. Cheers! Kirill (prof) 01:41, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

2nd and 3rd traslation
Sánchez Barcáiztegui and Almirante Ferrándiz, two Churruca class... i hope your comments :D

--Takashi kurita (talk) 10:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

"All ships returned". same up point
 * "Teniente de Navío"? is the equivalent of Captain in Spanish Navy.
 * Alférez de fragata=Alférez
 * Alférez de Navío= Teniente = Liutenant
 * Teniente de Navío = Capitán = Captain
 * Capitán de Corbeta = Comandante = Major
 * Capitán de Fragata = Teniente Coronel = Liutenant Colonel
 * Capitán de Navio = Coronel=Colonel
 * Actually, use Nato Sistem, in time of civil war, use L for Lepanto, SB for Sanchez Barcaiztegy, AA for Almirante Antequera.....
 * Her 120s: 120 mm (4.7 in) L45 (5x1).. ok, i try remember this...
 * "the ship`s captain"? When (if) you can, find ... in my bibliografy don appear.... i continue looking (since i write all churruca classes aticles in spanish)
 * Sure.... go to north:
 * Spanish battleship Jaime I
 * cruisers: Libertad and Cervantes
 * destroyers: Almirante Valdés, Almirante Antequera, Almirante Miranda, Alsedo, José Luis Díez, Lepanto and Lazaga
 * submarines: 3 spanish C type.
 * Re Alcalá Galiano and Lazaga: yes... Spanish destroyers.... i will try remember the diferences in names of artiles between WP:EN and WP:ES....
 * Barcáiztegui was refloated. Any hint what she was used for before scrapping? was refloaded, repairs and re-comisionated (no there is much material in this time in spain).
 * Did she hit/damage Baleares? not sure, 3 destroyer fires 12 torpedoes in a little time period, 3 impact and sink the ship (2 sure sending by Lepanto)
 * Finally, the letters (SB), (L), & so on in the identifiers. I'm guessing these are the pennants they flew.Yes... are the pennants ... in WP:ES.... use it in tittles... diferences...
 * Canarias: Canarias, start his fire at 16.000 km, then the destroyer try to flee... survivors, not sure, but mor of 31 persons (traslation from Batalla del cabo espartel WP:ES): "Canarias, stop her fire for rescue 31 sailor, and authorizated one Frech mechant for rescue others"

--Takashi kurita (talk) 11:58, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

(spanish navy traditions.....)
 * From the rank structure, it looks like Teniente is fairly junior, equal to an Army captain, roughly USN/RN equal to Lieutenant; would you agree?
 * Teniente de navio = Captain in army
 * Alferez de navio = Liutenant in army


 * I got that Canarias scored her 1st hits at 16km, but the "20km" suggests she either commenced fire before 16km or her target was opening the range (going away from her); can you say which? Also, I'm going to add Canarias stopped to pick up survivors; that's a very honorable opponent & worthy of mention.


 * first shots at 16 km, 3rd at 20 km... i suppose the destroyers flee.... (Gravina, flee and refuge in Casablanca... Light Cruiser Cervantes, fire more than 300 shots and olny impact with 2)


 * Baleares. I'll add it was a joint attack; that way it's a bit clearer. (Does Baleares have a SpWP page? Does it say which ship sank her? Am I wrong to think you haven't looked there already? ;) )


 * Baleares was unfinished in Espartel, start his service a few months later (my grand Father was in Baleares until augost 1937) incomplete (without the 4th turrete and without telemeter, the use one of one gunboat ). in her sunk (WP:ES: fue hundido por la flota republicana en la Batalla del cabo de Palos por torpedos procedentes del destructor Lepanto. "Was sank in the battle of Cape Palos by torpedoes launched by Lepanto)... but in this page

say probabliy Lepanto... and say:

Sanchez Barcaiztegui 4 torpedoes (2:17 AM) Almirante antequera 5 torpedoes (2:18 AM) Lepanto 3 Torpedoes (2:19 AM)

distance : 533 m Torpedo speed: 42 knot Time: 1 minute - 1.2 minute Baleares impacts at 2:20 AM

--Takashi kurita (talk) 13:16, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

interested in ships

 * I doubt you're the only one interested in ships of the Spanish Navy (just the only 1 I know of :)


 * Really, there is a lot of the, but no in WP... in forums, like this.

--Takashi kurita (talk) 13:36, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

More

 * Here, can you say what their mission was, & if they were successful? And why the other ships stayed behind? Or were they sunk?
 * answer in Battle of Cape Palos

Cite: "On March 5, 1938, both Nationalist heavy cruisers sailed off from Palma de Mallorca naval base with a light cruiser, Almirante Cervera, and three destroyers. The squadron acted as a distant cover of a ship convoy bearing war equipment from Italy. On the same day, Republican forces, consisting of two light cruisers (Libertad, a modern vessel, and the older Méndez Núñez) and five destroyers, sailed from Cartagena. At night, Nationalist destroyers returned to base, while the cruisers remained on course.

The squadrons, going in opposite directions, met by chance in the dead of night. A Republican destroyer fired torpedoes but missed, and both fleets passed by the other. Nationalist Rear Admiral de Vierna preferred to wait until dawn, which would enable him to use his ships' superior artillery, but Republican Vice Admiral de Ubieto decided to turn and pursue the enemy.

The fleets met again at about 2:15. Nationalist cruisers opened fire on Libertad from a range of about 5 kilometers, and Republican cruisers returned fire. However, due to lack of experience in night combat, neither artillery barrage proved effective. As the cruisers duelled, a line of three Republican destroyers, probably unnoticed by the Nationalists, approached the battle. At about 3 kilometers from their targets, destroyers Sanchéz Barcáiztegui, Lepanto and Almirante Antequera fired 12 torpedoes. Two or three torpedoes, probably from Lepanto, scored devastating hits on Baleares." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Takashi kurita (talk • contribs) 14:38, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Diferent succes

 * 1.- in first moment (summer 1936) Republican side, blockade the gibraltar straits to avoid the transpor of toops between Africa and Iberian peninsula (south of spain)
 * 2.- Then, Send the scuadron (except two destroyers) to Catabric Sea (north of spain, in this zone, republican trops was isolated)
 * 3.- Nationalist side, send Canarias and Almirante Cervera to breack the blockade (for can transport troops to peninsula) (september 1936) (Battle of Cape Espartel)
 * 4.- All republican sips, (except 2 destroyers and 4 submarines) returned to mediterranean sea
 * 5.- Canarias, Baleares and Almirante Cervera (2 heavy cruisers and 1 light), pass to mediterranean sea (Battle of Cape Cherchell in september 1937 (near of argelie)
 * 6.- In March of 1938, the 3 nationalis cruiser and 3 old destroyers (2 sold by Mussolini), escort one convoy, and was intercepted by 2 light cruiser and 8 destroyes, but olny 5 destroyers and the 2 cruisers by the republicans and the 3 cruisers by the nationalist took part in the Battle of Cape Palos (mediterranean see (southest of Spain).
 * 7.-in 1938, the noth side republican is lossed, destroyer Jose Luis diez, try to break the blockade (now nationalist) for return to mediterranean.

--Takashi kurita (talk) 18:55, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: Barnstars 'R' U
Thank you for the shiny new barnstar, and for the heads up about my signature. CK Hideki 01:11, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * You found it, & I figure you want people to be able to find you. BTW, what brought you to my page?  TREKphiler  <sup style="color:#1034A6;"> hit me ♠  01:13, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I was looking at Talk:Hideo Nomo because of his recent retirement, and I was intrigued by the signature you were using at the time. CK Hideki 01:20, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot
for The Rosetta Barnstar... is a pleasure work in this with you...

--Takashi kurita (talk) 05:25, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

The 4th and 5th
The 4th and 5th are waiting for you .. ;) Spanish destroyer Lepanto and José Ferrándiz y Niño

--Takashi kurita (talk) 08:14, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
For constant advice and reviewing the student's progress at military sociology article! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:28, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, I know, I know :) But if we do the work for them, it's not really a good assignment :) Thus I try to get editors to "hold their horses" and for the next week just keep commenting on the talk... PS. Perhaps you'd like to review the status of other 4 articles edited by the students? At that point #4 and #5 has not been edited by the students to any extent, although I expect this to change very soon. In theory, they should have the articles ready for GA nomination by Monday; unfortunately despite my repeated advice they have not begun to work on them till the last few days. Next time I am doing this assignment, I will require them to started editing earlier, and give them points along the way (currently the groups will just get points for completed work at the end of the course).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:36, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed, let's see what they can figure out and fix before we give them to much advice.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 19:49, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, the current technophobia articles has not been written by my students. It was classified as a stub, and I let them chose any sociology-related stub they wanted; I hope they chose something that interested them, not something that was already long (the same goes for stages... article, but that group is doing some serious work on the article already). Macrosociology was a tiny stub before, and mil soc and sex script are completely new. Next time I plan to weed out any longer stubs from the socio-stubs before they get a change to look through them... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 20:13, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not that I think it well written (so far... I am hoping it will be improved), but per WP:BITE - I've refactored your statement. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:38, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I hate to edit somebody's elses posts, but I have to take care of the students. It's in the job description, unfortunately :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 19:02, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Btw, feel free to tag the articles with general and inline templates, that should make us feel better. As I said, I'd prefer the students to create/improve content, but we certainly can point out what needs to be fixing. In the end, they are all newbies, and it is only to be expected that their first article(s) will suffer from many problems. Pointing them out is one of the things we can do.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 19:15, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

José Ferrándiz y Niño
A few things to add if/when you can:
 * 1) The squadron was retained in Port Said. Can you say why? Was it because they were needed there, or the war ended before they arrived in the Philippines, or something else?
 * article in WP:English Spanish Battleship Pelayo.


 * 1) a first (given) name for Admiral Camara
 * Manuel De La Cámara Livermore journal


 * 1) "in command of a destroyer flotilla": Do you have a flotilla number? And which ship he flew his flag in (which was his "headquarters ship", if the term's not familiar)?
 * He was the pelayo's comandant, but for this mission, gives pelayo to other oficial, and he takes the destroyers, his flag ship was Audaz

--Takashi kurita (talk) 11:02, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Spain recives this 3 destroyers and send in camar's squadron.... no name asigned.--Takashi kurita (talk) 18:26, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Lepanto
A couple of things to add if/when you can:
 * 1) "bound for Bizerta," I get the feeling the war was going badly & they hoped to keep their freedom, or avoid being executed. True?
 * The last.... for avoid being executed (a lot of executed when war finish)


 * 1) "On maneuvers 27 July 1940". It sounds like an anti-submarine exercise. (I don't want to speculate & I don't know how much emphasis the Armada placed on ASW.) If it is, change from "On maneuvers" to "On an antisubmarine warfare exercise"?
 * Exersice for submarines (German doctrine)


 * 1) "between her gun and sail with her stem" Do I understand correctly C-4 had an aft-mounted deck gun, and Lepanto split the distance between her gun and conning tower? Also, was "sail" the usual term in the '30s, or is "conning tower" accurate? Fix as needed?
 * C4 have got one bun over deck (like the tipe VIIC)... in spain say "vela" (sail) for submarine tower... i dont know if in english is diferent

Also, any biographical info you can find, like who was her captain at any time (especially when she ran down C-4, & who commanded C-4 then) would be great. Add when you can get to it? Also, I deleted "Spain" from the "Ship country" parameter in the infobox; unless a ship served with more than one country, I don't think it's necessary.
 * 1) And a small copyedit question. Is the SpNavy usual C2, C-2, C.2? If I've got it wrong, fix it?

official is C-4... but in a lot of sites, you can se C4. In C-4, was Capitan de corbeta (Major) Francisco Reina Carvajal --Takashi kurita (talk) 11:02, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


 * in the six photo you can see the poin of impact (a little rear...), the first photo, is the C-4--Takashi kurita (talk) 18:30, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Mad magazine
Hi. Who were you addressing as "smart guy" in your recent Edit Summary, and what linked article were you referring to? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 02:37, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Let's get one thing perfectly clear. You don't talk to other editors that way. Not me. Not anyone. Not ever. Period. Among Wikipedia's policies are Civility,  Assume Good Faith, and  No Personal Attacks, and both the remark in your recent Edit Summary and the section title you chose for your recent message to me are in violation of these policies. Given how long you've been editing, you should know this. Do it again, and you'll be blocked.


 * I asked you who you were addressing because I wanted to confirm that you were talking to me, because your comment did not seem to bear any relevance to any edit I made, and so I didn't want to respond unless I was certain it was me you were addressing. Doing this seems like a rather smart thing to do, IMO.


 * Lastly, you might be interested to know that Wikipedia articles cannot be used as sources for other articles. So fact-tagging the passage in question is valid. Nightscream (talk) 03:08, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

First of all, you're not really being civil when you start off your posts with "Pay attention". So please calm down. Wikipedia is not something to get worked up about.

Whether there is a source in the linked article is irrelevant. Articles cannot be used as sources in other articles, nor is doing so a substitute for placing that source in the second article. I am under no obligation whatsoever to consult a wikilinked article during the course of my editing activities, nor is any other editor. Would it be appropriate to do so? Sure. But is it required? No. Everyone has their own style and habits regarding wikilink-exploring, and I did not have the time to go clicking on other articles. If you must know, being away from home, and on a public computer in a library with limited hours, slogging through that Mad article, and tagging all the unsourced material was taking up enough time as it was, and I still had more articles that piled up on my watchlist while I was away to get to.

You point out that you added a footnote to that passage, and claim you got it from that article. Yes, but you added that footnote after I fact-tagged it, so it's not as if I fact-tagged a passage that already had a cited source. Thus, fact-tagging it when it had not such citation at the time, was valid.

Yes, you overreacted....twice. First in the Edit Summary in question, and then by personally attacking me on my Talk Page. I'm not sure what you're referring to when you say, "And...no, I'm not going to say it. There's no way to say it without being a dick", but yes, you are mostly certainly capable of communicating with other editors without sounding like a dick. Whether you do or not is based on your desire to make the effort to do so, not whether it's not possible to do so. Thanks for adding the cite. Take care. Nightscream (talk) 04:12, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


 * "You start with a threat of blocking & expect perfect civility?"


 * First, your act of incivility came before my warning about you being blocked, and therefore, my warning to you was the result of your behavior, so don't try to manipulate the chronology of our exchanges so as to imply that I somehow made some unprovoked statement that you did not deserve, and that therefore, you are a victim in all this.


 * Second, the warning I issued to you was just that: A warning. Not a "threat". As an administrator, it is among my responsibilities to issue such warnings when editors violate WP policy. You indeed violated those policies with your inappropriate behavior, and if you continue with this, you will be blocked. That's not a threat. That's simply enforcement of quite reasonable rules that you seem to think that you can fling out the window.


 * Lastly, yes, creating a new section on someone's Talk Page with the title "Are you smarter than a fifth grader?", when made soon after a similar remark in an Edit Summary, is indeed a personal attack. If you wish to argue that it is not, try making that argument to other editors and administrators, and see how they react. Take care. Nightscream (talk) 04:29, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

"And then you start with a block threat." No. You started with repeated insults, and your continued attempts to selectively rewrite the chronology of our exchanges is not going to change this. The warning you were given was the reasonable response to that, and is consistent with Wikipedia policy. Which part of this do you dispute?

"That is not calculated to get a civil response, & it didn't." It's calculated to make you aware that your behavior is unacceptable, and that if you continue it, you'll be blocked for it. The only response it should receive from you is an acknowledgment that you will not continue that behavior, and yes, civility. The other editors and administrators on Wikipedia are not required to walk on eggshells when admonishing you for your behavior, nor is your irritation at being reprimanded a blank check to continue the behavior in question. It almost seems as if you are implying that you have the right both to insult other editors, to regard policy-based admonishments of that behavior as some type of infringement upon your rights, and that such admonishment is justification for further behavior. It isn't. Even if you saw something in my fact-tagging that you disagreed with, or disputed the validity of my warnings to you, the fact remains that there are valid ways that Wikipedia prescribes to resolve such disputes. Misportraying your exchanges with an administrator warning you about your policy violations so as to cast him as someone victimizing you with "threats", falsely portraying insults on your part as not insults, and claiming that dissent on your part justifies further behavior, aren't among them. Nightscream (talk) 04:44, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


 * That's your call, of course. But if you wanna chat about this or anything else in the future, just drop me a line. Peace. :-) Nightscream (talk) 04:46, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar
Hi, I found your hidden barnstar while reading your user page. I was actually wondering what happened to your picture??? --Ŧħę௹ɛя㎥ 03:10, 20 July 2008 (UTC)